RUTHFULLY YOURS

Don’t be mad dummie….Al Goreon is now advising Hillary and her agenda will be as green as her ill gotten cash…..rsk

Secretary of State John Kerry admitted “it pisses me off” that climate change wasn’t brought up in the presidential debates.

On a panel with Leonardo DiCaprio after a Thursday screening at UN headquarters in New York of the actor’s documentary “Before the Flood,” Kerry said that “maybe November 8th will produce a capacity for the entire Republican caucus” to see the global-warming film.

“It should be required for every single one of them,” he added, to applause from the audience.

Kerry emphasized that “we’re not sitting here chasing some pie-in-the-sky set of possible solutions somewhere down the road.”

“The solutions are here now. Every single one of them is staring us in the face. We know what we have to do. The solution to climate change is energy policy. And if we will make the right choices and everybody here exponentially grown around the planet starts to push the politicians, as the film said, then they won’t dare be against it as the populations begin to demand different sources of electricity, different sources of — of transportation, and so forth,” he said.

Kerry argued that climate-change activists “will be able to win the battle of sending a message to people about how we account for the true costs, about what our opportunities are for a new energy base for our nation, how we will be able to do transportation and meet all of our obligations.”

Exxon is fighting back against subpoenas filed by 16 state attorneys general who accuse the company of state securities violations and consumer fraud in their views on climate change.

Last Thursday, the company won a significant victory in Massachusetts. And now they’ve filed an injunction request, accusing the AGs of mounting a“coordinated effort to silence and intimidate one side of the public policy debate on how to address climate change.”

Washington Times:

The filing represents a more aggressive approach for Exxon, which has fought the Massachusetts civil investigative demand while cooperating with the New York subpoena issued last year, turning over more than 1 million documents so far.

Since then, however, the oil and gas giant has gained the upper hand in court, most recently with Thursday’s ruling by a federal judge ordering Ms. Healey to submit to discovery over concerns about her “bad faith” in pursuing the investigation.

The order could allow Exxon to obtain emails, phone records and other internal communications related to her probe.

“Attorney General Healey’s actions leading up to the issuance of the [civil investigative demand] causes the Court concern and presents the Court with the question of whether Attorney General Healey issued the CID with bias or prejudgment about what the investigation of Exxon would discover,” U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade said in his order.

His ruling cited concerns about the “anticipatory nature” of her statements, including her comments at a March 29 press conference with former Vice President Al Gore and 16 other attorneys general announcing the launch of a joint prosecutorial effort called AGs United for Clean Power targeting fossil-fuel companies and their supporters.

At the press event, Ms. Healy vowed to combat climate change in her role as an elected official and said that “[f]ossil fuel companies that deceived investors and consumers about the dangers of climate change should be, must be, held accountable.”

In its Monday filing in federal court in Fort Worth, Texas, Exxon said the Democrats “are incapable of serving as “disinterested prosecutors required by the Constitution” as a result of their “improper political bias.”

“Attorney General Schneiderman has publicly accused Exxon Mobil of engaging in a ‘massive securities fraud’ without any basis whatsoever, and Attorney General Healey declared, before her investigation even began, that she knew how it would end: with a finding that Exxon Mobil violated the law,” Exxon said in the amended complaint.

Ms. Healey and Mr. Schneiderman have defended their investigations as legitimate inquiries into whether Exxoncommitted fraud by misleading the public about its climate change research.

The United States Senate must act urgently to save its treaty approval authority from irreversible damage inflicted by President Obama with the complicity of the United Nations. Congress has already allowed President Obama to get away with putting in force his Iran nuclear deal with no more than a pro forma review. His administration considered it a “political” arrangement, not a treaty. Now the Obama administration has doubled down with the Paris Agreement on climate change, which was negotiated last December and signed by President Obama in April. For domestic consumption, the administration contends that the Paris Agreement on climate change is no more than an “executive agreement,” which does not require Senate concurrence. However, for the purposes of making it legally binding on the United States under international law, the Obama administration has colluded with the United Nations Secretariat to designate the Paris Agreement as a treaty. In fact, in her October 5th press release regarding the latest developments of the agreement, U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power referred to the accord as a “treaty” that is on the verge of being enacted. Aside from legally binding requirements to periodically report on each state party’s progress in meeting individual country’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments previously submitted in writing to the UN, the Paris Agreement contains provisions that appear to impose additional legally binding financial commitments.

The Paris Agreement on climate change will go into legal effect thirty days after at least 55 countries, whose greenhouse gas emissions represent at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, have presented the legal instruments necessary under their domestic laws to become formal parties. Once the Paris Agreement goes into legal force, a state party can only withdraw upon at least three years notice. With India and the European Union countries added to the United States and China as well as scores of other countries, the thresholds are about to be met – but only if U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are included in calculating the 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions total. In order for the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to be counted, and the U.S. to be bound legally to the Paris Agreement after the thresholds are met, Obama had to find a way around submitting the Paris Agreement to the U.S. Senate for approval while still having it deemed a treaty under international law. His scheme was to enlist the help of the United Nations Secretariat, which has placed a universal climate change agreement at the top of its agenda.

With an eye on the upcoming U.S. presidential election and the possibility that Donald Trump, who opposes the climate agreement, would win, the Obama administration and UN officials worked feverishly to accelerate the member state ratification process necessary to allow the Paris Agreement to go into legal effect. Patricia Espinosa, the UN’s climate chief, said it wouldn’t be “feasible” for Trump to change the terms of the Paris Agreement once it did go into effect. So it was a race against the clock.

A new report from the Department of Energy (DOE) painted a rosy picture for renewable energy, but Americans must not forget that any breakthroughs have come with a cost. The United States may produce more wind and solar energy than in previous years, but that increase must be understood in the context of government subsidies for those industries.

“Alternative energy technologies have been heavily subsidized for decades and even with the generous support from taxpayers, they haven’t penetrated the market as promised,” Nick Loris, research fellow in energy and environmental policy at the Heritage Foundation, told PJ Media on Monday. “If these technologies are as promising and cost-competitive as proponents of their use say they are, they shouldn’t need preferential treatment from the government.”

The DOE report shows “6 Charts that Will Make You Optimistic About America’s Clean Energy Future.” The charts show increasing energy output at decreasing cost for wind power and solar power, and they also show decreasing cost and increasing purchases for electric cars and LED light bulbs.

“The Department of Energy’s information tells a bit of a different story when you look closely,” Dan Simmons, vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research (IER), told PJ Media on Monday. Simmons noted that while the cost of land-based wind energy fell overall since 1980, it actually increased more than 40 percent from 2002 to 2010.

In July, National Review’s Robert Bryce reported that the wind energy industry has received $176 billion in local, state, and national subsidies since 2000. Despite this, according to the DOE graph, wind was actually cheaper in 2002 than it was in 2015.

“It appears that tens of billions in subsidies for wind made wind more expensive,” Simmons quipped.