As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Tag Archives: Climate change

Trump Begins Process of Formally Withdrawing from Paris Climate Accord

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced in a statement Monday that the United States had begun the process of withdrawing the the Paris climate change accord.

Pompeo said:

In international climate discussions, we will continue to offer a realistic and pragmatic model – backed by a record of real world results – showing innovation and open markets lead to greater prosperity, fewer emissions, and more secure sources of energy. We will continue to work with our global partners to enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change and prepare for and respond to natural disasters.

Also, we run our own country, not the Chinese or the European Union. Trump is the only Republican of the serious 2020 candidates, with the exception of Rand Paul, who would have done this.

Bernie Sanders Promotes Abortion to Save us from Climate Change

Uh, that seems to be what’s going on here. Have a listen.

He’s asked about, you know, what liberals have been talking about for at least half a century, about the planet not being able to support population growth. And specifically, whether “empowering women and educating everyone about the need to curb population growth ” should be “a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe.”

So Bernie dives right in, talking about the need for abortions, particularly in poor countries. I’m sorry not abortion, “women’s right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions.” My bad.

Have a listen. It used to be abortion should be “legal, safe, and rare.” Now it’s a strategy to combat climate change.

CNN Seeks to Drive Ratings Even Lower with 7-Hour Global Warming Town Hall

I’d say there is no better way to make people not care about global warming than to run seven hours of programming about it with the Democratic candidates.

Anyway, that’s what CNN is doing. This long national nightmare started around 5 pm ET and goes until midnight.

Even if you think climate change is going to destroy the earth, can you listen to seven hours of it? Can listen to seven hours of this group of candidates? Can you?

You can’t.

Looks like Julian Castro is first. The leading candidates, the stars of our show, are on during prime time. Cory Booker got slotted last, around 11:40 pm, at which five exhausted viewers will be watching.

Washington Post Blames Trump for Hurricane Florence

Barack Obama, in his own view and that of the press, could make the waters recede. Trump is ushering them into your bedroom, according to the MSM.

Just when you thought the press had found every possible way to hate on Donald Trump, there’s this headline from the Washington Post.

At least it’s labeled an editorial this time.

Of course, their point is that Trump minimizes climate change and does terrible things like withdrawing the United States from an international treaty that would have undermined U.S. sovereignty, harmed the economy, and probably done little – especially with respect to what the United States can do – to stem whatever portion of climate change is due to human activity.

“It is hard to attribute any single weather event to climate change,” the Post grudgingly admits, even though the headline suggests otherwise. “But there is no reasonable doubt that humans are priming the Earth’s systems to produce disasters . . . Florence is feasting on warm Atlantic Ocean water.”

It’s a feast fit for a hurricane!

So let me see if I can get all this straight. Obama is responsible for the Trump economy. Trump is responsible for hurricanes. And, I suppose, Mike Pence is to blame for meteors that hit the earth.

I mean, he probably supported cutting funding for a telescope or something.

Good News on the Climate!

I’m sorry, I’m not supposed to say that. All news on the climate is a bad.

I might get accused of being a Denier. You know, like the Holocaust deniers. Same thing. As a Jew, particularly, I don’t want to be any kind of Denier. I accept what I’m told to by the Left and will watch my language. I deny that I’m a Denier.

Oh shit, that makes me a Denier. This is confusing.

Maybe we should be able to have a rational debate about this. Things are too heated. We need to change to climate a bit. I mean, wait, that’s not what I meant. I’d better stop.

Anyway, from Holman Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal:

We’ll quote a passage in an exemplary French report that begins, “But uncertainty about how hot things will get also stems from the inability of scientists to nail down a very simple question: By how much will Earth’s average surface temperature go up if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled?”

“That ‘known unknown’ is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), and for the last 25 years the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the ultimate authority on climate science—has settled on a range of 1.5 C to 4.5 C.”

The French report describes a new study by climate physicists Peter Cox and Mark Williamson of the University of Exeter and Chris Huntingford of the U.K.’s Center for Ecology and Hydrology. Not only does it narrow the range of expected warming to between 2.2 and 3.4 degrees Celsius, but it rules out the possibility of worrying outcomes higher than 4 degrees . . .

This question of climate sensitivity goes not just to how much warming we can expect. It goes to the (almost verboten) question of whether the expected warming will be a net plus or net minus for humanity. And whether the benefit of curbing fossil fuels would be worth the cost.

Jenkins sounds like he might be a Denier, so this is the last time I’ll run his stuff in my publication. I promise. I heard he even questions whether meteorologists can predict tomorrow’s weather, let alone the weather 50 years from now.

Energy Secretary Perry Gets Into It With White House Reporter

Rick Perry went at it a bit with the latest media sensation to come out of the White House briefing. This guy is the White House reporter for Playboy, which is, you know, an odd title.

“Mr. President, thank you for this interview. Can you take your clothes off?”

Anyway, since an exchange earlier this week with Sarah Huckabee Sanders, in which he inappropriately interrupted Sanders and spouted opinions and got into a shouting match with her — he doing all of the shouting — he’s been on Morning Joe, CNN etc.

Nevertheless, though Perry was mocking him, this guy actually had a good question, which evoked a fairly clear statement by Perry on his views about climate change.

Surprise: The United States is the Leading Reducer of Carbon Emissions

Oh, that terrible Trump. He withdrew us from the Paris climate accords, and now icebergs untethered from Antartica will soon float up the Mississippi River and destroy St. Louis.

The Europeans are contemptuous of our decision not to join their One-World Government and submit our economic future to the incomparable IQs of the central planners in Brussels. And yet, who is doing the most, right here, right now, to reduce carbon emissions and whatever effect they have on global warming?

The United States of America. You know, the bad guys.

From a June 2016 article in Forbes:

The U.S. also leads the world in reducing carbon emissions for the most recent 5- and 10-year periods. Over the past 5 years U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have fallen by 270 million tons. In 2nd place for that period was the UK, with a 93 million ton decline. Over the most recent 5-year period, China led the world with a 1.1 billion ton increase. India was in 2nd place with a 540 million ton increase.

U.S. emissions have fallen at about the rate of those of the entire European Union, even as our economic growth — and hunger for carbon molecules — has far outpaced theirs. And yet you would never know that given the opprobrium heaped on us from our far-more-enlightened — and over-regulated — friends on The Continent.

Why are we doing so well? Let me introduce another commonly known dirty word, to go alongside “America.” That is, “fracking.”

As Forbes notes, the biggest contributor to our carbon emissions decline is not Barack Obama running around spinning windmills. It’s the growing production of natural gas.

The Washington Examiner explains where that’s coming from:

As the Wall Street Journal reports, fracking-based energy firms in Texas’ Permian Basin are finding a useful side-benefit to their innovation: gas comes up alongside the oil! The consequence: a growing glut of cheap natural gas. This gas is the golden ticket. It offers American businesses and families access to cheap energy, and an alternative to polluting energy sources . . . it is cheaper and far more emissions-efficient than coal, and it doesn’t require massive public expenditures. In the coming years, more consumers and utilities will choose gas over coal. And indirectly, total carbon emissions will fall. Along with new technologies such as battery-based vehicles, this gas is the path to a lower carbon emissions future.

Could it be that the future of stemming the earth’s warming does not come from bankrupting Western economies, but from private sector spending on basic energy research and innovations that get more out of fossil fuels, with cleaner and more efficient results?

Sure, we should continue research on renewables. But these technologies are mostly not ready to be deployed. Let’s allow Bill Gates to invest all he wants in cars that plug into wall sockets, and if you want to risk freezing beneath your solar panels while the sun don’t shine, that’s your business.

Meantime, American entrepreneurs will continue to figure out surprising new ways to create efficiencies and new technologies that reduce the cost of energy and the emissions that result.