 |
| Photo taken in the Nashville Airport Ileana Johnson October 2015 |
Forbes announced in his press release that ratification of the Paris accord will suppress the developed world with “pointless carbon taxes and costly climate and energy policies” that have no rational basis and are based on consensus. Such green and destructive polices are destroying real industries while “enriching the huge and parasitical climate-change industry that thrives on bureaucracy, misdirected government research, law books of costly regulations, never-ending conferences and subsidies for promoters of the failing technologies of renewable energy.”
He continues that if the EU ratified the Paris accord, it will spell the
end of low-cost hydrocarbon electricity and transportation and the “end of
manufacturing, processing and refining industries.” Developing countries will
be denied low-cost energy and be forced to continue their dependency on “international
handouts.”
“Perhaps the most insidious feature of the UN climate plan is the ‘Green
Climate Fund’. Under this scheme, selected nations (“The rich”) are marked to
pour billions of dollars into a green slush fund. The funds will then be used
to bribe other countries (“developing and emerging nations”) into adopting
silly green energy policies.” http://clexit.net/wp-content/
Bloomberg reported that “Environmentalists who once championed biofuels
as a way to cut pollution are now turning against a U.S. program that puts
renewable fuels in cars, citing higher-than-expected carbon dioxide emission
and reduced wildlife habitat.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-27/as-corn-devours-u-s-prairies-greens-reconsider-biofuel-mandate
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-27/as-corn-devours-u-s-prairies-greens-reconsider-biofuel-mandate
Car manufacturers announced that they are not standing
behind warranties if car owners use the EPA approved E15 (15% ethanol) fuel in
their cars. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/07/warranties-void-on-cars-burning-e15-say-automakers/index.htm
Klaus Kaiser, a professional scientist with a Ph.D. in
chemistry and an extensive resume in research, wrote recently that the 2004 report,
“Growing Energy,” claiming that “biofuels can clean up the environment,” is not
true.” “Instead,” Kaiser wrote, “the few studies by independent investigators
all showed the opposite to be true. Between sowing and reaping the harvest,
converting, distilling, and distributing the product(s), no energy was ‘saved,’
the environment was not ‘cleaned up’ but rather destroyed, and the economy did
not improve either.” Kaiser calls the biofuel claims a “boondoggle and a
Biofuel Curse.” http://fairfaxfreecitizen.com/2016/08/03/sanity-may-prevail-after-all/
Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, this
administration has made global warming/climate change a priority, seen as a
biggest threat facing the nation. The administration wants to “fill U.S. roadways
with electric vehicles.” It also ruled that “greenhouse gas emissions from
aircraft endanger human health and welfare.” Another goal is to “phase out
super-polluting HFCs (hydro-fluorocarbons), chemicals in refrigerants and other
industrial substances that warm the climate.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/02/from-now-on-every-government-agency-will-have-to-consider-climate-change/?utm_term=.33f6731f2a62
On August 2, 2016, the White House Council on
Environmental Quality released “final guidance on considering climate change in
environmental reviews.” The ‘guidance’ is telling federal agencies that they
must quantify the impacts of their actions on climate change when they produce
greenhouse gas emissions. Their actions must be spelled out in the NEPA
reviews. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/08/02/fact-sheet-white-house-council-environmental-quality-releases-final
NEPA is the 1969 law, the National Environmental
Policy Act, which requires federal agencies to take into account and disclose environmental
consequences of their activities such as permits to drill on public lands, mining,
building roads, bridges, etc. Agencies are asked to look at alternatives in
order “to mitigate the impacts of climate change.” The administration stated
that in 2015 the federal government penned 563 such NEPA reports. https://www.fws.gov/r9esnepa/RelatedLegislativeAuthorities/nepa1969.PDF
NEPA was originally intended to “encourage
productive and enjoyable harmony between
man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere
and stimulate the health and welfare of man;
to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important
to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality” and not to
restrict human activities through such severe, often draconian rules and
regulations.
In the U.S.
Eastern District Court of California, a judge found that John Duarte, a farmer,
“plowed wetlands, four to six inches deep, and therefore violated the Clean
Water Act. According to the Jefferson Policy Journal, the Court wrote, “In sum,
soil is a pollutant. And here, plaintiffs instructed [a contractor] to till and
loosen soil on the property. Plowing caused … the material in this case soil,
to move horizontally, creating furrows and ridges. This movement of the soil
resulted in its being redeposited into waters of the United States at least in
areas of the wetlands as delineated.” http://www.jeffersonpolicyjournal.com/court-rules-soil-is-a-pollutant/
According to
the Congressional Research Service, President Obama’s major goal is to reduce
U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). He pledged at a conference in
Copenhagen in 2009 that U.S. will reduce emissions of GHGs 17 percent by 2020 below
2005 levels and 80 percent by 2050. In November 2014 he set a new goal, 26-28
percent by 2025, while China announced its emissions to peak by 2030. According to the Congressional Research Service report, “EPA’s Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants: Frequently Asked Questions,” (R44341, June 15, 2016), “President Obama made the pledge in the context of U.S. commitments under a [1992] international treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
The 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and
Development in Rio de Janeiro produced three documents:
-
The Framework Convention on Climate Change
-
The Convention on Biological
Diversity
-
Agenda 21 (which has now morphed
into Agenda 2030)
Agenda 21 is not a treaty but a “soft law” document
which “means that its recommendations are not legally binding, but nations that
endorsed the document are morally obligated to implement them,” according to
the United Nations. Agenda 21 and its sister on steroids, Agenda 2030, have
never been debated or adopted in Congress but its provisions, including its
lynchpin, Sustainable Development, have been included in legislation and
administratively through “visioning grants” at the state and local levels
thanks to non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs) constant brainwashing around
the globe.
The Obama administration
also released a “Climate Action Plan and directed the EPA to propose standards
for ‘carbon pollution’ [carbon dioxide, the gas of plant life] from power
plants by June 2014 and to finalize the standards a year later.” The rule,
however, is under ongoing litigation initiated by several states and other
entities who have challenged the rule. On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court
stayed the rule for the duration of the litigation. The EPA claims that it has the authority for
such a rule in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44341.pdf
Our Secretary
of State, John Kerry, confessed at the COP-21 climate conference in Paris that
emissions cuts by U.S. and other developed nations will make no difference in
the global climate.
“The fact is
that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used
only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we
somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what –
that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the
rest of the world.
If all the
industrial nations went down to zero emissions—remember what I just said, all the
industrial emission went down to zero emissions—it wouldn’t be enough, not when
more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing
world.”http://www.globalclimatescam.com/cop21/why-bother-john-kerry-admits-american-co2-cuts-would-be-pointless/
