BY STEVE GOREHAM: Burning wood for electricity is just one more foolish policy in the “fight” against global warming.
Why is the US EPA still determined to control plant food and drive up electricity prices? By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris
The Northeast pays 56 percent more for its energy than the national average and has little to show for it.
Trump’s move to remove California’s ability to set its own standards will likely result in a protracted lawsuit battle.
Politifact justified its ruling that EPA is telling a half-falsehood in stating emissions are down under President Trump by stating emissions – under the booming Trump economy – are not falling quite as quickly as they did under the stagnant Obama economy. The fact is U.S. emissions continued to decline -- just as EPA reported.
The United States and Western democracies as a whole are increasingly minor players among global carbon dioxide emitters, U.S. EPA data show. Without dramatic emissions reductions in China, India, and other developing nations, dramatic reductions in the United States, Western Europe, and Japan will have little impact on global carbon dioxide emissions. According to EPA data (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data), the United States, Western Europe, and Japan account for a cumulative 28% of global carbon dioxide emissions. China alone accounts for 30%, India accounts for 7%, and the rest of the world cumulatively accounts for 35%. The share of global emissions from the United [...]
China’s Paris accord pledge was to “peak” emissions by 2030, meaning they could increase in the years leading up to then. China’s 4-percent uptick in emissions in the first quarter of 2018 is still in line with its Paris pledge.
Will new cars be exclusively the toys of the elite?
The second shoe has dropped in EPA's wondering about how to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants. As the shoe dropping metaphor suggests, EPA can now go to sleep for awhile. Everyone else is going to be very busy commenting on this complex issue. The first shoe dropped in October when EPA proposed repeal of the Obama Clean Power Plan. The Agency correctly cited the well known legal arguments against the CPP, especially that it illegally required States to regulate their entire electric power systems, not just their power plants. This meant changing (that is, restricting) people's use of electricity, a favorite [...]
As CFACT Senior Policy Analyst Paul Driessen explains, the EPA became bloated, incompetent, and derelict in its fundamental duties largely because it became ideological, politicized, and determined to control what it was never intended to regulate. When states, industries, or experts raised questions about the EPA’s “CO2 endangerment” decision, its biased and dishonest “social cost of carbon” analysis, or its use of “secret science” and highly suspect computer models to justify “climate chaos” claims – the agency railed about “intimidation” and “interference” with its mandate to “protect public health and welfare.”
The Court served notice today that the Executive branch cannot unilaterally write its own laws. This is an important principle. However, the United States still remains fated to suffer most of the economic damage EPA's regulations will cause.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CFACT to Supreme Court -- EPA emissions rules violate Constitution's separation of powers They are harmful, arbitrary, capricious and fraudulent. Read the brief.
Will the Supreme Court apply the constitutional brakes to EPA's emissions regulations while there's still an economy left to regulate?
"Fictitious trades, fictitious companies, bogus addresses" The Süddeutschen Zeitung reports that German fraud investigators have found that €850 million fell off the table when shady companies swarmed into the carbon trading, emissions and energy business. The criminal companies rake in tens to hundreds of millions, fend off regulators with delaying tactics and then announce bankruptcy or disappear. Düsseldorf tax investigators found that in less than a quarter of an hour emissions certificates might change hands five times. The same CO2 allowance would trade up to 18 times. A perverse form of recycling as the Süddeutschen Zeitung makes clear. Elements [...]
by Jacob Arfwedson In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt asked his administration to undertake a vast exploratory study of future technologies. A group of researchers eventually produced a voluminous report with fascinating insights. There was only one little glitch: the document did not foresee television, plastics, jet planes, organ transplants, laser technology, or even ballpoint pens. As Ludwig von Mises stated, petrol is good for many things, but not for slaking your thirst. Similarly, government may be useful in some instances but not in others. The precautionary principle is good, provided it is used appropriately. We should first apply it to politics: [...]