RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-environmental-protection-supreme-court-regulation-unconstitutional-climate-change-administrative-state-biden-42f31ce3?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

In politics, inadvertently telling the truth is called a “gaffe.” Last year Michael Regan, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, made a remark in passing that gave away the Biden administration’s plans for enforcing its climate agenda through a “suite of rules” imposed under programs lacking any credible connection to climate. A few months later, a Supreme Court opinion transformed Mr. Regan’s indiscretion into justification for wholesale judicial repudiation of the Biden administration’s climate regulatory blitz.

Mr. Regan’s comment came on March 10, 2022, when he addressed the press following his keynote address to CERAWeek, a climate conference in Houston. A reporter asked about vulnerabilities of the EPA’s approach to installing climate regulation through the Obama-Biden Clean Power Plan, which was then awaiting judgment by the court. Mr. Regan replied that the agency had abandoned the idea of relying on any specific grant of regulatory authority. Instead it was in the process of tightening rules under numerous and varied regulatory programs all at once, pressuring disfavored operations to close and compelling investment consistent with the EPA’s desires.

Mr. Regan went on to cite rules to tighten regulation of mercury, ozone, soot, hazardous air pollutants, water effluent and coal ash under acknowledged congressional grants of authority. But he also called the “expedited retirement” of power plants “the best tool for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions” and opined that the “industry gets to take a look at this suite of rules all at once and say, ‘Is it worth doubling down on investments in this current facility or operation, or should we look at the cost and say no, it’s time to pivot and invest in a clean-energy future?’ ”

This already reflected something of a scofflaw position. Congress never approved what Mr. Regan described. It became a serious problem when the justices struck down the Clean Power Plan in June. West Virginia v. EPA held that the agency didn’t have the authority it claimed to force power-plant closures by setting unmeetable emission standards and thus dictate, as the court had put it, “how Americans get their energy.”

Chief Justice John Roberts noted for the 6-3 majority that after Congress had repeatedly considered and rejected providing the agency authority to regulate power-sector greenhouse gases, the EPA claimed “to discover an unheralded power” that represented a “transformative expansion in [its] regulatory authority” to force “generation shifting.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/08/17/growing_alarm_that_bidens_net-zero_approach_could_get_scorched_by_red_chinas_green_energy_dominance_973447.html

President Biden’s stance toward China hardened this month when he issued an executive order prohibiting American investment in Chinese companies developing advanced technologies that could be used by the military.

But a growing chorus of critics, including some Democrats, argue that the administration’s effort to grapple with America’s foremost adversary is contradictory, illustrated in the White House’s Beijing-empowering pursuit of ambitious climate change goals. 

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, as the White House has called for, will almost assuredly make the United States dependent on China while enriching it.

China currently holds a commanding position in the clean energy industry, controlling the natural resources and manufacturing the components essential to the Biden administration’s desired alternative energy transition. Energy experts believe that its dominance will become more entrenched in the years ahead because of domestic environmentalist opposition to perceived “dirty” mining and refining operations, and the Biden administration’s “clean energy” spending blitz – which could provide Chinese companies and subsidiaries billions in subsidies. 

The Biden administration also considers it imperative to get buy-in from Beijing on dramatically reducing emissions, given it produces more than a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions globally. 

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/08/17/a-climate-for-absolute-power/

How do we know that Joe Biden has made a verbal blunder? His lips were moving. There are so many slip-ups and absurdities coming out of his mouth that it’s hard to keep up. But one recent gaffe stands out: The president said last week during an interview with the Weather Channel that he had already “practically speaking” declared a climate emergency.

He of course hasn’t, but should he or another president do so, they would in effect also be declaring themselves to be an American kaiser who could issue tyrannical edicts with absolute power. They would be able to autocratically “deploy around 130 different powers,” says Climate Depot’s Marc Morano.

Operating under emergency climate powers, a president could halt “the export of crude oil … phase out all exports and imports of fossil fuels entirely … stop issuing permits for offshore oil and gas wells under already existing leases and halt all drilling immediately … marshaling funding under the DPA to deploy clean energy – for example, rooftop solar installations on low-income housing,” according to Morano.

He, or she, could also implement lockdowns similar to those forced on us during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It’s a truly frightening proposition. Worse than one-party rule, it would be one-man rule.

Which means that the green-on-the-outside, red-on-the-inside radicals are giddy over the proposition even as they feel Biden’s rhetoric is running too far ahead of his actions.

“Activists say nothing short of an emergency declaration will address deadly heat – and the fossil fuel dependency driving it,” gushes Grist, the “Pravda version of the Whole Earth Catalog.” They would be happy to see Biden “divert billions of dollars from the military toward constructing renewable energy projects.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/08/16/is-this-the-dumbest-sentence-ever-written-about-climate-change/

In reporting on a Montana case in which a judge ruled that the state had to include the climate effect of oil and gas permits before deciding on them, the Associated Press showed just how brain-dead the discussions of “global warming” have become.

District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of several young plaintiffs – ranging in age from 5 to 22 – saying they “have a fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, which includes climate as part of the environmental-support system.”

As proof of the harm the plaintiffs are suffering, the order has a list of horribles that includes:

“Olivia expressed despair due to climate change.”
“Badge is anxious when he thinks about the future that he, and his potential children, will inherit.”
“Grace … is anxious about climate change.”
“Mica gets frustrated when he is required to stay indoors during the summer because of wildfire smoke.”

(Perhaps the judge should have ruled against the adults who are filling these poor children’s minds with climate alarmist fantasies, but that’s another story.)

The ruling was heralded by the likes of Julia Olson, executive director of the Oregon-based Our Children’s Trust, which has filed similar lawsuits in other states, who said: “Today’s ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos.”

(Apparently, after “global warming,” and “climate change,” and “climate crisis” failed to move the needle, the left is trying out “climate chaos.”)

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/08/scientific_censorship_reaches_new_heights.html

On February 15, 2023, David Malpass, the president of the World Bank, announced that he would retire one year early on June 1, 2023.  On July 21, 2023, Pablo Moreno, the director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, read the flyer that described the address that Dr. John F. Clauser was scheduled to give to the IMF on July 27, 2023.  As a result, he summarily canceled Dr. Clauser’s planned address.

What do Malpass and Clauser have in common?  They have both acknowledged that they do not believe in the global warming hypothesis.  What do these two organizations have in common?  Historically, they have both loaned substantial amounts of money to developing countries to fight health crises, hunger, and conflict.  What do certain U.S. and world politicians want to see changed to the lending practices of both organizations in the future?  A dramatic shift to funding alternative energy investment initiatives “to fight climate change.”  The United States has contributed $117 billion to the IMF quota.  In addition, the United States has contributed $44 billion to funds at the IMF that supplement quota resources.  As of February 11, 2022, the IMF had total lending commitments of around $239.2 billion (67% funded by the U.S.).  U.S. paid-in capital in the World Bank is $3.5 billion, and callable capital is $47.8 billion.

Who manage the sourcing of capital, the development of the loan packages, the processes to effectuate these loans, and get a fee for their efforts?  Global investment firms.  Want to understand the motivation behind the promotion of the global warming hypothesis?  Follow the money.

In Mr. Malpass’s case, in 2007, he made statements in which he said he did not believe that there is a link between carbon emissions and global warming.  In September 2022, when he was asked if he accepted the “overwhelming scientific consensus” that the burning of fossil fuels was causing global temperatures to rise, he responded, “I’m not a scientist.”  After his September 2022 remarks, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) called for his removal.  “His support for fossil fuels and abject failure to fund climate action is unacceptable,” Mr. Markey said in a statement.  “Now, the World Bank must make up for his missteps and get ready to be part of the solution for a livable future.”  Former vice president Al Gore, who had also called Mr. Malpass a climate denier and campaigned for his removal, said in a statement that his departure “must be the first step toward true reform that places the climate crisis at the center of the bank’s work.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/08/11/environmentalists-broken-toys/

We’ve recently written quite a bit about electric vehicles’ many flaws – the reasons to hate them, their evil nature, the entire EV con. But they’re not the only green plaything that’s being exposed for the debacle they are. Windmills are just as troubled.

“All over the world, rural people are reacting with fury at the encroachment of large wind and solar projects on their homes and neighborhoods,” writes energy author Robert Bryce.

Last month, “thousands of Druze residents in the Golan Heights,” says Bryce, “rioted to stop the installation of a large wind project on their traditional lands.” Before that, a wind project in Colombia was “canceled after it met fierce opposition from the indigenous Wayuu communities.”

Bryce noted last week that over the last 10 days in the U.S., “local governments in Illinois, Ohio, and Iowa have rejected or restricted wind and solar projects.” According to his database, that makes 574 rejections or restrictions of ​​solar and wind projects in less than a decade. Most of them, 407, have been wind projects.

Bryce predicted the growth of resistance four years ago when he wrote in The Hill that protests in Hawaii then were “a harbinger of more clashes to come if governments attempt to install the colossal quantities of wind turbines and solar panels that would be needed to fuel the global economy.”

https://pjmedia.com/columns/john-stossel/2023/08/09/the-fake-climate-consensus-n1717386

We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus.”

“It’s a manufactured consensus,” says climate scientist Judith Curry in my new video. She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue “fame and fortune.”

She knows about that because she once spread alarm about climate change.

Media loved her when she published a study that seemed to show a dramatic increase in hurricane intensity.

“We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” says Curry. “This was picked up by the media,” and then climate alarmists realized, “Oh, here is the way to do it. Tie extreme weather events to global warming!”

“So, this hysteria is your fault!” I tell her.

“Not really,” she smiles. “They would have picked up on it anyways.”

But Curry’s “more intense” hurricanes gave them fuel.

“I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star,” Curry recounts. “Flown all over the place to meet with politicians.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-gift-to-putin-no-uranium-mining-near-the-grand-canyon-6c1916bf?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

With a stroke of his pen, President Biden on Tuesday walled off from development nearly a million acres of land that includes some of America’s richest uranium deposits. This is another monument to the Administration’s destructive energy policy.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 lets Presidents set aside federal land for national monuments to protect historic objects. Barack Obama used the law to remove millions of acres of federal land from oil and gas development. Yet even he resisted progressive calls to set aside uranium-rich land outside the Grand Canyon. Mr. Biden shows no such restraint.

On Tuesday he declared a national monument on 1,562 square miles in Arizona called Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni, meaning “where tribes roam.” The monument will conserve “landscape sacred to Tribal Nations and Indigenous peoples and advance President Biden’s historic climate and conservation agenda,” the White House says.

The statement omits that the land also includes America’s only source of high-grade uranium ore that is economically competitive on the global market. The U.S. imports about 95% of uranium used for nuclear power reactors, mostly from Kazakhstan, Canada, Russia and Australia. Russia is the U.S.’s third biggest uranium source.

Mr. Biden banned imports of Russian fossil fuels by executive order last spring, but U.S. nuclear plants continue to rely on Russian uranium for 12% of their fuel supply. The new national monument—the fifth of the Biden Presidency—will make it that much harder for the U.S. to replace Russian uranium. Vladimir Putin sends his thanks.

The unstated purpose of the national monument appears to be to block uranium mining. Arizona Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva has proposed legislation that would permanently withdraw the Grand Canyon area from new mining claims. Democrats couldn’t pass this through Congress, so Mr. Biden is doing so by decree.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/08/08/are-greens-overplaying-their-hand/

The Green movement has a long history of rubbing people the wrong way.  In some cases, it was perhaps for the public good, like starting campaigns to stop littering and save whales.  In other cases, it was just plain patronizing, like telling parents to ditch disposable diapers and keep their thermostats set to 65 degrees in winter.

These days, however, the eco-crowd has taken everything to a whole new level of busybody.

The “climate crisis” is the purported justification cited as to why we all need to change our behaviors – and there can be no deviation. Citizens are expected to acquiesce to their whims simply because they shout “the world will end in five years”, as Greta Thunberg did in 2018. In many respects, Green extremists feel the public should submit to the same way they bowed to two-year COVID masking and lockdown diktats.

But their list of demands has gotten overbearing.  So much so, in fact, that one must believe they will soon overplay their hand and face considerable public backlash. Indeed, they already have in many instances, but it’s worth taking a look at just a few of their recent irksome moves that have made news. 

Ditch gas stoves, water heaters and furnaces – In some cases, like gas stoves, Greens want them banned outright. In other cases, like water heaters and furnaces, they want the appliances regulated under new federal rules for nearly impossible 95% efficiency. Many electric replacements will require expensive rewiring of homes and neighborhoods, and heat pumps that don’t work well in frigid weather.

Ban wood-burning pizza ovens – Politicians in the Big Apple want to force popular restaurants and pizzerias to install outrageously expensive “pollution” controls systems to reduce their “excessive carbon footprint” and reduce air pollution. Environmentalists don’t seem to care this is enormously unpopular with average New Yorkers. They seem intent to push their agenda or the common Joe, even if data suggests each oven would have to bake pizzas 24/7 for nearly 850 years to equal the annual carbon dioxide emissions from the private jets that Biden Climate Emissary John Kerry uses to avoid commercial airlines.