"Robert Redford (cropped)" by U.S. Embassy photographer JP Evans. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.In 1985, Robert Redford launched the Sundance Film Festival to promote original films, documentaries, shorts, performances, panel discussions, and more. In the 30 years since its inception, thousands of journalists, actors, film buffs, industry leaders, pop stars, corporations, and audiences have traveled to the luxurious resort of Park City, Utah, by trains, planes and automobiles.
And you might think given Redford's climate activism that most were flying coach to save the world from invisible, odorless carbon dioxide. But there is world reality and Hollywood reality, and never the twain shall meet.
The Festival has become so garish that this past January everything from private jets to mega yachts were being sold up and down Park City's Main Street. Not to fear, because Redford teaches these intrepid CO2-emitting travelers about sustainability when attending the mountaintop festival: Lower your thermostat and turn off your lights when you leave the room. Oh, and recycle and buy green. Right.
If those seem like meaningless gestures where the mark of success is how many private jets you own or how many yachts you're able to buy, not to mention the "$12,000 curved, super hi-def" energy-sucking TV giveaways, you can always buy carbon credits so you can "pollute" on behalf of those who don't.
A new paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds the Vatican is being laid astray by its advisers by statements on climate change that are scientifically lacking and ethically dubious.
The report, written by Dr Indur Goklany, examines just some of the scientific statements made by the Pontifical Academies ahead of the Pope’s recent encyclical on the environment and finds that these fly in the face of the empirical facts.
As Dr Goklany explains: “The academies say that sustainability and resilience are being destroyed by over-consumption and that fossil fuels are to blame, yet almost every indicator of human well-being from life-expectancy to health to standard of living has improved beyond measure largely because of our use of fossil fuels”.
In a stinging rebuke to the climate legacy Obama is desperately seeking to create, the Supreme Court ruled today that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to consider the costs of certain regulations, which actually did 'more harm than good.' In its 5-4 vote ruling, the Court said the EPA failed to take costs into account when it imposed new regulations curbing the emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants, which forced the closure of hundreds of coal fired power plants due to costly new standards.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said it was not appropriate to impose billions of dollars of economic costs in return for a negligible return in health or environmental benefits. "No regulation is 'appropriate' if it does significantly more harm than good," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion. "The Agency must consider cost—including, most importantly, cost of compliance—before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. We need not and do not hold that the law unambiguously required the Agency, when making this preliminary estimate, to conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis in which each advantage and disadvantage is assigned a monetary value."
In a major win for the energy industry, the Supreme Court ruled Monday against the Environmental Protection Agency's effort to limit power plant emissions -- saying the agency "unreasonably" failed to consider the cost of the regulations.
The rules curbing emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants began to take effect in April. But the court said by a 5-4 vote Monday that the EPA failed to take their cost into account when the agency first decided to regulate the toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired plants.
The challenge was brought by industry groups and 21 Republican-led states.
The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) is today calling on the Government to examine ways of speeding up shale gas exploration in the UK, following on from Lancashire County Council’s decision to reject Cuadrilla’s application for exploratory drilling at the Preston New Road site near Blackpool.
The GWPF recommends that the Department of Energy and Climate Change should consider treating shale gas fields as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), which would give the Secretary of State the final say on planning applications rather than local councils. Renewable energy projects such as offshore wind, tidal power and biomass plants above 50 MW are already treated as NSIPs.
Brazil's first female president, Dilma Rousseff, will meet with President Obama Monday evening to discuss climate change and the environment, amidst revelations that the National Security Agency (NSA) spied on her communications, the AP is reporting today. Some believe the meeting will demonstrate to the world that the two countries have put aside their acrimony for the good of the planet. In 2013, it was learned the NSA also hacked into Brazil's robust communications systems as well as Rousseff's private communications.
The two-day visit is also part of Obama's ongoing, orchestrated attempts to lock in commitments (and his legacy) by Brazil and other countries ahead of the upcoming Paris Climate Conference in December. So far, Rousseff has not announced what her country will do, if anything, to address so-called greenhouse gas emissions. Brazil is part of a majority of nations that has not made any binding commitments with regard to the December climate treaty talks.
When in 2013 a chap called Roger Mosey retired from the top of the BBC, where he had been editor of the Today programme and Head of News, he caused a stir by lashing out at the BBC’s biased “uniformity of view” on subjects ranging from the EU and immigration to climate change. The BBC’s “party line” on so many topics has for so long been a theme of this column that – when it was reported recently that Mr Mosey had written a book allegedly giving “chapter and verse” on how often its coverage “topples over into propaganda” – I was naturally eager to read it.
Having now done so, I find that his account of his life at the BBC actually says much less on “bias” than he did in 2013. We learn that his favourite politician was that inveterate old Europhile Kenneth Clarke and that he was converted to the importance of “the environment” by that cheerleader for global warming Roger Harrabin.
Pope Francis’ much ballyhooed encyclical on the environment is, unfortunately, riddled with error, unsound science and unwarranted visions of an imminent apocalypse generated to a large extent by free market economics. Like so much information spread by radical environmentalists, the encyclical makes numerous assertions that are either false or dubious, at best. Let’s examine some of the more egregious flaws in the encyclical:
1) The encyclical states, “A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.” It’s true that there’s a consensus that the earth warmed about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century or so, but whether this is “disturbing” – or even unusual – is a matter of great uncertainty, even among participants in the UN’s alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In April, Philip Lloyd, who has served as an IPCC Lead Author, published a peer-reviewed paper that found that over the past 8,000 years temperature has varied an average of 1.7°F.
Elon Musk and his fellow barons of Climate Crisis, Inc. recently got a huge boost from Pope Francis. Musk et al. say fossil fuels are causing unprecedented warming and weather disasters. The Pope agrees and says Catholics must “ask God for a positive outcome” to negotiations over another UN climate treaty.
It matters not that the predicted calamities are not happening. There has been no warming in 19 years, no category 3-5 hurricanes making US landfall for a record 9-1/2 years, indeed none of the over-hyped climate disasters occurring in the real world outside the alarmists’ windows. In fact, poor nations support the treaty mostly because it promises some $100 billion per year in adaptation, mitigation and compensation money from FRCs: Formerly Rich Countries that have shackled their own job creation, economic growth and living standards in the name of stabilizing Earth’s perpetually fluctuating climate.
Former President Richard Nixon is an ancestral RINO – Republican In Name Only. The wobbly GOP wing that insists on delivering us Diet Democrat policies.
So it was in 1970 when President Nixon signed an executive order creating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Get that? A unilateral fiat – how very pre-Barack Obama of him.
Was there a resounding clamor for an EPA? Certainly not from Republicans. And not from Democrats – else Nixon could have (should have) gone to the bi-cameral-Democrat-majority Congress for legislation. (Actually, to expand the federal government’s purview to this massive degree would have – should have – required a Constitutional amendment.)
Who wanted an EPA? The far Left Watermelons – who are green on the outside, red on the in.
Red – as in Communist. The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970 – which happens to be Vladimir Lenin’s birthday. What a phenomenal coincidence.
Over the past 20 years, the American government has spent millions of dollars sending representatives to United Nations climate change conferences. While the public are advised to walk, bicycle, and take the bus more to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, hundreds of civil servants have enjoyed tax payer funded flights to exotic locations across the globe to take part in U.N. negotiations to ‘save the climate.’
It makes little difference who is in power. In 1997, the Clinton administration sent 47 representatives to the two week U.N. meeting in Japan where the Kyoto Protocol was created. Ten years later, the Bush administration sent the same number to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia.
President Barack Obama has doubled down on this tradition, with his administration sending 124 representatives to the U.N.’s Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009 and 79 reps to last year’s conference in Peru. With basic travel and living expenses of over $10,000 per participant for the ten day yearly event, costs now easily exceed a million dollars per meeting.
Pope Francis made big news around the world when he issued his green encyclical, joining the radical fantasy world of eco-activists who claim mankind is destroying the planet by using fossil fuels, driving SVU’s, and barbecuing hamburgers during holiday celebrations.
Unfortunately, the Pope, like so many others, ranging from school kids to business people, has been duped in a way he may not even realize.
EPA boss Gina McCarthy said this week that climate change realists — she calls them “deniers” — aren’t “normal” and won’t “carry the day.”