Trump Names CEI Energy Director as "EPA Transition" Manager

Myron Ebell
Myron Ebell – source Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

US Presidential Candidate Donald Trump has signalled a drastic revision of US environmental policy, by nominating high profile climate skeptic Myron Ebell to head his proposed “EPA transition” team.

Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition

Choosing Myron Ebell means Trump plans to drastically reshape climate policies.

Donald Trump has selected one of the best-known climate skeptics to lead his U.S. EPA transition team, according to two sources close to the campaign.

Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, is spearheading Trump’s transition plans for EPA, the sources said.

The Trump team has also lined up leaders for its Energy Department and Interior Department teams. Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKenna is heading the DOE team; former Interior Department solicitor David Bernhardt is leading the effort for that agency, according to sources close to the campaign.

Ebell is a well-known and polarizing figure in the energy and environment realm. His participation in the EPA transition signals that the Trump team is looking to drastically reshape the climate policies the agency has pursued under the Obama administration. Ebell’s role is likely to infuriate environmentalists and Democrats but buoy critics of Obama’s climate rules.

In a biography submitted when he testified before Congress, he [Ebell] listed among his recognitions that he had been featured in a Greenpeace “Field Guide to Climate Criminals,” dubbed a “misleader” on global warming by Rolling Stone and was the subject of a motion to censure in the British House of Commons after Ebell criticized the United Kingdom’s chief scientific adviser for his views on global warming.

Read more:

Frankly I think the US EPA should be abolished. The apparent capture of EPA policy by green activists and their disregard for the harm their actions cause are pretty nearly the definition of an over-mighty collection of bureaucrats who should be relieved of duty – not to mention the EPA’s gross incompetence in their handling of actual environmental problems, such as the Gold King Mine disaster.

However, a “transition” headed by someone on Greenpeace’s hit list is a good start.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Quinn the Eskimo
September 28, 2016 4:02 pm


Reply to  Quinn the Eskimo
September 28, 2016 5:30 pm

If only Donald stop sticking his foot in him mouth every time he speaks and concentrate on winning this election…

Reply to  Janus100
September 28, 2016 6:19 pm

True. Trump seems bound for defeat, unless an unforeseen event happens… What could this be? It would have to suddently make Trump the only credible candidate.

Reply to  Janus100
September 28, 2016 6:36 pm

The polls have been trending in Trump’s favor for the past month or so. It wouldn’t surprise me if he hones his debating skills for the next two, which will cause the Democrats to panic even more. Clinton is the worst candidate ever fielded, and more people are coming to that realization every day.

Reply to  Janus100
September 28, 2016 7:13 pm

..The only people that believe Trump keeps sticking his foot in his mouth, are people that need “Safe Spaces”…nuff said !

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Janus100
September 28, 2016 8:43 pm

said about Trump every week of the primary … maybe he knows what he is doing

Tom in Denver
Reply to  Janus100
September 29, 2016 6:33 am

I don’t like either candidate. For a while I flirted with the possibility of voting for Gary Johnston, but when he placed a Carbon Tax front and center on his platform, that possibility dried up quickly. I ultimately knew I would have to get an industrial nose plug and vote for the lesser of two evils. But with this nomination, perhaps I don’t have to wear that nose plug quite so tight

Reply to  Janus100
September 29, 2016 8:23 am

The dude is going to win by landslide. Don’t let the echo chamber media and Clinton fool you. Those idiots are so out of touch with where real people are at it isn’t funny. He did well in the debate. She had zero policy proposals. Zero. Other than she proposed bankrupting us with more solar nonsense.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Janus100
September 29, 2016 8:39 am

So claimith: Janus100 – September 28, 2016 at 5:30 pm

If only Donald stop sticking his foot in him mouth every time he speaks and concentrate on winning this election…

HA, that was truly hilarious, Janus100.
Iffen Donald Trump had been listening to the brilliant advice from people like you, …… he would have been the 1st one of the 15+- “wanna-be” Republican POTUS candidates to be “booted” off stage and prohibited from any more “debating”.

George Tetley
Reply to  Quinn the Eskimo
September 28, 2016 10:58 pm

With so much “Awesome” information on social media about the Clinton’s , “The Donald” up until now not bringing out the big guns, I would think that he is doing the right thing, human nature being what it is ( retention of news is a today thing ) Clinton has lied under oath, so many times only on the email scandal that the Clinton “go to jail card” will need a crane to lift it !

September 28, 2016 4:07 pm

Very good gesture. The EPA was singularly mischevious, like much of what Nixon did on domestic policy. Now if only we do away with the various holdover policies from Jimmy Carter, like banning reprocessing, we will be on the way to a reasonable energy policy.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 28, 2016 4:15 pm

Yes, indeed, and other energy producer-choking orders/regulations (like opening the Yucca Mountain spent fuel storage facility in Nevada).


Reply to  Janice Moore
September 28, 2016 4:22 pm

Harry Reid is retiring this year.

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 28, 2016 5:31 pm

Hi Janice.
If you have nuclear fuel reprocessing, you do not need Yucca Mtn. If you have molten salt reactors (Thorium or otherwise), you need long term storage like Yucca even less.
A long time ago, an old man said “there is no such thing as nuclear waste“. Fuel can be reprocessed yielding more fuel. What is left over is a bunch of isotopes useful for medicine, research, industry. Such isotopes have been made in research reactors at huge expense. It always struck some of us as horribly wasteful to take these very valuable nuclear materials and pitch them down a hole inside a mountain somewhere.
You are so right, a sane nuclear policy would be so helpful.

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 29, 2016 12:06 am

TonyL: check your facts: fuel reprocessing removes long term waste from spent fuel, but it still needs to be disposed of.
The thorium fuel cycle generates different waste, not no waste.

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 29, 2016 2:58 pm

Naming Myron definitely is throwing down a gauntlet of rationality .
Of all the red herrings , nuclear waste has always struck me as perhaps the stupidest . Having hitchhiked the desolate Moab Utah area decades ago ( and retracing some of my path by car on my way to Heartland Las Vegas ) , it always seemed obvious you could dump the spent fuel , containing much less energy than it originally did , down the holes it came out of , and be done with it .

DD More
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 29, 2016 12:02 pm

Tom & Leo – Man has learned to generate Fission without the radioactive waste, but Carter killed it.
D Trump – Any regulation that is outdated, unnecessary, bad for workers, or contrary to the national interest will be scrapped. We will also eliminate duplication, provide regulatory certainty, and trust local officials and local residents.(May 26, 2016 – ​An America First Energy Plan)
Start with this story.
Jim Stone, Updated on July 22, 2013 – “During my journey of discovery in my investigation into the Fukushima disaster, I interviewed an 85 year old nuclear engineer who worked in the nuclear industry during America’s glory days, an engineer who earned GE over 100 patents. He was one of the engineers who designed Fukushima, so naturally when conducting an investigation into such a disaster a journalist would want that type of reference.
When I started to think I was going to walk away with nothing new, he began to talk about an entirely different subject. He began his new direction in the discussion with the phrase “My team succeeded in closing the nuclear loop, and Carter banned our miracle with an executive order.
We perfected the second reactor design which used liquid sodium as a coolant and the reactor ran much hotter – 1100 farenheit as opposed to 550 in a boiling water reactor. The liquid sodium circulated inside the reactor instead of water, with the heat of the reaction being removed from the system by a heat exchanger which produced steam outside the reactor for use in producing electricity. The temperature difference and coolant characteristics in the complimentary reactor facilitated the burning of the isotopes, and you got to use both sides of the reaction – the boiling water reactor produced electricity while producing unwanted isotopes, and the sodium cooled reactor produced electricity while burning the unwanted isotopes out. This process could be repeated 20 times, and when it was finished the fuel was DEAD and no longer hazardous because all of it’s radiological potential was used up. It was a clean energy dream come true, and Carter banned it by executive order!” [Executive Order 12193]
He specifically stated that the burn down was so complete that the spent fuel was safe to handle directly with bare hands, and needed no special care or maintenance at all, and after I questioned him about exactly how safe, said you could safely sleep on it. I questioned him several times, saying he must be exaggerating, but he said ALL radiological potential was used, and the fuel was completely inert at the end of the final cycle.

Now Russia has it. –
20 cycles of power generation and no radioactive waste at the end. Get’er Done.

Reply to  DD More
September 29, 2016 12:53 pm

Brilliant and helpful post, DD More. Thank you!
Just for sh*tz & grins, you might be interested in this recent interview with Jack Lifton, a worldwide expert and a consultant on the extraction, separation, and fabrication of Light and Heavy Rare Earths. He’s being interviewed before a major mining convention in Toronto, I think held over the last few days, won’t bother to check. It’s 18 minutes long. Lifton is a plain-speaking character, and his warnings to the industry over the past decade have been prescient. He physically verifies everything he writes, meaning he visits every country, and talks to every scientist and tech kings he writes about; there’s no BS about him which makes him interesting to listen to, imo. He is highly regarded. Oh yeah, there’s an August 9 article Lifton wrote that you should read (it was before he heard about Don Sadoway’s accidental new smelting discovery on August 29th). It will give you an idea of his cast of mind.
China’s plan to secure critical rare earths and technology globally The article
Lifton prepares for the Mines and Money Show in Toronto The video

Reply to  DD More
September 29, 2016 4:08 pm
Bloke down the pub
September 28, 2016 4:10 pm

US law is not my strong subject, but I was under the impression that environmental protection was a realm that was meant to come under state legislation.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
September 28, 2016 4:25 pm

Bloke, the States do have their own regulatory bodies but the Federal government also has some say. The EPA in recent years has really stretched what they think is their area of influence to the point that the EPA thinks it has a right to regulate *any* body of water in the U.S., including the puddle in your yard.

Reply to  TA
September 28, 2016 9:06 pm

And the rain falling on your roof!

Lester Via
Reply to  TA
September 29, 2016 5:48 pm

The logic in the feds mind is they have the right to control the navigable waters of the United States as this is interstate commerce. Talk about taking a mile when given an inch – under the Clean Water Act, not only do they consider the puddle of water navigable but also the dry ground wherever the water table comes within within 12 inches of the surface during the growing season – making it a wetland. Disturbing a wetland is a violation of federal law. One problem with this law is what constitutes a disturbance is not defined and is left up to federal judges to decide. At least one judge decided that taking dirt from any spot and the simply putting any of it back in place is a violation of the law. This make it nearly impossible to lower the water table by digging drainage ditches. Another judge decided not only the soil but any vegetation dropped back onto the dry surface also was a violation.
I once asked an Army Corps of Engineers wetlands expert – If I dig a hole to see where the water table is and place the dirt beside the hole, then, if the water table turns out to be within a foot of the surface, have I violated the federal wetlands laws by polluting the navigable waters of the United States with the pile of dirt. His answer was “technically, yes”. He told me that when he did such a thing as a field worker,they would laugh about it as the law was so absurd. Unfortunately, such vague laws become whatever federal judges think it means. ..

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
September 28, 2016 5:27 pm

Under the Interstate Commerce clause (US Constituion, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3), Congress passed various laws based on “effecting” interstate commerce. SCOTUS stamped it’s approval and, most infamously, aided the EPA’s position that CO2 is a “pollutant” and subject to regulation under the various laws. In fact, as interpreted by SCOTUS, just about everything can “effect” interstate commerce, even growing wheat to feed your own animals (see Wilbur v Filburn, 317 US 111 1942 recap here: Technically, the Commerce Clause grants the Federals the power while the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article 1, section 8, clause 18) is the vehicle for the avalanche of regulations to implement the laws passed using the enumerated powers.
You may recall the Affordable Care Act individual mandate was also argued as a power under the Commerce Clause but SCOTUS avoided it by finding the individual mandate a part of the power to tax. Had SCOTUS ruled the Commerce Clause power gave Congress the power over citizens doing nothing (i.e, not buying health insurance) it would have effectively given Congress the unlimited power (as if they don’t mostly have it today)
Article VI states “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Which means under any conflict of law with any State/Local laws, the Federal law trumps all of them. The States/Locals can pass laws in the same area but they have to conform to the Federal law and regulations. In practice, the States/Locals can make laws and regulations more severe but cannot make them less than what the Federal laws/regs are. Which explains, for example. all the States/groups that lined up to get “exemptions” under the Affordable Care Act.
It’s complicated but the short answer is the Feds have exclusive power in just about everything five members of SCOTUS say they have. And points out the basic flaw in the US Constitution. It was designed to limit the Federal Government. The unintended consequence of setting up SCOTUS, a Federal organ, as the decider of how much power the Federal Government resulted in the dramatic extension of Federal power light years beyond what the Founders believed they’d created. This doesn’t even address how SCOTUS discovers “rights” (marriage, abortion, etc) by interpretive and creative thinking to further extend Federal powers. One might go as far to say that the US is generally an oligarchy divided between the unelected (SCOTUS) and the Washington elites.

Bill Taylor
Reply to  cedarhill
September 28, 2016 6:11 pm

there is NO “interstate commerce clause” in the constitution…….that term is nowhere in the document……the clause you refer to has been improperly ruled upon and abused to claim congress has the power to make law without restriction at all……CLEARLY not the intent of the founders or the words the wrote.

Reply to  cedarhill
September 28, 2016 8:38 pm

“Conservative” Scalia upheld Wickard in Raich vs Gonzales. Thomas had nothing good to say about that decision.

George Tetley
Reply to  cedarhill
September 28, 2016 11:03 pm

Obama, 64,000 plus new lawyers,
Clinton ” I will better that “

Reply to  cedarhill
September 29, 2016 4:59 am

Bill Taylor @ Sept 28, 2016 6:11 PM
The text is referred to as the “commerce clause”, interstate is “among the several States”.
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
Clause 3, Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution.
One might say SCOTUS disagrees about the scope of it’s interpretative power. You may not know that nearly all the power of SCOTUS is subject to Article III, Section 2 “. . . In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” Meaning Congress can exclude any law or set of laws Congress wishes. There have been no more that three instances where Congress stripped SCOTUS of it’s review power.
If one is inclined to have a Republic form of government as the Founders conceived, Article V allows the States to amend the Constitution even replace it with a modern version subject, of course, to the three fourths approval for ratification. Article V would be preferred, imho, given the immense power SCOTUS and the Federals have granted themselves and the need to eliminate the “living” Constitution based on the whims of five people.

George Daddis
Reply to  cedarhill
September 29, 2016 8:03 am

Again the original intent has been twisted in “modern” times. The Framers explicitly gave the states authority EXCEPT for the enumerated powers of the Federal government (which includes Treaty making).
Re-read that phrase despite the stilted syntax. Re-arranged it says “all laws of the United States made in Pursuance (of this Constitution) shall be the supreme law of the land.
The key is the phrase I bolded – i.e. any laws passed that were allowed by the Constitution (e.g. consistent with the enumerated powers) had supremacy (e.g. declaring war).
Otherwise as Madison later pointed out, the tenth Amendment ()”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” would have no meaning.
I agree that today the Constitution has been turned inside out by SCOTUS.

Reply to  cedarhill
September 29, 2016 8:20 am

cedarhill – I agree with almost all of what you had to say, but it is not accurate to say that states “cannot make them less than what the Federal laws/regs are”
States are under no obligation to have any particular law. The federal government cannot command a state to pass a law. The the expansive interpretations of federal power over the decades has allowed the feds to enforce their laws in any state, but that is not the same as the state having a law itself.
So, the feds could ban an emission from a power plant but that does not mean that a state also has to ban it. Also, see marijuana prohibition. The feds ban it, Colorado does not. The feds are free to enforce their prohibitions within the state of Colorado, but cannot compel state authorities to help them.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  cedarhill
September 29, 2016 9:14 am

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
Clause 3, Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution.
Me thinks that the SCOTUS, with the blessing and approval of the lefty liberal socialist-minded Democrats, ….. has replaced the word “regulate” …. with the word “control” in the above Constitutional Statute.
DUH, a School Crossing Guard’s ONLY duty is to regulate traffic flow to insure the safety of school children .
A Police Traffic Officer’s duty is to control or direct “changes” to traffic flow to prevent dastardly things from happening.

Reply to  cedarhill
September 29, 2016 12:06 pm

FreeRadical: The feds can and do compel states to help them enforce federal laws via power of the purse. The feds simply with hold federal money until the state caves into their demands.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
October 1, 2016 11:50 am

Jay Lehr: The national EPA must be systematically dismantled and replaced by a Committee of the Whole of the 50 state environmental protection agencies.
There was Heartland ICCC9 video Spencer and a 20 minute talk by Jay Lehr talking about replacing the EPA. The WUWT main link is Dr. Roy Spenser’s keynote speech at ICC9 (7/14/2014)> but the video link no longer works. My timestamped notes are in comments here

The primary force we battle is the US EPA. I Don’t think we can reduce the power of EPA, We have to Replace the US EPA. I have a plan…..38:30 – My Plan: Replace Washington EPA with Committee of the Whole of the 50 States — In Topeka, Kansas – the geographic center of the USA. “Government is best when it is local.”
39:50 – Phase out US EPA (Wash DC) over 5 years. 50 state agencies. Each State sends 3 delegates. They will elect a Chairman for 3 years, no more.
41:00 – “No one in this room could name for me the 14 offices of US EPA.” …

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
October 1, 2016 11:52 am

Lehr closes his talk with this:

Nobody LIKES EPA. They think we NEED it. The Plan does not eliminate environmental protection. We will lose nothing but 15,000 people and $6 billion in budget.

September 28, 2016 4:12 pm

Great! But, Trump’s got’ta win first. And yes, I hope he does.

Bruce Cobb
September 28, 2016 4:13 pm

Great! Maybe Trump could learn a thing or two from him about the climate issue, and have it for ammo in the next debate.
Surely I jest.

Tom Harley
September 28, 2016 4:15 pm

Trump is certainly selecting the best conservative specialists in all areas of government. Can’t wait to mock the howling soon to begin from activists!

Walter Donway
Reply to  Tom Harley
September 28, 2016 4:59 pm

The wailing and tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth will be a scene from Dante’s “Inferno.” This is an amazingly heartening, courageous, informed step on Trump’s part. It probably puts Pennsylvania in the Republican bag, sure, and that’s fine and justified. But the sheer brass to make an apppointment like this has got to arrest the attention of the Libertarians and Objectivists attracted to Gary Johnson and if Trump can woo half of Johnson’s supporters he closes the gap with Hillary. Here is one skeptical, reluctant, dubious voter, who wanted to support Trump, who is greatly affected.

Reply to  Tom Harley
October 1, 2016 11:17 am

Yes, but is Trump listening (and remembering) anything they say?

September 28, 2016 4:19 pm

This is a meaningless appointment. “Transition Manager”? The career staff can’t be hired or fired, and the political staff can’t be dismissed and replaced until the notional inauguration of Donald Trump, may the saints preserve us from that.
The political staff, including the administrator, have to be nominated by the President, and approved by the Senate, and some of those old fogeys really like clean air and water.
I agree that the EPA has been singularly unhelpful in certain areas, but most of us aren’t quite ready to do away with just yet.

Reply to  DataTurk
September 28, 2016 4:39 pm

he way to get rid of the permanent staff is to de-fund the EPA, which will take Congress.

Reply to  DataTurk
September 28, 2016 5:27 pm

Any civil servant identified as directly consorting with activists or otherwise misusing their position can certainly be fired.
It is an excellent appointment. All senior EPA employees could be in line for efficiency and recycling.

Reply to  ATheoK
September 28, 2016 5:37 pm

All senior EPA employees could be in line for efficiency and recycling.

Garden mulch?

Reply to  ATheoK
September 28, 2016 7:22 pm

…Soylent Green ?

Bryan A
Reply to  ATheoK
September 28, 2016 7:23 pm

I was thinking along the lines of Aluminum Can Collectors

Bryan A
Reply to  ATheoK
September 28, 2016 7:25 pm

Or maybe Soylent Green

Reply to  ATheoK
September 29, 2016 6:19 am

Bryan A:
I was thinking the more acidic and pungent stuff, farmers spray on their fields; fertilizer that destroys leather, canvas and probably aluminum.
Soylent Green or Green Soylent is apt, very.
It would take a number of years before senior EPA staff learn aluminum can collecting. They’re more likely to pilfer bronze statues or to rip out wiring and plumbing from the old folks homes and orphanages.

Reply to  DataTurk
September 28, 2016 8:29 pm

Not exactly true, when governments want change it is not unusual for them to insert another layer of bureaucracy to cut of the power of the prevailing powerbrokers, effectively demoting them to L2 execs. Another way they do it is to “Promote” the trouble makers into harmless places or a combo of these

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  DataTurk
September 28, 2016 8:49 pm

the EPA no longer worries about clean air and water … thats already taken care of by laws and regulations from decades ago … and the senior managers can simply direct the career slugs to cease and desist what they are doing … and if they don’t fire them for cause …
Trump can just appoint a Czar and let him run the place if the Senate won’t confirm his choices …

September 28, 2016 4:21 pm

The EPA should be required to do a reevaluation of the endangerment finding not only because they used inappropriate methods to get it but there is much new work showing it in error since 2009 when they ramrodded it through. If congress can’t require a review, I hope Trump/ Ebell will.

Reply to  DMA
September 28, 2016 4:34 pm

I completely agree. Bad science, bad conclusion, good politics…from a certain perspective that I don’t share, naturally.

Reply to  DMA
September 28, 2016 8:33 pm

Actually Congress could do this by considering the fact that CO2 is essential for pretty much all cellular lifeforms and legislate that regulations cannot be made without congressional approval for any substance essential for life, liberty and justice under the constitution.

September 28, 2016 4:25 pm

Most of us want the EPA budget to be cut in 1/2; EPA should stick to clean air and water and recognize CO2 is not a pollutant.

Reply to  kokoda
September 28, 2016 8:43 pm

The rest of us want it cut in half. Of that.

michael hart
Reply to  M Simon
September 29, 2016 1:06 pm

I’m a reasonable man. No quarter should be offered.

September 28, 2016 4:28 pm

“In a biography submitted when he testified before Congress, he [Ebell] listed among his recognitions that he had been featured in a Greenpeace “Field Guide to Climate Criminals,” dubbed a “misleader” on global warming by Rolling Stone and was the subject of a motion to censure in the British House of Commons after Ebell criticized the United Kingdom’s chief scientific adviser for his views on global warming.”
He sounds like the right man for the job. 🙂

Robert of Ottawa
September 28, 2016 4:32 pm

Go baby Go, EPA, retirment hoe!

September 28, 2016 4:55 pm

Eric, any word on whether he’s a deploree?

Reply to  JohnKnight
September 28, 2016 7:38 pm

….Be Proud
……..Be Strong
………….Be…Deplorable !comment image

Horace Jason Oxboggle
Reply to  Marcus
September 29, 2016 2:03 pm

Well I’m proud to be a deplorable
Cos it means I think for me,
And I’ll thumb my nose at greenies
And won’t vote for Hillary.
I’ll support all those of you
Who are gathered here today
And I’ll proudly lead by shouting
God Bless the USA!

NW sage
September 28, 2016 4:58 pm

It is true that career Civil Servants cannot be fired — but they CAN be transferred. I suggest that any ‘problem employees’ be transferred to a work place as far from Washington DC as possible. I suggest a new office building (tent, igloo) be assigned to the purpose 50 miles North of Fairbanks, Alaska. If they were threatened with that reassignment they would ‘see the light’ pretty quickly – or take early retirement which is the preferred option anyway. Such vacated positions would NOT be refilled.

Reply to  NW sage
September 28, 2016 5:07 pm

“I suggest a new office building (tent, igloo) be assigned to the purpose 50 miles North of Fairbanks, Alaska.”
Yeah, then they could keep a close eye on the endangered polar bears ; )

Reply to  JohnKnight
September 28, 2016 7:33 pm

…And maybe provide much needed protein for the …ummm, “starving” Polar Bears ?

Reply to  JohnKnight
September 29, 2016 5:03 pm

And let them take windmills with them. That’s it.

September 28, 2016 5:04 pm

This is encouraging!
It is my belief that AGW is a huge earner for a certain class of people – of which Mrs Clinton and her dick of a husband belong to.
It appears Trump is above this temptation.
I know there is money in AGW and a portion of it comes from the Rockefeller Bros website and UN grants.
This link illustrates the duplicity of the UN with regard to sea level rise.

Ric Haldane
Reply to  rogerthesurf
September 28, 2016 7:15 pm

You haven’t seen anything yet. Goldman Sachs (Hillary’s buddies), is well posed to jump on the gravy train.

Reply to  Ric Haldane
September 28, 2016 10:02 pm

Thats because there is money and power in it old son. If the bottom falls out of AGW I am quite sure they will change their tune and find a new band wagon.

Ross King
September 28, 2016 5:14 pm

If Trump proposes a few more ‘Common-Sense’ nominees like this guy, he’s on a good track to providing ‘flesh & muscle’ to help frame and identify policies in his largely incoherent campaign.

Reply to  Ross King
September 28, 2016 5:40 pm

It’s a beautiful thing.
Let’s hope it is not still born.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Ross King
September 28, 2016 8:51 pm

incoherent ? pay attention and it won’t be …

Reply to  Ross King
September 29, 2016 7:40 am

I hear Trump will propose Don King as the new Secretary of Entertainment.
Judging from the debate, I would suggest the word “completely”, rather than “largely” incoherent.

September 28, 2016 5:22 pm

get out the vote!

Joel O’Bryan
September 28, 2016 5:24 pm

The People really to understand the machinations that go on at is an intersection of all the various actors that benefit from the Climate Hustle.
Trump naming ahead of the election a climate skeptic to head his EPA (if he becomes President-elect) will so animate to undertake any and every means available, ethical or otherwise, legal or otherwise to stop the destruction of their lucrative climate hustle. As a note, the AFL-CIO has a seat on the Ceres board of directors.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
September 29, 2016 12:54 am

A panicked enemy is already half way to being defeated.
They make mistakes in judgment, something a wise man can exploit.

September 28, 2016 5:30 pm


Reply to  eyesonu
September 28, 2016 7:46 pm

…REAL Hope and REAL Change !!…..Trump 2016…

Roy Spencer
September 28, 2016 5:49 pm

Myron knows DC. He’ll know what can be done and what can’t.

George Daddis
September 28, 2016 5:56 pm

To me “transition manager” signals that the agency will eventually be completely reorganized and “re-purposed” if Donald is elected
If I were in Donald’s shoes I’d form a panel of a cross section of experts to study the situation and make some recommendations.
In the interim, the transition manager would run the organization with current (or reduced staff) until the new purpose and capabilities are determined and the organization reshaped (or eliminated).
Of course all Obama’s executive orders would be rescinded.

September 28, 2016 6:02 pm

DataTurk said:

most of us aren’t quite ready to do away with (EPA) just yet.

The feeling in some parts is the more you know about the EPA, the more ready you are. For some, the great debate is whether to burn it down or to blow it up.
The military had a concept of the “rump organization”. The idea is as follows. The war is won, fighting is over, large infantry divisions (for example) are no longer needed. The soldiers are discharged, but the unit is not done away with. Command staff providing the unit’s bureaucracy and chain of command and all-important know-how (and traditions) are preserved. Then, in case of need, the unit can be quickly and efficiently fleshed out with new recruits. This is the idea of the “rump organization”. It just maintains the structure, skill, and knowledge which was so hard won.
Many of us feel that it is long past time that EPA was reduced to a rump organization, dedicated to maintaining needed environmental gains. No more of an organization dedicated to it’s own power, empire building, careerism, and all the other games large bureaucracies are notorious for.

Reply to  TonyL
September 28, 2016 6:36 pm

Generally sensible, I think. At the very least, de-politicized, if that’s possible. I’m an old enough fogey myself to remember smog and exhaust pollution and sludge filled rivers of 50 years ago. I’ve gotten used to clean air and water, and I’m pretty sure we can’t count on the states to get this right.
Thanks for the thoughtful response!

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  DataTurk
September 28, 2016 8:52 pm

I’m pretty sure the states can and will do a better job than some stuffed shirt in DC … actually I’m certain … Why do you have the desire to be ruled ?

Reply to  DataTurk
September 29, 2016 5:52 am

How do you imagine car makers, for example, would be able to produce vehicles to 50 different state emission standards?
I don’t think you’ve thought this through. The “states do it better” position is pretty complicated.

September 28, 2016 7:08 pm

“Frankly I think the US EPA should be abolished.”
I would recommend the abolishment of the National Science Foundation with its current and past employees being rendered, sequestered, incarcerated and imprisoned pending trials for Felony Crimes and Treason against the peoples of the United States of America and recoup of all U.S. and Foreign Taxpayer moneys that were payed into their salaries, travel and Travel Insurance, and benefits including 401k (FERS and later versions), Healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Dental, Overtime and PayedTimeOff/FullTimeOff.

Reply to  RBom
September 28, 2016 7:53 pm

….O.M.G. …..You are a…”Deplorable” !!…ummm, welcome to the club ! LOL

Reply to  RBom
September 29, 2016 2:37 pm

Getting a little personal here. There are(were) good folks at the NSF. Narrow your brush strokes RBom.

September 28, 2016 7:10 pm

…”However, a “transition” headed by someone on Greenpeace’s hit list is a good start.”
…Absolutely brilliant !

September 28, 2016 7:27 pm

….E.P.A……..” You’re FIRED !
Yours Truly
President Trump…..

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Marcus
September 29, 2016 4:01 am

Not going to happen (not that that would be a terrible thing – states could easily do their job), but certainly downsizing and reigning them in would be beneficial.

September 28, 2016 7:46 pm

Although he is Canadian, I would vote for Dr. Patrick Moore for head of the EPA, or Energy Department. At least he has common sense, and a thorough (Outstanding) environmental resume…

September 29, 2016 3:59 am

Might be the first thing trump has done that would allow me to vote for him. Let’s not forget trump’s praise to the ethanol farmers in Iowa during the primaries. Which way are you really swinging donald???

wayne Job
Reply to  Matthew W
October 4, 2016 3:09 am

Ethanol is a very good fuel for conversion into electricity via a fuel cell, perfect to power your home when the wind generators kill the grid. Quiet in operation with no pollution. (sarc)

September 29, 2016 4:16 am

It won’t be a moment to soon, if it happens. It must happen.
The UN’s Figueres is back on the money trail, with a new, very well funded propaganda outfit:
“Fresh from quitting what is becoming an increasingly brutal race to replace Ban Ki-moon as UN secretary general, Christiana Figueres is back with a new project: Mission 2020.
City leaders, bankers and the burgeoning climate philanthropy sector can expect calls in the coming weeks and months as the Costa Rican gets to work.
“By 2020 we have to bend the [emissions] curve and by 2020 we have to have a critical level of support for developing countries,” she tells Climate Home.
Staffed with former UN colleagues and boasting Newton Investment Management chief executive Helena Morrissey as one of five advisory board members, Mission 2020 will be based in London.
After the Brexit referendum and with UK climate and energy policy in a state of flux it seems a curious choice for an HQ, but Figueres cites the city’s rich seam of climate policy and finance expertise.
Last week she was spotted talking to new UK climate minister Nick Hurd and longtime climate advocate Kate Hampton, CEO of the Mayfair-based CIFF, which is valued at £2 billion.”
This does not bode well: image

September 29, 2016 7:09 am

Well, this certainly helps move me out of the undecided camp. Trump may keep “putting his foot in his mouth”, but the policy decisions and cabinet appointments seem sound.

Myron Mesecke
September 29, 2016 7:30 am

Go Myron!
Yes, I might be a little biased.

Martin A
September 29, 2016 8:30 am

If Mr Trump is elected President of the USA, it’s the end of the climate change mass delusion.

average joe
September 29, 2016 8:32 am

Here’s an interesting story just found – professor and wife going to prison for defrauding Nasa of climate research grant money. About time!!! Maybe Shukla will be next…

Johann Wundersamer
September 29, 2016 8:53 am
September 29, 2016 8:54 am

I think Myron Ebell is a good choice. We need realism regarding global warming.

September 29, 2016 12:24 pm

A good start. If Trump can pull off a win he can take a hose to the EPA.

September 29, 2016 8:34 pm

Donald Trump is the face of people who see erosion of their quality of life caused by a White House out of touch . When the USA President says global warming is the # 1 problem and the people rank it #16
it is not hard to see why Trump has a sizable following .

Reply to  Amber
September 30, 2016 7:28 am

Wasn’t that 16th out of 16? I E last on every list?

September 30, 2016 12:38 pm

This is such a laugh. So the guy who thinks climate change is an invention of the Chinese, is going to appoint a guy who thinks climate change was invented by the Europeans. Dear oh dear.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Simon
September 30, 2016 1:11 pm

What’s the problem? At least they both understand that “climate change” was invented.

Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
September 30, 2016 8:51 pm

Yea but if they are gonna make it up at least have the same lie.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
October 1, 2016 9:55 am

Simon, I guess there’s no room in your world for a humorous quip. And, besides which, you didn’t explain why there was a problem. For my part, I am happy to think that both China and Europe have an agenda served by promotion of the “global warming” scam (I like my scams pure, so I don’t bother to use “climate change”). Isn’t this the case?
Falsehood has a thousand fathers, but there is only one truth.

October 3, 2016 9:04 pm

Yeah but irony is …. the Donald would not have the slightest clue re the truth about climate change. He is almost completely ignorant from what I can tell, but like he is on many subjects, it doesn’t stop him opening his mouth.

wayne Job
Reply to  Simon
October 4, 2016 3:21 am

I am from OZ and from here it seems to me and many of my friends, the best last chance America has of being great and a world leader again, in all things, is a change of direction with a leader that is not cowed by anyone or anything. It would be the biggest shot in the arm of America to have a leader that is genuine red white and blue, a real american, not a socialist globalist. Wayne

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights