A U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to relax the air-pollution limits placed on power-plants emissions. The EPA instituted these rules as some gases cross state lines and impact "downwind" states. The court's ruling, which was handed down on Tuesday, still upholds the EPA's right to impose clean-air standards under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, rejecting the states and industry groups' argument that the rule was "overly burdensome." This ruling will force the EPA to redo its rules for 13 states that emit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, gases that get carried on winds and cross state lines, eventually reaching the East Coast.
According to the Associated Press (AP), the appeals court ruling said the "EPA's rule imposed overly strict limits on the 13 upwind states," which would "result in downwind states 'overachieving' air quality standards for harmful pollutants, the court wrote."
A new Pentagon report says that climate change is an "urgent and growing threat to our national security" and blames it for "increased natural disasters" that will require more American troops designated to combat bad weather.
"Global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the foreseeable future because it will aggravate existing problems — such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions — that threaten domestic stability in a number of countries," says the report released Wednesday.
Hillary Clinton said she's "skeptical" of oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean, a split from President Obama on one high-profile environmental issue even as she refuses to take a position on another: construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
"I have doubts about whether we should continue drilling in the Arctic," Clinton told New Hampshire station NH1 in an interview that posted late Tuesday night. "And I don't think it is a necessary part of our overall clean energy climate change agenda. I will be talking about drilling in general but I am skeptical about whether we should give the go ahead to drill in the Arctic."
Politico reported yesterday that Jon Stewart met privately with President Obama on at least two occasions, raising eyebrows and questions about Stewart's role as Obama's agenda-driven advocate. The secret visits coincided with crucial moments in his presidency: the bitter, partisan 2011 budget fight, and again before Obama went on TV to warn Russia that “there will be costs” if it made any further incursions into Ukraine. After each of these undisclosed visits, Stewart's show had segments that put the president's position in a more favorable light. The private meetings in the Oval Office were confirmed by White House visitor logs and three former Obama aides.
Politico also noted that the show's popularity with left-wing ideologues and progressives gave politicians and activists the perfect platform to affect change in the all-important, "hard-to-reach 18 to 34-year-old male demographics." This included everything from Obamacare to political appointees to the EPA's war on fossil-fuel energy. So much so that even former Vice President Al Gore took advantage of Stewart's unique brand of simplifying difficult issues to pimp his green agenda.
New research confirms that the land under the Chesapeake Bay is sinking rapidly and projects that Washington, D.C., could drop by six or more inches in the next century — adding to the problems of sea-level rise.
This falling land will exacerbate the flooding that the nation’s capital faces from rising ocean waters because of a warming climate and melting ice sheets — accelerating the threat to the region’s monuments, roads, wildlife refuges and military installations.
For sixty years, tide gauges have shown that sea level in the Chesapeake is rising at twice the global average rate and faster than elsewhere on the East Coast. And geologists have hypothesized for several decades that land in this area, pushed up by the weight of a pre-historic ice sheet to the north, has been settling back down since the ice melted.
Twenty-nine states, more than half the stars on the American flag, have filed lawsuits against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for redefining the “Waters of the United States,” or WOTUS. EPA rewrote the law, erasing “navigable” and usurping states’ rights by including local seasonal streams, farm irrigation ponds, roadside ditches, and even “connective” dry lands placed under authority of the Clean Water Act.
The WOTUS rule, published the morning of June 29, potentially subjects every food, energy, transportation and manufacturing industry in the nation to high-handed regulation by one of the most reviled and least trusted federal agencies, dreaded for its cadre of “revolving door” officials hired from anti-industry green groups.
The astonishing response began on the afternoon of June 29: states teamed up in clusters to file their lawsuits in U.S. District Courts. Utah and eight others filed with Georgia in Augusta’s U.S. District Court; Alaska and eleven others filed with North Dakota in Bismarck. Days later, Mississippi and Louisiana filed with Texas in Galveston; Michigan filed with Ohio in Columbus; Oklahoma filed alone in Oklahoma City.
The 3 July 2015 issue of Science features a remarkable editorial by Editor Marcia McNutt. Titled “The beyond-two-degree inferno,” it suggests that an anthropogenic greenhouse (GH) warming of more than 2 degrees C (global average) will literally cause hell on earth, unless we can all agree to reduce emissions of the “infernal” GH-gas carbon dioxide – preferably before or at a UN-sponsored mega-confab in Paris in December. This much-hyped event, to be attended by nearly 200 national delegations and thousands of hangers-on, has even been endorsed in a papal encyclical, referred to, somewhat irreverently, as a “Pope-sicle” by my Virginia colleague Dr Charles Battig.
McNutt’s editorial claims a “global threat to food supplies, health, ecosystem services, and the general viability of the planet.” Yet none of these threats are supported by any scientific evidence -- even from the usually alarmist UN-IPCC. She fails to remind us that atmospheric CO2 is the essential ingredient for sustaining carbon-based life on Earth. The low CO2 levels during the recent ice age severely limited the rate of photosynthesis; at slightly lower levels, we and almost all living things on the Earth’s surface would just starve and die. And she takes for granted that rising CO2 will cause significant Global Warming (GW), with all the usual calamities that are recited by climate alarmists -- in spite of overwhelming evidence for absence of 21st-century warming.
In her latest campaign video on renewable energy, Hillary Clinton mocks Republican candidates for not facing the "reality" of global warming and the need to fight it. But it's her own energy plan that defies reality.
Clinton says she has two big goals that she'll start working on "day one" to combat climate change. First is to expand solar energy supplies by 700% by installing half a billion solar panels by 2020. Second is to power "every home in America" with renewable energy by 2027.
She describes these as "bold national goals." The more appropriate label is "expensive pipe dream."
After years of suffering through the writings of global warming cultists I keep hoping that the overwhelming contradictory scientific evidence and thorough debunking of anthropogenic global warming alarmism would result in scientific truth and the scientific method winning out soon. I was certainly wrong in that belief. Once again a global warming diatribe by self-appointed expert, Jeffrey Bada, has proven conclusively the prophetic words (written by William M. Briggs, PhD):
"How long does it take for an expert who has, year upon year after year, made predictions of unrealized doom, an expert hailed heeded and hearkened to by the whole world, to admit error? Answer: forever. He never will, and neither will most of his admirers."
Mankind has gotten a really bad rep lately as environmentalists blame us for everything from blizzards to droughts to rising sea levels and the infinitesimal warming in the last 100 years. So it's refreshing to read today that when woolly mammoths disappeared 11,000 years ago, we had little, if anything, to do with it. That's according to a new study detailing how researchers set out to discover why these giant animals went extinct after the last glacial period.
Most theories put forth suggested their demise came from the over-eager predation and habitat intrusion of man. But these new findings showed that abrupt global warming helped kill off the woolly mammoth and that we had a small, secondary role. The study's lead author, professor Alan Cooper, who is the director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA at the University of Adelaide, said "This abrupt warming had a profound impact on climate that caused marked shifts in global rainfall and vegetation patterns. Even without the presence of humans we saw mass extinctions."
The colossal, hugely expensive windfarms that are spread across huge areas of Europe's land and sea, which are projected to drive up household energy bills by more than 50 per cent in coming years, have achieved ... almost nothing in terms of reducing EU carbon emissions.
We here on the Reg energy desk only noticed this particularly this week because of a chirpy press release that flitted past us just the other day, claiming that "wind energy provides 8 per cent of Europe's electricity."
Hey, we thought, that sounds almost like it's getting somewhere! So we looked into it. The eight per cent figure comes from the latest Wind Status Report (pdf) from the EU Joint Research Centre, and sure enough, it's claimed therein that all those massive wind farms produced no less than 238 terawatt-hours of the 2,942 TWh of 'leccy used in the EU nations last year.