In light of recent events – a possible United States climate change action plan

Last night, there was this tweet:

stein-lost-battle-climate

The fellow works for Buzzfeed, and highly liberal and pro-climate outfit. It was quite an admission. Since existing climate plans are almost certain to be on the scrap heap now, here’s a new plan from Christopher Monckton. I agree with most of it, except item 7 “Abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency”. That’s not really practical. Before “climate change” became the universal boogeyman for any enviro-ailment, real or imagined, the EPA actually did useful work in dealing with real, tangible, pollution issues. We have cleaner air, cleaner lakes, and cleaner waterways today because of that. So rather than abolish it, which would allow resurgence of those problems by the unscrupulous, I think a significant curtailment, plus a revocation of their powers of enforcement – putting enforcement in the hands of law, is a better choice.. – Anthony


Guest opinion by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

1. U.S. withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, from the Paris climate agreement and from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The President of the United States should invite the Secretary of State to serve upon the Secretary General of the United Nations, qua Depositary, immediate notification of withdrawal from the Framework Convention on Climate Change and from all protocols or agreements thereunder, including the Paris climate agreement, in terms of Article 25 [withdrawal] of the Convention, which provides for a year’s delay before the withdrawal takes effect. Under Article 28 [withdrawal] of the Paris climate agreement, notification of withdrawal from the Framework Convention entails automatic withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and from any obligations thereunder. Pour politesse, the Government of France, qua Depository of that agreement, should also be given immediate notification of withdrawal. Separate immediate notification of withdrawal should be given to the Secretary General of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

2. Termination, on environmental and humanitarian grounds, of all Federal Government payments to foreign entities in connection with climate change: The President should invite the Secretaries of State and to the Treasury to terminate all payments to foreign entities in connection with climate change at the earliest permissible dates, and to report the savings achieved to the White House Chief of Staff at monthly intervals until all such payments have ceased.

3. Termination, on environmental grounds, of all Federal Government subsidies for climate change research and for “renewable” energy. The President should invite the Secretary to the Treasury to terminate all climate subsidies at the earliest permissible dates, and to report the savings to the White House Chief of Staff at monthly intervals until all such subsidies have ceased.

4. Nullification of all previous Executive Orders mandating any action on climate change. The President should invite the Chief of Staff to put before him a draft executive Order nullifying forthwith all Executive Orders concerning climate change and related matters.

5. Program of U.S. humanitarian assistance with the installation of coal-fired power stations and electricity grid infrastructures in regions without electric power. The President and the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury and of Energy should jointly announce a program of U.S. humanitarian assistance with the intention of preventing the millions of deaths each year among the 1.2 billion people who do not have the life-saving benefits of electric power. Coal-fired power is preferable because it is cheaper per TWh generated than any other form of power, and because stocks of coal are plentiful, and because the clean technology of the current generation of power stations is easier for third-world nations to maintain than any other form of power.

6. Independent inquiry into climate change science. The President should invite the Secretary of Energy to establish an independent inquiry into climate change science, to address the questions 1. At what rate will our enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 and other greenhouse gases warm the world? and 2. Is mitigation of global warming today cost-effective compared with adaptation to its consequences the day after tomorrow? Scientists and economists sympathetic to the President’s opinion should be appointed to the inquiry, whose effect will be to provide ample justification for the President’s earlier decisions to resile from international climate agreements and to terminate climate-related payments and subsidies.

7. Abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency: The President should exercise his influence over Congress to enact at the earliest opportunity a Bill to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA’s activities run counter to the interstate commerce provisions of the U.S. Constitution, and its functions would be better performed if transferred to the States.

8. Approval for the Keystone XL pipeline: The President, after consulting the cabinet, should at the earliest opportunity announce approval for the Keystone XL pipeline.

9. Reversal of scientifically-unjustifiable measures such as the listing of polar bears as endangered should be carried out at the earliest opportunity.

10. Investigation of scientific and economic frauds in connection with climate change science and economics, and with renewable energy, should be set in hand at once.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
335 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 9, 2016 10:16 am

I agree totally with 7. because it cancels the Federal overreach and restores state’s rights. We can figure the Clean Power Plan is DoA.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 9, 2016 10:44 am

I agree as well. The Federal government was never given the power to institute an EPA, a Dept of Energy, Education, FCC, FDIC, FHA, NLRB, SEC, SSA, ATF, BLM, CPSC, USDA, HHS, HUD, DOT, FAA, FBI, FEMA, FRA, FTC, FWS, DHS………………………………………………………………………..

Chimp
Reply to  atthemurph
November 9, 2016 10:52 am

The USDA does some good, has been around since 1862 and in the cabinet since 1889. But it no longer needs to be its own cabinet level department, IMO.

MarkW
Reply to  atthemurph
November 9, 2016 11:36 am

Inspections are needed, but you don’t need a government agency to do them.

Reply to  atthemurph
November 9, 2016 12:16 pm

We need to sunset a lot of them. Make them prove that they are needed (cost/benefit analysis) and specify the areas where they can contribute to the commonweal.

george e. smith
Reply to  atthemurph
November 9, 2016 12:17 pm

Well It’s not my privilege to have a say, but I tend to agree with Anthony.
But I would tackle these problems in a different way.
Any and all Federal Government agencies, such as EPA would have authority to administer and enforce Environmental laws, BUT ! NO unelected Federal Government would have ANY power to write or make such laws and regulations. We have an elected Congress whose sole purpose is to propose and pass and fund Federal Laws.
We clearly don’t need both of an elected Congress and unelected bureaucrats both empowered to write laws or regulations. GA’s should have NO legislative powers whatsoever.
But like I said it’s not my choice to make.
I can only conclude that last night happened because Mother Gaia, was totally pissed at what they were proposing to do in covering up the pristine environment with un-necessary mirrors and other paraphernalia.
California went right off the cliff, and as of midnight, we now share the roads with hordes of stoned drug addicts, and we can’t tell who is whom.
G

Reply to  atthemurph
November 9, 2016 12:52 pm

That’s not really practical. Before “climate change” became the universal boogeyman for any enviro-ailment, real or imagined, the EPA actually did useful work in dealing with real, tangible, pollution issues. We have cleaner air, cleaner lakes, and cleaner waterways today because of that. So rather than abolish it, which would allow resurgence of those problems by the unscrupulous, I think a significant curtailment, plus a revocation of their powers of enforcement – putting enforcement in the hands of law, is a better choice.. – Anthony

Thanks for a note of sanity Anthoy.
A lot of people are angry about over-reach of these non-elected bureaucrats but it’s important not the throw the baby out with the bath water.
Like you say, before the “carbon ” hysteria set in they did a lot of useful work that means we do have much cleaner air, soil and water than we used to.
One proposition that seems to make a lot of sense is to abolish the federal EPA and leave the individual state EPAs to carry on the good work that is still needed.
Hopefully some of Trump’s first actions will be sacking Gina McCartney and reverting Obama’s dubious executive orders and returning to the use of congress to write and pass laws.
If the whole, corrupt federal EPA got abolished it would probably be a good start.

Gamecock
Reply to  atthemurph
November 9, 2016 3:44 pm

‘The USDA does some good’
Mr Chimp, that it does good doesn’t justify it. The Constitution allows it or it doesn’t. Politicians will claim that everything they do does some good, so anything they do is okay.
I agree with most of atthemurph’s list of alphabet agencies – they are extra-Constitutional.

average joe
Reply to  atthemurph
November 9, 2016 6:08 pm

No worries – the Human Hand Grenade has been thrown into the system. The more worthless part of these agencies are toast!

Reply to  atthemurph
November 10, 2016 2:33 am

average joe,
Wow, clear view of Michael Moore on what will happen, days before the election. Be it that Trump shortened the video for the rest of what Michael Moore said, which is not that flattering for Trump…:

Wrusssr
Reply to  atthemurph
November 10, 2016 3:31 am

Agree also. Here’s an example.
Good EPA “laws” (read: “rules”, “regulations”) are long extinct, but if you had to pick one it would be the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) passed by congress four years after the Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught fire because of the pollution in it.
(https://www.google.com/search?q=cuyahoga+river+fire+burning&biw=731&bih=377&site=webhp&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=iCZoVcWrO4TmoASXnoPgCA&ved=0CCsQsAQ—it wasn’t the first time)
The CWA authorized the clean-up of this kind of mess in America’s navigable lakes, rivers, and streams, and prohibited further dumping of dangerous industrial chemicals, waste, and other byproducts into these bodies of waters. It also allowed states to manage the clean-up of their own waters under the Clean Water Act (CWA), and enabled federal and state officials to work together to get the job done.
Fast forward and we find today a rogue, out-of-control EPA has redefined Congress’s intent and definition of navigable waters of the U.S. with a bureaucratic program called Waters of The United States (WOTUS) which congress did not authorize. It gives the EPA regulatory authority over all waters found in America and by fiat, the land it’s on, under, or runs through when it rains; meaning the EPA is seeking regulatory “control” of all American farms, ranches, and private property.
WOTUS is the largest, illegal, private property land grab by a federal agency in U.S. history. Not only does it give the EPA control of the water on private property, it also requires EPA/Corps of Engineer permits if anyone within the agricultural industry wants to cut brush, clear land, root plow, burn-off, repair (field) tiles, drill a water well, spread fertilizer, lay pipe, spray cattle and hundreds of other ordinary, necessary, and routine tasks tied to any agricultural operation; all to be permitted, fee’d (charged), and “enforced” by the same unelected, unaccountable, federally paid envirocrats who wrote the proposals; who have no concept why these tasks have to be performed; whose job will be to act as land and water “police”—like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) acts on behalf of the EPA for “endangered plants and animals”—and issue permits or levy “fines” for “violators” who get caught spraying a pen of cattle without one.
This EPA scheme is a deliberate shakedown of property owners with forced fees and permits requiring unnecessary time and money; one objective being to regulate them out of business and/or force them off the land.
Lawsuits will follow but few can afford them. Family ranchers and farmers will be presumed guilty for unpermitted WOTUS “violations,” and forced to defend themselves out-of-pocket in a federal court against federal (contract) lawyers before a federal judge—all of whom are paid from the same federal pot.
A deliberate, centralized, stacked federal deck.
The presidential EO authorizing the EPA to use this set of vague, illegal, unlawful proposals to regulate the waters of the U.S. and by fiat, land, in defiance of a Clean Water Act law, written legislated by Congress, and signed into law that has worked for decades since the fday it was implemented, defies credulity; especially when both Houses of Congress voted against WOTUS, and after the EPA twice challenged the CWA in the Supreme Court, and was twice rebuked by the court that ruled both times the CWA was constitutional.
EPA bureaucrats and the president have neither the power, authority, nor Constitutional right to force these restrictive WOTUS proposals on Americans.
What is happening in the US with federal agencies run amok is identical to what’s happening in the EU that mirrors what happened in Russia during the run-up to the Bolshevik takeover.

Communists/socialists know the importance of controlling the land and the individuals on it, and what private (right to own) property does to their failed, centralized, attempt at governing. That’s why fist-fights between hardline communists and right-to-own Russian property advocates broke out when this subject came up in Russia’s Duma during the lead-up to, and following, the so-called fall of communism. (This 2001 article by Leon Aron, “Land Privatization” is a good summary of the fight over the right to own private property in Russia.)
https://www.aei.org/publication/land-privatization/
This is why the founders set our Constitution up the way they did. It’s not a “living document” as The City and their controlled propaganda outlets (MSM) blare at the public; to be shredded by gluttonous bankers bent on controlling nations’ resources and people.

It was written to keep government go-fers out of America’s living rooms, back yards, and off our lands. The banker’s end game is to nullify the Constitution using bureaucratic agencies like the EPA to seize private property and other rights with agency “rules and regulations”—all of which are illegal under the Constitution.
Absent the right to own property and a governing constitutional rule of law, you’re left with an “ism”—fascism, socialism, communism—and a central control system for everything, including land and water, that benefits only a handful of psychopathic financial criminals at the top.
Article on how administrative law has been/is being used.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-history-and-danger-of-administrative-law/

Gamecock
Reply to  atthemurph
November 10, 2016 1:19 pm

“Fast forward and we find today a rogue, out-of-control EPA has redefined Congress’s intent and definition of navigable waters of the U.S.”
“Government will not moderate itself.” – GC

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 9, 2016 11:57 am

I to totally agree with #7. The EPA is absolutely out of control, power mad, and has repeatedly over reached its authority. EPA is Federal agency that declared CO2 / Carbon a dangerous pollutant, with some claiming it was hazardous. Never mind we are Carbon based lifeforms and it is build up of CO2 that causes us to breath, not the lack of Oxygen.
I will go one step further. #11 the disbanding of NASA. NASA has lost its way. (Won’t even go into politicking outreach.) NASA has become aeronautics version of EPA. Only real space exploration is group doing Mars rovers. Big Thumbs up to them! They should be offered jobs at NASA2. The rest need not apply.

Reply to  Dems B. Dcvrs
November 9, 2016 12:49 pm

* Didn’t the EPA contract out authorship of the Clean Air Act to environment activists from the NRDC. Ensuring that new laws are written by congress is one way to stop that again.
* Is this (following) proposal legally possible?: abolish the EPA at Federal level. Each state is then free to start or revive, its own EPA. Several states could also agree to form trans-state EPA(s). But with authority ceded to it by the states not imposed by autocratic powers derived from executive authority.

Reply to  Dems B. Dcvrs
November 9, 2016 1:15 pm

mark4asp- the states already have, and always had, the power to regulate environmental impacts under article X. They just never did it in an extensive scale.

Reply to  Dems B. Dcvrs
November 9, 2016 2:00 pm

Dems B.,
Thanks.
Noted and agreed.
But . . . .
If – say – Gina McCartney exhales CO2, would it not be at least arguable that she be deported, as an inveterate Polluter?
I appreciate this argument could be extended to others . . . .
But, just say???
Whether the whole EPA – Federal and State (and local? if any such exist, on a jobs for the folks basis?) – should be guillotined administratively is not my call.
I tend to agree with our host that rapscallion Corporations will defile the environment, too, for a cent – a fraction of a cent.
So keeping some [State?? Bits of the Federal?] EPA should be reasonable.
My opinion, from the Latitude of Canada, and the Longitude of Greenwich, is probably irrelevant, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Auto,
Not unhappy with today’s second news story here.
But
The first – seven dead in a tram derailment in Croydon – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37919658 – inevitably makes me think of the relatives and friends of the dead and injured.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 9, 2016 12:05 pm

I also agree totally with #7, …….. the abolishing of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is a redundant bureaucracy that screws up way more things than it fixes …. and hinders more things than it helps.
And the Fed EPA is not needed for oversight or management of Federal lands, Reservations, Management Areas, Flood Control Dam acreage, National Parks, National Forests, etc., because they each have their own Agency for doing said.
Every State in the US of A currently has their own State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), …… with most of them now being little more than bloated “ineffectual” State Government bureaucracies that do little to serve the needs of the public.
If you don’t believe me then do a Google search for .your ….. “state-name EPA”, …. such as: NY EPA …… or ….. TX EPA ……. etc.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
November 9, 2016 8:15 pm

EPA does not directly tell the power plants what to do, EPA tells the states to tell the power plants what to do. Gives the illusion that Federalism isn’t at play.

Winnipeg boy
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 9, 2016 1:14 pm

And go Metric for Pete’s sake. Save everybody’s time on weights and measures.

SMC
Reply to  Winnipeg boy
November 9, 2016 1:48 pm

Naw, we don’t need no fancy French units. I think everyone else should adopt US weights and measures. 😄

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Winnipeg boy
November 9, 2016 2:19 pm

Most things already are: $$, wine (since 1979), tools.
Land measures where the PLSS [ http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/a_plss.html ] is established could not be changed and doing so would just make for lots of messy numbers.

MarkW
Reply to  Winnipeg boy
November 9, 2016 2:25 pm

Horse tracks are still measured in furlongs.

DonM
Reply to  Winnipeg boy
November 9, 2016 5:38 pm

Make a uniform base 10 time scale/measurement and get it adopted worldwide … then I’ll accept metric, as necessary, for other lesser used measurement systems.

John M. Ware
Reply to  Winnipeg boy
November 9, 2016 6:36 pm

No. Inches, feet, miles are good historic measurements. Degrees Fahrenheit are smaller and more accurate than degrees Celsius and actually have stronger relation to natural states. Ounces, pounds, tons (not tonnes) are perfectly good, measurable weights; cups, pints, gallons are good liquid measures. Metric distances, temperatures, weights, and volumes may be convenient to measure in multiples and divisions of ten; however, all the other measures (except temperature) come either from human body measurements (e.g., foot) or other natural or human-derived measures. Metric is fashionable, but it has no intrinsic superiority to English measures and in many cases has scant relation to real life.

Mr Green Genes
Reply to  Winnipeg boy
November 10, 2016 2:35 am

SMC – “Naw, we don’t need no fancy French units. I think everyone else should adopt US weights and measures.”
No, dear boy, adopt proper British units. Your pints are too small for this English drinker 😉

J McClure
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 9, 2016 2:52 pm

Actually, why not select a proper unbiased Science Advisor to the Administration, combine the EPA with the DOE, review and consolidate regulations with an eye on streamlining compliance, and eliminate absurd regulations like including wet meadows and potholes in the Clean Water Act.
The EPA should then identify issues with DOE input for mitigation which would stimulate innovation and implementation of solutions thus removing the burden on States and industry.
States could then vet the issues and related solutions to ensure they are appropriate or even needed in a particular State. State Research Universities could also play a role in the review and solution process.

Gamecock
Reply to  J McClure
November 9, 2016 3:39 pm

‘combine the EPA with the DOE’
Then get rid of the DOE.
The Feds have the authority and duty to regulate interstate pollution. Some have argued in the past that it’s best to start with a clean-sheet agency, rather than perpetuate the EPA. Punish the bastards! I’m okay with either approach.

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
November 9, 2016 5:49 pm

The DOE isn’t broken but has been subjected to an administration which picks winners and losers. The DOE is one of a handful of federal agencies which should be applauded for its effects and service!

J McClure
Reply to  J McClure
November 9, 2016 6:21 pm

Consider Gamecock,
Isn’t the corruption of the EPA the same as the corruption of the IPCC work groups?
Just change the science to suit politics.
It’s repulsive!

GeologyJim
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 9, 2016 3:19 pm

Environmental protection, preservation, and pollution regulation (the real stuff, not CO2, and not miniscule concentrations of “scary-sounding” stuff) should be administered by the 50 states, perhaps with provision for some regional collaboration based on watersheds
No need for federally-imposed national standards, so long as folks can still vote with their feet and move elsewhere if they are not happy.
Same goes for public land-management matters
Same goes K-12 educational standards matters
Same goes for energy production/consumption matters
The list goes on and on.
America was founded as a confederation of governed states, ceding only national defense, judicial procedure (rule of law), and treasury (national currency) to the federal government. Restoring this balance should be the primary goal of the Trump administration

J McClure
Reply to  GeologyJim
November 9, 2016 3:52 pm

From 7:
“The EPA’s activities run counter to the interstate commerce provisions of the U.S. Constitution, and its functions would be better performed if transferred to the States.”
The problem, EPA isn’t in the solutions business, it just creates regulation and imposes penalties on the States and Industry.
If EPA partners with DOE it could be in the problem solution arena thus saving tax dollars to the benefit of all States.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 9, 2016 3:21 pm

“Before “climate change” became the universal boogeyman for any enviro-ailment, real or imagined, the EPA actually did useful work in dealing with real, tangible, pollution issues.”
The EPA could serve a useful purpose by simply helping coordinate the efforts of the individual state EPAs. That is as far as they should be able to go, having no authority over the state EPAs.

Chimp
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 9, 2016 8:11 pm

Gamecock
November 9, 2016 at 3:44 pm
USDA is not any more extraconstitutional than are the departments of State, Justice, Treasury and Defense. Whether an agriculture department is a good idea or not is another issue. But clearly Congress has the power to create cabinet departments.
As noted above, I support folding USDA into Interior and Energy, and getting rid of or sending elsewhere some of its functions.

Reply to  Chimp
November 10, 2016 1:49 pm

@Chimp – ever heard of HEW? Government is like a boxed tent. Once you pull the tent out, it will never go back into the box.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 9, 2016 10:41 pm

The following are my observations on 10 points:
1 – Withdrawal is not a solution but re-directing the agencies to meet in right direction by defining clearly what is “climate change” — we must not follow the footsteps of warmists
2 – same as above (1)
3 – Climate change & renewable energy research must continue in light of (1)
4 – same as (1)
5 – It should not be like that but one must see “pollution control” as it is causing severe health hazards world over, hither to was neglected
6 – agreed
7 – disagree – it is essential to control many aspects other than global warming related issues
8 – ???
9 – Same as (1)
10 – Same as (1)
This group must give right direction to new government in tackling Climate Change issue as climate change is a vast subject and at the same time pollution [air, water,soil & food] must be controlled to protect our children and future generations.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 9, 2016 11:13 pm

My direction is to throw the bums out.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
November 10, 2016 1:58 am

We have no problem with ‘climate change’ right now. Our children will be fine. Future generations shall look after themselves.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 10, 2016 8:48 am

The EPA is very much like the EU. What has happened in Europe is that a trade agreement has used increasing regulations over time to superseded national governments. Brexit was all about escaping regulation and restoring government.
In effect the same thing has happened with the EPA. Regulation has allowed the EPA to in effect govern all other government departments, such that we are reaching the point where the military will ultimately be required to replace bullets with daisies when going into battle.

Chimp
November 9, 2016 10:17 am

The EPA should not be an independent agency, a power unto itself.
Keep a federal role in interstate pollution control, but put the agency under the Interior Department.
And fold Ag and Energy into Interior and hand foodstamps over to HHS. And combine Labor and Commerce.

ShrNfr
Reply to  Chimp
November 9, 2016 10:30 am

A reasonable compromise. Also kill off the DOE and hand it back to the states. This is a Republic, not a monarchy.

ShrNfr
Reply to  ShrNfr
November 9, 2016 10:31 am

I should have clarified. I was talking about the Dept. of Education.

Chimp
Reply to  ShrNfr
November 9, 2016 10:35 am

I agree. Those few valid federal education functions can be administered by HHS, which of course used to be HEW.

jake
Reply to  ShrNfr
November 9, 2016 11:05 am

You mean DOE and DOE. Both Education and Energy. Reagan promised that when both were new and small

pameladragon
Reply to  ShrNfr
November 9, 2016 5:27 pm

I would shed no tears at the demise of the Dept. of Energy either! It was started under Carter to make us “energy independent!” All they have accomplished since then is to have conferences and produce “work product” aka, nicely bound reports to justify their existence.

Reply to  Chimp
November 9, 2016 10:32 am

I agree. Having the EPA as a separate agency, rather than an activity of some other agency like Interior, has what could be called a “special prosecutor” effect. The EPA does not really have any motive to declare something is sufficiently cleaned up, as that would reduce its own influence.

Reply to  Tom Halla
November 9, 2016 11:41 am

Nah, EPA should be under Justice. Then they don’t get to write their own regulations, it has to be passed as law and enforcement will be subject to legal rules of evidence. But where enforcement is warranted, it gives them a much bigger hammer.

mike
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 9, 2016 11:58 am

Technology has advanced enough that measurement and standards make most government decision making now, corrupt and redundant.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
November 9, 2016 10:39 am

And give most National Forest (Ag Dept.) and Bureau of Land Management (Interior) acreage to the states. Or sell it.
I don’t own the Adirondacks, so why should New Yorkers own the Cascades?
The West should not be a colony of the East.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  Chimp
November 9, 2016 12:00 pm

Another great suggestion. BLM needs to be abolished. The individual States can better manage their land and resources. The BLM has become the nasty Enforcement arm of Political Hacks who are looking to take land from Americans and give its use over to foreign companies for campaign $$$.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Chimp
November 9, 2016 11:09 am

But what about Muslim outreach?

mike
Reply to  John Harmsworth
November 9, 2016 12:00 pm

dunno, most Muslim outreach we’ve seen lately, they have weapons in hand

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  John Harmsworth
November 9, 2016 12:01 pm

“But what about Muslim outreach?”
Snark reply (not aimed at you) –
What happened to Separation of Church and State that has been so nastily rubbed in our faces over last 8-years?

Reply to  Chimp
November 9, 2016 1:22 pm

The problem of agencies routinely increasing the scope of their operations can be stopped by Congress, which created them. If congress has specific problems in mind when the agency is authorized it should include the necessary regulations and duties. Congress should debate and approve any regulations proposed, either by the President or the agency and be able to recall any regulations at any time.

MarkW
Reply to  philohippous
November 9, 2016 2:29 pm

The problem there is that congress has no problem with the EPA growing it’s scope.
First off, by letting the EPA write the regulations, congress can take credit when it works out, and let the EPA take the blame when it doesn’t.
Beyond that there’s tons of campaign donation money to be made by telling your constituents that only you can protect them from an out of control EPA.
One of our two biggest mistakes in this country was to make the Senate a popularly elected position instead of the original design of having them appointed by state legislatures.
When they represented the interests of the states, there was no way they would let the federal government grow the way it had. Now there is nobody in Washington who doesn’t benefit every time more power aggregates to Washington.

F. Ross
November 9, 2016 10:25 am

re: Christopher Monckton’s #7
Basically I believe it would be best to abolish the EPA.
If that route is not possible then I think that ALL proposed EPA regulations should be subject to approval by bi-partisan Congressional committee prior to possible implementation.

Owen in GA
Reply to  F. Ross
November 9, 2016 2:34 pm

I go one step farther: If it will have force of law, it should be passed as law is passed through the whole process and signed by the president. Otherwise federal courts should throw out any actions not so passed.

November 9, 2016 10:33 am

“BernardP • 2 hours ago
Now, let’s see if Mr. Trump is actually ready to face all the world’s complacent / scared politicians on climate. Let’s see if other leaders come out of the closet on climate”

November 9, 2016 10:36 am

Sorry my friends (& I count you among them). EPA needs to be redirected to focus on real “protection” that we still need – elimination of poisons, carcinogens, and real damaging pollutants.
The CO2 focus was a red herring, that redirected the agency away from doing its real job, and it is a job that still needs doing. Legislating an end to the ability of EPA to declare CO2 or CH4 pollutants should be a “First 100 Days” priority, as well as contract cancellation for projects that adhere to the same definition.
EPA needs solid refocus not elimination.

Reply to  tomwys
November 9, 2016 10:46 am

tomwys: EPA needs to be redirected to focus on real “protection” that we still need – elimination of poisons, carcinogens, and real damaging pollutants.
Do you have knowledge of a specific problem area, or knowledge of abuse or misuse of certain chemical ‘agents’ or material in the field or cities across the USA?

Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 11:07 am

I have knowledge of specific abuse. In Sanpete County, Utah the EPA has contracted its authority to the state Ag department to oversee dangerous pesticides and herbicides. Our county decided that we had to spray two highly dangerous herbicides (only rated for agricultural use and by railroad tracks, and specifically NOT for residential use or by water or wells). Never-the-less, the county mandated that we spray both herbicides or they would and charge us and lien our property. We let them know that it is not rated for residences but they insisted the EPA agreed. Well, it was their buddies in the State Ag department who somewhat said it was OK. But residents revolted and asked the county for proof the EPA agreed to break the law and let the county spray us. (it was a FOYA request). The EPA REFUSED to intervene and allowed the AG department to handle it. It was the EPAs job to tell the county they can not break Federal law–we had to get up in arms, print out the law, print out the labels, print out the EPA reports and spend time and energy fighting for 2 years until we got them stopped. If the EPA had simply sent one lousy letter explaining the law to the county, we would not have had this problem.
Rather than concentrate on “climate change,” they should have done their job and stopped the county from threatening residents with unlawful and dangerous herbicide spraying. As it was, my taxes paid them to allow the state and county to abuse us–instead of doing their job–I had to do their job for them.

Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 11:09 am

Crap. I don’t know what happened to that second sentence–but it was in Sanpete County, Utah.

mikemUK
Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 11:11 am

Wasn’t the EPA itself responsible quite recently for a major toxic leak of material from a disused gold mine into a river?
Incompetence or deliberate cause doesn’t make much difference to the outcome.

Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 12:08 pm

Shelly November 9, 2016 at 11:07 am
I have knowledge of specific abuse. In A has contracted its authority to the state Ag department to oversee dangerous pesticides and herbicides
I request a “show cause” as to why this needs elevation to the level of involving an over-arching federal bureau such as the EPA; have you or your city considered the (mention of) filing of a lawsuit in this isolated event?
Do the parties involved understand the facts involved? Maybe it just comes down to the fact that cognizant parties in the involved activity need to be fully informed.

Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 12:34 pm

Shelly November 9, 2016 at 11:09 am Edit

Crap. I don’t know what happened to that second sentence–but it was in Sanpete County, Utah.

Fixed.
w.

Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 2:25 pm

@Shelly
But did you manage, in those two years, to fire the county commissioners who supported the local bureaucrats? That is, indeed, your responsibility and not the fed’s. If you can’t control your local politicians, why is that the EPA’s fault?

MarkW
Reply to  tomwys
November 9, 2016 10:46 am

All the real pollutants were eliminated 30 years ago.

skorrent1
Reply to  MarkW
November 9, 2016 12:05 pm

Or at least reduced to the point where there was minimal or negative cost-benefit.

TheLast Democrat
Reply to  MarkW
November 9, 2016 3:14 pm

How? By the goodwill of the chemical companies?
By the various state envirinmental agencies?

tgmccoy
Reply to  tomwys
November 9, 2016 10:47 am

Trust the EPA?
Ask a Navajo….

F. Ross
Reply to  tgmccoy
November 9, 2016 11:10 am

…or a coal miner in W Virginia.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  tomwys
November 9, 2016 12:04 pm

” EPA needs to be redirected to focus on real “protection” that we still need ”
That would be the replacement to EPA. The EPA is far to political “Green” corrupt to be saved.
Better to cut our losses and start from scratch. This time with actual scientists, not Pal-Reviewed rubber stamping bureaucrats.

Reply to  Dems B. Dcvrs
November 9, 2016 1:04 pm

I agree, it has been totally infiltrated and corrupted. The federal EPA is probably beyond help and needs to be put out of its misery. Traditional REAL pollution control should be handeld at the state level. IMO.
I used to think that US EPA was doing excellent work and was the envy of other countries but it has gone badly off the rails with CO2 hysteria.
Declaring the gas that is the basis of life on earth as a “pollutant” just shows how out of touch with reality they are prepared to get.

Reply to  tomwys
November 9, 2016 1:27 pm

“EPA needs to be redirected to focus on … elimination of poisons, carcinogens”

So who decides what a carcinogen is? Why is that important?
The EPA were recently in league with UN agency : IARC. The same who classify 99.9% of substances/activities they examine as “carcinogenic”, and who employed a NRDC activist to state that glyphosate (weed killer) was carcinogenic. Cancer causing agents are seen as special by regulators. Carcinogens fall under a “no-safe dose” rule. They say even one molecule can be deadly. So carcinogens can be banned outright. No safe dose. If alcohol were a carcinogen (which it seems to be) … just ban it. Glyphosate is, of course, the most important weed killer used in U.S. agriculture. Classifying it carcinogenic could devastate U.S. farming.
However, many carcinogens banned, may not actually be carcinogenic at all, or may, in fact have a threshold dose. This “no safe dose” rule dates back to the 1950s/’60s when our understanding of cancer was primitive. We’ve learnt since then that experiments on rats are not a good model. Because rat DNA differs in quality to humans’. All mammals have alien DNA in their genes which originated from viruses. In proportion of good DNA, elephants have far less than humans, smaller mammals, like rats, have more. Elephants are also far more resistant to cancer than humans. It’s thought that mutations may switch on alien DNA which leads to cancer. Smaller mammals are generally far more susceptible to cancer. Bad model. The other problem with cancer is the appalling state of cancer science, and use of borderline statistics.
In short, I worry that SJWs left to their own devices may apply non-scientific methods (as happened at the IARC). That the EPA may farm out cancer classification to the NRDC or other SJWs. I think the whole field of cancer classification could do with a review.
PS: By the way Oxygen is a known DNA mutagen, and a strong oxidant. We breath about 500 g per day. It’s estimated 2% to 3% does not do its cellular job. It goes ‘wild’. So each of our 70 trillion cells are estimated to be exposed to about 3 billion wild oxygen molecules per day. If you want to know why we all have a chance of catching cancer, even those who stay healthy, look no further than O₂.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  mark4asp
November 9, 2016 3:02 pm

“f you want to know why we all have a chance of catching cancer, even those who stay healthy, look no further than O₂.”
Ban DiOxygen! Where is EPA to save us?
/snark

Reply to  mark4asp
November 10, 2016 10:25 am

mark4asp,
Indeed it boils down to the far outdated “linear no treshold” dose/cancer rate the EPA still holds as rule. The rest of the world adopted a long time ago – with a few exceptions – the treshold dose rule, as many chemicals show a rapid decline in cancer rates once the dose is reduced below the near deadly dose where (too) many chemicals were tested. The high cancer rates simply were the result of the toxicity of the dose, not the carcinogenity of the chemical…
Moreover, many natural chemicals and lots of plants should have been forbidden for human consumption if they were tested the same way as industrial chemicals…

Reply to  mark4asp
November 11, 2016 5:51 pm

No may about it. Cancer is a complex of causes with a smaller number of final common pathways. Life causes cancer. Toxicology 101 and pharmacology 101. Dose and route make the poison (a poison is any chemical in sufficient concentrations that interferes with another, useful, chemical reaction or chain of reactions); and dose and route make the medicine. The linear no-threshold model is used for the purposes of political control over people.
He he, about oxygen, the immune systems of many oxygen breathing organisms use redox reactions to synthesize superoxide radicals, hypochlorous acid, and various peroxides via superoxide dismutases (a family of metalloproteins, heavy metal metalloproteins at that) and peroxidases (also a family of metalloproteins, heavy metal metalloproteins, too). These chemicals are created to kill microbial pathogens. Other metalloproteases are excreted to digest these invaders such that antibodies can be synthesized to prime the immune system so that it can respond to future events faster.

David Jay
November 9, 2016 10:39 am

I think #7 can be handled with a simple, one sentence law from congress: “Nothing in the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate CO2”

AZ1971
Reply to  David Jay
November 9, 2016 12:34 pm

That was the most brilliant thing I read today. Well played, sir.

MarkW
Reply to  David Jay
November 9, 2016 2:32 pm

Such a rule does nothing in regards to the many other areas where EPA regulations are doing more harm than good.

Johna Till Johnson
Reply to  David Jay
November 9, 2016 4:37 pm

Yes. This. The issue isn’t the EPA, it’s a stupid ruling by the EPA.
Take C02–which is NOT a pollutant–out of the purview of the EPA, and leave well enough alone.
To those who say the environment should be regulated by the states–that makes no sense. Winds blow, and waters run, across state lines. Just because an upwind or upriver state votes to dump toxins into its air or water doesn’t mean a downwind or downwater state needs to suffer the consequences.

MarkW
November 9, 2016 10:41 am

The real environmental problems were solved some 30 years ago.
Ever since then the EPA has wasted trillions chasing ever more fanciful boogeymen using unlimited supplies of Other People’s Money.

HenryP
November 9, 2016 10:41 am

must say: the win by Trump came as a surprise to me,
Actually he did not win [by the popular vote]
whatever
it is your voting system that put him charge
I don’t think US will be regarded as racist:
you already had a coloured person as president
When asked: I would not vote for a black person, or even a white person, I would vote for the right person.
Trump did not look to me as the right person, but neither did Hillary…difficult choice….
Anyway, seems to me that a few of Trumps’ ideas are not bad
a) withdraw troops and reduce defence spending [true]
b) there is no man made global warming, so heat up…[true], especially locally produced fossil fuels
I think eventually, everyone will forget about building the Mexican wall….????
let me know.

Chimp
Reply to  HenryP
November 9, 2016 10:47 am

Henry,
Bill Clinton never won a majority of the vote, either. He got 43% in 1992.
In a four-way race, 47-48% is good enough.
The Electoral College is a great institution, but all states should adopt the Nebraska and Maine system of allocating Electoral Votes by congressional district, with the extra two to the statewide winner.
This would make campaigning more national and reduce the effect of vote fraud.

Reply to  HenryP
November 9, 2016 10:50 am

HenryP: it is your voting system that put him [in] charge
Our ‘electoral college’ system confuses a lot of people; it ensures that the ‘sheep’ cannot be voted to be eaten by a simple ‘vote’ tally by a ‘wolf’ majority.
Can you not agree with the operative principle?

HenryP
Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 10:53 am

not really
it is not fair?
whoever got the most votes should have won the election.
is my opinion

Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 11:05 am

The US is not a democracy it is a representative republic governed by laws because democracy is mob rule.

Chimp
Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 11:07 am

HenryP.
We don’t always know who actually got the most votes, due to rampant fraud and manipulation. In 2000, Bush might well have gotten the most votes, if the media hadn’t wrongly called the election for Gore while polls were still open in most of the country.
Clinton won with 43% of the vote in 1992, thanks to Perot. If Trump wins with 47 or 48% in a four way race, that’s good enough.

Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 11:10 am

HenryP November 9, 2016 at 10:53 am
not really
it is not fair?

Perhaps you in EUrope (or elsewhere?) are not as advanced as you purport or as often claimed in the popular press?

HenryP
Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 11:18 am

wherever I live
we wrote proportional representation in our constitution.
it is not perfect
but I think it is fair

HenryP
Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 11:21 am

then again
we only get to vote for a party
the party votes the president in….
hence we are the laughing stock of the world.
President Jacob Zuma…

Patrick Maher
Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 11:20 am

If you read article 2 section 1 of the US constitution, the presidency was never intended to be a popularly elected position. The state legislatures were charged with choosing the manner in which the electors are chosen. They have chosen popular vote. If any state legislature decided tomorrow that the governor’s dog would choose the electors, that decision would be valid under the constitution. The idea that Americans have a right to vote for president is a myth.

Editor
Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 11:24 am

Henry
I suspect most countries have variations of the US system. Certainly in the UK we have first past the post to elect MPs, as do many other European countries, and they generally work well.

MarkW
Reply to  _Jim
November 9, 2016 11:38 am

Simple majority simply means that which ever party is better at fraud wins.

Reply to  HenryP
November 9, 2016 11:00 am

@HenryP..the US needs to control the influx of illegals at the border. The Hispanic population increased 6 fold from the mid 1970s up to 2015. That is an insanely rapid increase. If they were to continue to increase at that rate then by 2050 the Hispanic population would increase by another 250 million. Even if they only tripled that would represent a very high population growth rate.

HenryP
Reply to  goldminor
November 9, 2016 11:09 am

seems to many of your [fruit] plantations need the foreign labor, as US citizens don’t want to do the work…

Reply to  HenryP
November 9, 2016 11:20 am

That is an attitude which needs changing. I was in Southern Oregon around 15 years ago and needed a job. I went to work in a pear orchard. The work crew was surprised to see a mid 50s white guy out there with them, and they were further surprised to see how I put my back into it. Many young men and women in this country would benefit from doing the same. As my dad taught me a long time ago, all work is honorable.

henryp
Reply to  goldminor
November 9, 2016 11:39 am

Also true

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  goldminor
November 9, 2016 11:25 am

US Corporations do not want to pay US citizens a fair wage, so use illegal immigrant as surfs or slaves.

henryp
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 9, 2016 11:35 am

Good comment
Could be true if someone confirms..??

MarkW
Reply to  goldminor
November 9, 2016 11:40 am

A fair wage is whatever the labor is worth to the employer.
You are paid based on what you can do for your employer, not on how much you want.

Reply to  goldminor
November 9, 2016 11:56 am

Jeff in Calgary: US Corporations do not want to pay US citizens a fair wage, so use illegal immigrant as surfs or slaves.
Perhaps gross assumptions based on little to NO hard or factual evidence or certainly personal experience; you might find it hard to accept that MOST jobs require some level of special training and or experience in order for an applicant to be acceptable to a business.
Perhaps you are employed or engaged in a less-skilled ‘trade’ like basket or carpet weaving or maybe sea-shore drift-wood collection, but positions such as SMD pick-and-place machine operator require tech-school or a computer degree as minimum qualifying education.

Reply to  goldminor
November 9, 2016 12:01 pm

HenryP November 9, 2016 at 11:09 am
seems to many of your [fruit] plantations need the foreign labor, as US citizens don’t want to do the work…
Perhaps another wide-spread misconception by one who has only seen travel-brochure type videos and tourist-oriented films; it might surprise the worldly EUropean types to learn that a higher degree of mechanization is employed to ‘pick’ fruit today versus what one sees on those ‘travel’ films …

ATheoK
Reply to  goldminor
November 9, 2016 1:18 pm

_Jim
There are many fruits and vegetables that still require manual labor; to prune and trim when needed, to pick the ripe fruit without bruising and without damaging the plant.
HenryP
It has nothing to do with people not wanting to do the work.
Farmers, vineyards and orchardists would love to pay a decent wage. But the farmers are severely restricted by the markets to whom they sell pickings.
There is a severe disconnect between prices at retail outlets and the prices paid to farmers.
Farmers, construction outfits, small businesses take advantage of the low wages illegal immigrants accept.
Wages that are lower than what was traditionally paid to seasonal laborers entering the USA on temporary work visas.
The structure of America’s vote process, is an attempt designed by the founders, to control and hopefully prevent large population centers from becoming political power centers controlling the government.
Known as tyranny of the majority. Something the elites were trying to reach with their control of large sheeple groups.
When looking at Trump’s election results, even with America’s large urban population centers voting for Clinton, the rest of the country’s votes for Trump carried the Electoral College vote.
Electoral College’s delegates are assigned by State and population.
Individual voters vote within their State/community for delegates, actual people, who carry their vote to the Electoral College Presidential vote. A person who if you are really interested, you can talk to personally.
Electoral College delegates are held to accurately represent their community’s choices for only the initial votes. When candidates fail to elect a definitive Electoral College majority, i.e. first votes fail to select a President, the candidates, within certain parameters, can change their votes during subsequent votes.
A Vice Presidential candidate going into an undecided Electoral vote may become President elect during the delegates attempts to negotiate a majority for a candidate. Again, a delegate is a person one can know and who will accept discussion and input.

Reply to  HenryP
November 9, 2016 11:04 am

The wall was mostly bluff to force congress off its big dead butts and actually do something effective. Congress never really wanted to solve the problem, too much money in keeping it a problem.
It boils down to this: There are two questions that everyone must answer: 1) Who are you? and 2) Why are you here? These are the same questions everyone gets asked when presenting their passport. If you can’t or won’t answer those two questions you don’t buy cars or houses or get a job or medical care or a drivers license and those that provide same are in big trouble.
The president’s job is to enforce the laws and if he needs to tell the INS to round up law breakers and kick them out, he has the authority.
We processed 120 million votes in one day, we can certainly process 11 million illegals in a year.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 9, 2016 11:42 am

search for Secure Fence Act of 2006 – wall is already there, Bush signed it

henryp
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 9, 2016 11:45 am

Also true
we have similar problems here
Our borders are not protected so people from Africa come to south africa for work. Big B dont care just so they have an endless pool of cheap labor…
seems to big G and big B are alway in collusion??

TheLast Democrat
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 9, 2016 3:28 pm

Mexico building a wall to reduce illegal immigration into the U.S.:
I don’t think Trump ever said where the wall would be.
It has been rumored that Trump’s plan is to help Mexico build a wall on their southern border, with Guatamala.
This would explain Trump’s amicable visit to Mexico. We will see.

TheLast Democrat
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
November 9, 2016 3:32 pm

We need another million immigrants a year for their labor, and we are certainly able to provide social services for those who need them.
But we have to have government-funded abortion of a million of our own citizens each year because it is a financial burden to have those million kids around.
Makes sense to me. We avoid the lag between birth and productive years by killing off a million and, instead, preserve the lifetime of productivity that otherwise would be lost by allowing a million at labor-age to come in.

Reply to  HenryP
November 9, 2016 11:10 am

HenryP, We have a democratic republic of individual states. Our founders did not believe in a straight democracy therefore built in limitations to prevent majorities from doing stupid things and also to give some protection to minorities. If you really want to know the reasoning for our forms read the Federalist Papers.

Reply to  HenryP
November 9, 2016 11:50 am

HenryP
November 9, 2016 at 10:53 am
not really
it is not fair?
whoever got the most votes should have won the election.

Wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability.
I do not want the Office of President decided soley by the residents of Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, Cleveland, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, and LA.

MarkW
Reply to  TomB
November 9, 2016 2:37 pm

Those areas where one party controls all the levers of government are also the areas where cheating is the easiest.
At present, no matter how much you cheat, the most you can win is the votes of your state.
Going to a popular vote means that every illegal vote counts.
A better solution is to go to a system whereby the vote of each congressional district is awarded based on who ever wins in that district and the states two senatorial votes are awarded to the whoever wins the state.
This has two advantages, it makes cheating even less profitable and it makes the electoral college vote better match the popular vote.
Two states, Maine and Nebraska already do this.

Reply to  MarkW
November 9, 2016 2:44 pm

The problem is what you mentioned first. Since laws are by state (and so is enforcement), house districts are not able to regulate the illegals voting, only the states can.

Reply to  TomB
November 9, 2016 3:15 pm

Our Founding Fathers were afraid of the tyranny of the majority (big-State masses) overwhelming sanity. In the era of big government and the big media that supports it, thank gawd for the Electoral College.

Johann Wundersamer
November 9, 2016 10:44 am

As always, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley – stainless.

FerdinandAkin
November 9, 2016 10:48 am

The EPA does not need to be abolished; the EPA needs to be brought back to the bounds of its original charter in 1970.

MarkW
Reply to  FerdinandAkin
November 9, 2016 2:37 pm

And what do you do when it immediately starts to exceed those bounds again?

commieBob
November 9, 2016 10:52 am

Climate research should be removed from NASA and put back in NOAA where it belongs.
The temperature record should be un-adjusted.

Editor
Reply to  commieBob
November 9, 2016 11:26 am

And then NOAA should be shut down!!

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  Paul Homewood
November 9, 2016 12:08 pm

Agreed – NOAA should be shut down. This is the agency that was post “editing” historical records for Weather Stations. Along with insisting on using “adjusted” data vs. raw data, with “adjusted” data averaging higher, when it should have been adjusted downward to compensate for U.H.I., urban sprawl, and poor to bad locations.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Paul Homewood
November 9, 2016 2:12 pm

NOAA runs some interesting satellites. They are necessary. They are there for a reason.
You don’t have to dump an organisation to changes its direction. The USA didn’t cancel ‘presidency’ they just put a new butt in the chair. Context is everything.

Reply to  Paul Homewood
November 9, 2016 3:20 pm

Crispen, boosting satellites into orbit is fundamentally different than assuming a “climate” science mantle.

Editor
November 9, 2016 10:54 am

Some of Monckton’s suggestions take on the color of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Let’s hope that the new executive branch takes a calmer, more reflective approach and less of a knee-jerk “whatever he did, I’m doing the opposite” approach.
When I discover that my boat is on the wrong course, I don’t just throw it in reverse — I review the charts and set a new course from where I am to where I want to go.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Kip Hansen
November 9, 2016 11:48 am

Kip,
And if you find you were going dead East when you should have been going North? At the minimum you turn 90 degrees to the North, but you may have some Westerly backtracking to do too. That’s the situation we are in now with the EPA and CAGW.

Editor
Reply to  Paul Penrose
November 9, 2016 7:24 pm

Paul ==> You describe the actions of a sensible Captain — he first has to evaluate 1) Where he is; 2 ) Where he wants to go; 3) What is the best course from here to there?; 4) What course change(s) would make the smoothest sailing that would add up to answer 3. Sailing involves a lot of pragmatic decisions — and, as you say, the right answer would not always (in fact would seldom ) be a single sharp 90° turn.
If one finds oneself way off course and not where one expected, correction often involves picking a new destination, at least in the short term — this has actually happened to me in a severe storm in the Caribbean (which resulted from broken steering mechanism). Worked out for the best. We eventually made our original destination after a few intermediate steps.
Cheers.

David L. Fair
Reply to  Kip Hansen
November 9, 2016 7:49 pm

Kip, competence is always the determinant. Before the ultimate disaster, hopefully the crew will replace the master. Socialism does not offer that safety valve. Socialistic systems always wind up on the rocks of history. America just had a course correction.

Editor
Reply to  Paul Penrose
November 9, 2016 8:08 pm

David ==> We have yet to see if the new Captain is competent. If he just becomes a Bizarro-bama (a Bizarro World character doing the opposite of everything Obama did), then we will be no better off, just different.
The problem with mutinies is that getting rid of all the officers usually ended up in total disaster — the crew had no idea how to navigate, no real concept of how to run and operate a ship — they ended up, if they survived at all, as sea trash/pirates or going native on seldom visited islands. Worse off than they started.
That’s the beauty of the American system — the President is powerful, but not All Powerful — he can’t make laws, only enforce them.
It will be interesting to see how it works out.
Trump’s win will certainly stir the pot!

David L. Fair
Reply to  Kip Hansen
November 9, 2016 8:16 pm

Kip, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan are two Presidents that exemplified leadership in difficult circumstances. Neither had dictatorial powers, but managed to steer America to greater heights. Don’t discount the individual.

ATheoK
Reply to  Kip Hansen
November 9, 2016 12:43 pm

Kip:
“Some of Monckton’s suggestions”. Well that is clear as mud. You don’t agree is all I get out of that sentence.
Then your blue water analogy is sorely mistaken.
If your boat is on the wrong course deep in the swamps, in a narrow bayou with alligators, snakes and bears swarming around.
I’ll bet sure as hell, that if your boat is motorized, you’d throw it into reverse with as much speed as you can handle.; until you reach water safe enough to turn around.
The rule is, get out of trouble first!
If it isn’t absolutely necessary, there is no reason to carry the dead weight.

Editor
Reply to  ATheoK
November 9, 2016 7:31 pm

ATheoK ==> “You don’t agree is all I get out of that sentence.” Yes, that is correct, I don’t agree.
(I take it you are not a sailor….)

ATheoK
Reply to  ATheoK
November 10, 2016 2:49 am

Kip:
I’ve spent more time in tidal creeks and the bayous around New Orleans and southern New Orleans.
You used an open water analogy, where there are 360′ of open water options. However, the discussion is about the treacherous swamp of Washington DC.
I countered with a closed option backwater analogy. One where alligators, cottonmouths, pigs and many other critters are much more likely.
Twice, I’ve had to go overboard and play Bogart’s African Queen role of pulling a boat through muck to deeper water. There are quite a few more times where I had to raise the motor and pole or paddle back out to a channel.
A boater speeding through bayous is always checking the motor wash for color and watching the motor’s cooling water spout. Color means the prop is hitting the bottom. No water spout means the motor sucked up debris, plugging the cold water intake; which means the motor is heading towards catastrophic overheating.
Straying out of the deeper water in the bayous is a problem, even for a boat with shallow draft; mine is nine inches.
Now that jet motors are available for regular boats, at a significant premium, jet motors allow boats travel deeper into the shallows.
Though, once the keel is firmly bedded, boater’s must get in the water to drag the boat; especially in the Gulf coast bayous with their 12 hour tide cycle. High tide can be many hours away and clouds of mosquitos are always present.
My trips in open water are always beelines to certain rigs for fishing, with the farthest 25 nautical miles south of the Mississippi River’s SW pass. Little teeny tiny boat, big big great big ocean! Even using my boat on the East coast, I prefer feeder creeks and tidal channels; the Atlantic Ocean is no place for a small craft like mine though it does take swells easily near the mouth of the Delaware or Chesapeake bays.
I earned my Red Cross canoeing certificate at age 16 and my canoeing merit badge shortly after. I also earned my U. S. Power Squadron boater and navigation certificate while in New Orleans.
I’ve foolishly paddled a canoe across lakes and even across the Delaware bay. You want excitement? Catch a hammerhead shark while fishing from a canoe that does not have a keel. Desire despair? Paddle the same canoe up a much too shallow tidal creek. Beached canoes are a challenge. Climbing back in my center console is as easy as climbing the rear ladder. Getting back into a canoe while covered in silt and muck is an adventure!
No matter where one sails, paddles or motors, changes in course are dictated by conditions, weather and obstacles.
Deep into the wrong swamp surrounded by unfriendly critters, put the boat in reverse at maximum controllable speed.

Editor
Reply to  ATheoK
November 10, 2016 8:42 am

ATheoK ==> Interesting environment for boating, isn’t it?
Yes, my sailing has been on the open sea (except for excursions to the mangroves to hide from hurricanes) and in my younger years on a 400 ft coastal freighter in Iberia, North Africa and the east Atlantic sub-tropical islands (Azores, Canaries, etc).
You may well be right about small boat handling in the creeks of the bayous — backwards may be the only option.
I speak of course corrections in a larger, greater context.
I am not political myself — preferring to operate on a more one-to-one, family-to-family, community welfare level — did a lot of humanitarian work in the northern Caribbean over the last 12 years.
I think that nationally, we need to figure out where we are, where we want/need to go, and carefully consider the best route that gets us there without battering the vessel to pieces and with due consideration for the welfare, safety and comfort of the crew and passengers.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
November 9, 2016 1:41 pm

Kip,
I also was thinking that the demands of Monckton (especially in his judical language) and of of others are way too far, A good leadership needs careful consideration and then a careful action – step by step.

MarkW
Reply to  Johannes S. Herbst
November 9, 2016 2:39 pm

On the other hand, a good negotiator always asks for more than he expects to get.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Kip Hansen
November 9, 2016 5:58 pm

Mr. Hansen,
“When I discover that my boat is on the wrong course, I don’t just throw it in reverse — I review the charts and set a new course from where I am to where I want to go.”
That seems wise, and I think this is very good time to discuss actual objections to suggestions like those in question here, and I would like to see that from people like yourself . . Broad generalizations can make that more difficult, it seems to me . .

Editor
Reply to  JohnKnight
November 9, 2016 7:58 pm

JohnKnight ==> Monckton’s suggestions are just that — generalities — made without consideration of the devilish details.
Numbers 2, 3 and 4 call for cancellation/revocation of a large swath of programs and subsidies, without regard to their intent, effectiveness, or details.
Number 5 is unthinkable — as it calls for a specific energy solution for all (coal plants) without regard to local realities on the ground. Some countries may best be served by large hydro plants, other by development of natural gas reserves … you see this point? He makes the same mistake the greenies make — one solution for all, whether it makes sense or not.
Number 6 — more overboard-ness. A better approach might be something along the lines of what I suggested at Judith Curry’s site in this essay: “Discussion: can we hit the ‘restart’ button?”.
Number 7 — just plain stupid (pardon my bluntness). The EPA has important work to do and should be put back on track. It has overstepped its regulatory powers, encouraged by Presidential fiats. It shoul dbe reined in, and directed back to its lawful purposes and held accountable to the people.
Many of his suggestions require the new President to take the same types of unconstitutional actions as his predecessor — ruling by fiat and executive order. That’s not the American way, my friends. Wasn’t right when Obama did it and isn’t right now.
Calm, deliberative, constructive, science-based, moral and ethical and within the law — these types of actions will mark the new Presidency as a change for the better.

JohnKnight
Reply to  JohnKnight
November 10, 2016 4:52 pm

Mr. Hansen,
“Numbers 2, 3 and 4 call for cancellation/revocation of a large swath of programs and subsidies, without regard to their intent, effectiveness, or details.”
I was kinda hoping you could give some examples of actual “programs and subsidies” you feel are worthy of continuing . . and note that Mr. Monckton specified;
“Termination, on environmental and humanitarian grounds, of all Federal Government payments to foreign entities in connection with climate change” . . and similarly worded clauses in 3 and 4, which I read (perhaps wrongly) as meaning justified by the CAGW hypothesis in particular. As in, other justifications might exist in various instances, which got swept up into the general “movement” for political/propaganda purposes, but that he does not consider it a good idea to treat the CAGW justification as sufficient unto itself.
(That’s sorta how I approach the matter, so again I may be misunderstanding his intent there . . but I would like your thoughts about “detaching” expenditures from the specific justification of the CAGW imperative . . )
“Number 5 is unthinkable — as it calls for a specific energy solution for all (coal plants) without regard to local realities on the ground.”
Well, he just said a program of humanitarian assistance with the installation of coal-fired power stations and electricity grid infrastructures . . I doubt he meant to install them regardless of the suitability in any particular instance . . just a program to help if suitable/viable (without ruling out other potential assistance when not.) If I read him rightly there, does the idea of such a program trouble you unto itself?
“Number 6 — more overboard-ness.”
Say what? Independent inquiry is ovebored-ness? . . It seems to me to be quite compatible with what you suggested at Judith Curry’s site . . indeed called for in a sense by you . .
“Number 7 — just plain stupid (pardon my bluntness). The EPA has important work to do and should be put back on track. It has overstepped its regulatory powers, encouraged by Presidential fiats.”
Environmental Protection Agency . . It seems to me the name itself is an invitation to authoritarian overstepping . . like whatever the environment happens to be somewhere , it MUST be “protected” as is . . Why? Why not an Environmental Advisory Agency, or some such more we the people friendly approach? . . as in, maybe the “locals” should be deciding what in THEIR environment ought to be protected, ya know?
Anyway, I suggest inquiring/discussing with Mr. Monckton about specifics, which may be far less at odds with your views than it might appear at first . .

rbabcock
November 9, 2016 10:54 am

Whatever Trump does he needs to do it very early on before the lobbyists get involved. We have a huge container ship trying to get turned 180 deg .. it is going to take a while. Plus if it is all in one big item (like Obamacare), who is going to read it??

November 9, 2016 10:55 am

I agree with keeping the EPA as Anthony states, and for the same reasons as he states. Trump can appoint a new head for the department, and that should end the EPA/AGW problem.

MarkW
Reply to  goldminor
November 9, 2016 11:41 am

Until the next president decides that a corrupt EPA suits his purpose and appoints criminals.

Reply to  MarkW
November 10, 2016 3:19 pm

This administration should reshape the mandate for the EPA to where it works alongside of industry to resolve potential environmental problems. Do away with the adversarial relationship.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  goldminor
November 9, 2016 12:09 pm

Sorry got to disagree. Take way to long and be far to costly to cleanup the EPA.
Time to start Fresh.

Reply to  goldminor
November 9, 2016 1:49 pm

Entrenched bureaucracies can be very hard to change. Obama, and to some extent Clinton and GBush stuffed the EPA with ultra green liberal types. Many are just political apparatchiks without a grounding in science. Anyone who is not a political appointee(generally the Director and their direct reports, maybe some regional heads) are civil servants and can’t be removed for political reasons. The President would have start a major reorganization to eliminate bunches of jobs, start new groups, new job descriptions, comply with Civil Service rules and union deals. If the President doesn’t do all that all he can do is appoint some folks and rearrange the deck chairs while the troops go on doing what they’ve been doing.

David L. Fair
Reply to  philohippous
November 9, 2016 8:08 pm

Without laboring over a primer on Federal Executive Branch operations, disobeying a direct order is grounds for dismissal or reassignment. While capture, however, of the political appointee by the bureaucrats happens, it depends on how tough President Trump wants to be. Want to bet?

November 9, 2016 10:59 am

Anthony: I agree with your preamble, with the partial exception of the defense of EPA. Your points are correct in that an agency such as EPA is necessary. What is not correct is that it WAS doing useful work up until climate change became the universal ill. EPA had already become a useless agency, floundering in a quagmire of contradictory rules, programs, guidance and zealotry. The Superfund program (direct experience talking here) was/is one of the biggest money wasting, ineffectual laws/regs EVER written, and RCRA makes it nearly impossible to be in compliance. The air permitting program is a hopeless mess which almost nobody understands, and its waterways group is tantamount to climate crusaders in the zeal for Earth first, humans later. I think EPA S

Don
Reply to  Tom G(ologist)
November 9, 2016 11:51 am

Well the problem is that we have industrial wastes and if industry is allowed to dump these wherever it wants then we end up with polluted waterways and polluted air. So we need laws that constrain industry in exactly the same way that we need laws that constrain me from dumping my garbage into the river or onto my neighbor’s property. Yes, we have to get rid of ridiculous regulations but no, we can’t just say to industry do what you like so long as you create jobs. Like everything else in life, it’ll take some finesse. We need a base of accurate, honest information on the biochemical interactions of industrial chemicals, for example, and we need to apply this knowledge intelligently.

Reply to  Don
November 9, 2016 12:16 pm

I think Monkton’s point is that the states each have an EPA/DEP and that is where the regulation comes in. My point (see my second post) is that a fdederal EPA DOES have a function in establishing uniform national standards and providing the science behind same. It should not have regulatory or enforcement powers, however, which belong to the states, whose environmental protection statutes are just as strong, or stronger, than EPA’s.

Reply to  Don
November 9, 2016 1:31 pm

“we can’t just say to industry do what you like so long as you create jobs”
Don, no one is saying that. When the EPA was created there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no cell phone cameras, no ability to instantiate a flashmob of protesters or raise public awareness or easily organize a far reaching boycott or otherwise leverage public pressure. Technology has largely rendered the need for a regulatory agency to protect the waterways etc from polluters obsolete.
One carefully enacted law holding polluters accountable combined with concerned citizens armed with cell phones and backed by the media will be sufficient to hold nearly all potential industry polluters in check and do it for free. In today’s environment no company is going to risk the public outcry of wantonly dumping toxic substances instead of properly handling and disposing of them. Certainly industrial accidents will still occur but the EPA wouldn’t prevent that either. And we will need some way to fund cleanup since some companies may not have the resources to do so.

MarkW
Reply to  Don
November 9, 2016 2:40 pm

We already have such laws. It’s called property rights.
You can’t pollute other people’s land or water.

MarkW
Reply to  Don
November 9, 2016 2:42 pm

thallstd; Once upon a time all of that was taken care of via riparian rights. That was, if someone polluted a stream that crossed your land, you had the right to sue them and make them clean it up.
The problem was that at the behest of businessmen, politicians voted to gut riparian rights.
The EPA was a cheap fix to a problem that government caused.

Lance Wallace
November 9, 2016 11:00 am

The good Lord M forgot about removing all “renewable” subsidies.
Here is my list:
Paris agreement repudiated
$3B pledge by Obama rescinded (except for $500 M already delivered, and perhaps more during lame-duck period)
$100B global pledge severely reduced by US non-participation
Keystone pipeline revived (assuming Trudeau recognizes it will be good for Canada)
Sioux pipeline work resumed (protestors gassed, jailed, etc.)
Alaska opened up to Shell & Exxon
Pressure on West Coast states for LNG port approvals to supplement the Louisiana port (provide for shipments to Asia)
Off-shore drilling expanded off Louisiana
Solar and wind subsidies ended
EPA war on coal ended
Fracking on US public lands considered, probably some test wells drilled in promising areas
Nuclear power research increased? Regulations eased. Maybe thorium, molten salt reactors, etc. considered.
Electric car subsidies ended?
Federally funded climate research ended or else redirected to look at natural causes of global warming

HenryP
Reply to  Lance Wallace
November 9, 2016 11:03 am

Good
Ok for me

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Lance Wallace
November 9, 2016 11:52 am

That’s a good start. On the Nuclear Power front, what we really need are new designs approved and fast-tracking of lawsuits so that we can get them built in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. Also need to approve some sort of spent fuel reprocessing technology and open up the damn repository in Nevada that we spent so much money on.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Paul Penrose
November 9, 2016 4:54 pm

If the waste is reprocessed, there is a greatly diminished need for long-term storage. (Most of the “waste” is perfectly good nuclear fuel, contaminated with some “neutron poisons” left over from fhe fission process. Separate the poisons from the fuel, put the fuel back in a reactor, and then deal with the poisons.)

Reply to  Lance Wallace
November 9, 2016 12:42 pm

You forgot to mention the end of Ethanol mandates and subsidies.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Lance Wallace
November 9, 2016 1:39 pm

Promote use of natural gas for home heating in place of oil.
Also promote it for use in trucks.

MarkW
Reply to  Roger Knights
November 9, 2016 2:42 pm

Let the market work. The government shouldn’t be promoting anything.

TA
Reply to  Roger Knights
November 10, 2016 4:45 am

“Let the market work.”
That’s the secret. The market works just fine as long as it is left alone. It will seek its own level. The proper level.

David S
November 9, 2016 11:05 am

With regard to #7 how about this: The very first sentence of the very first article in the Constitution says: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” As it is now the EPA creates rules which carry the force of law, but were never enacted by congress. So we have in effect laws created by un-elected and unaccountable federal bureaucrats instead of our elected officials in congress. Therefore EPA should be stripped of all rule making authority. They can propose rules but they don’t take effect unless enacted by congress.

Reply to  David S
November 9, 2016 11:52 am

Yes!

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  David S
November 9, 2016 12:15 pm

“As it is now the EPA creates rules which carry the force of law, but were never enacted by congress.”
Much like abuse of Executive Orders. E.O.s were never meant to be Laws. E.O.s were supposed to explain to various parts of Government how to properly enact Laws passed by Congress.
A review of every E.O. issued going back to founding of this country should be undertaken, starting with most recent. Any E.O. that borders on Law or Regulation should be Voided. If the E.O. is that important, let Congress enact it as a Law.

BACullen
Reply to  David S
November 9, 2016 1:36 pm

+1

Reply to  David S
November 9, 2016 1:37 pm

Exactly what I have advocated for years. I’m glad we’re in agreement. The counter argument is that law making takes too long. I don’t find it to be all that much longer than their rule making. What they really mean is that if it had to be considered by congress what they propose would never be passed. Which is as it should be.

MarkW
Reply to  TomB
November 9, 2016 2:43 pm

Congress wants credit for doing something without have to risk being blamed when something goes wrong.

Johna Till Johnson
Reply to  David S
November 9, 2016 4:48 pm

Yep, that works.
And Mark W: the market does not “work”, when it comes to environmental issues. Companies pollute like fiends, and unless they’re forced (by the government) to clean up their crap, they won’t, because the market doesn’t require them to.
I kayak in the Hudson and East rivers around NYC–the same ones that GE polluted to the brim in the 1970s. Thanks to government regulation and enforcement, we now have seals, dolphins, and whales in the NYC waterways.
And last I checked, GE was pretty damn healthy, too.
This is a net improvement (industry wins, so do common citizens) and it’s something the government SHOULD be doing: enforcing a level playing field for everyone, and making sure that it serves the common good.
The market only requires a level playing field–it doesn’t care about the common good.
“Nobody gets to pollute” and “everybody gets to pollute” are both level playing fields.
Only one of them serves to “promote the general Welfare”, as it says in the preamble to the Constitution. It is government’s job to select the level playing field that ALSO supports a free market–not to stand idly by while the general welfare is destroyed by the tragedy of the commons.

Reply to  Johna Till Johnson
November 10, 2016 6:44 am

“The market only requires a level playing field–it doesn’t care about the common good.”
I don’t know what “market” you’re referring to here. In a modern economy the market is comprised of the competition between those selling goods and services to acquire more customers. It has nothing to do with “a level playing field.” It is an unlevel playing field that results in advantages in one area for one company and another area for another, whether a cheaper supplier, a better manufacturing process, smarter marketing, a more efficient distribution channel, etc.
And to say “the market” doesn’t care about the common I think is very much outdated. Perhaps the common good was at risk before the age of cell phones with cameras, facebook, twitter, 24 hr news, alternative news, the ability to, in seconds, instantiate a flashmob of protesters, raise public awareness or organize a far reaching boycott or otherwise leverage public pressure. But technology has armed hundreds of millions of concerned citizens with the tools needed to monitor and protect “the common good”.
Laws, whether enacted by Congress or by the EPA (as regulations with the force of law) will not prevent someone who intends to pollute from polluting any more than they prevent a thief from stealing. At best they enact punishment. The EPA will not prevent polluters from polluting any more than the illegality of it will and neither, I suspect, will serve as strong a deterrent as concerned citizens armed with todays technology.
Any company who willfully pollutes today will suffer the wrath of an army of concerned citizens and unending bad press from an equally aware and concerned media. They will risk of both organized boycotts and individuals deciding to spend elsewhere as well as heavy fines. And without major mea culpa will likely be driven out of business.
That is the market at work. And with today’s technology and citizen awareness, I think the common good will be well monitored and accordingly protected.

Reply to  David S
November 10, 2016 11:48 am

Excellent. Yes.

JEM
November 9, 2016 11:07 am

Hello, UVA? This is President-Elect Trump.
Hear you’re still sitting on Dr Mann’s email.
Nice school you’ve got there, lots of federal student loans and research money. Shame if something were to happen to it…

Reply to  JEM
November 9, 2016 6:52 pm

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
you get the message.

Philip Peake
November 9, 2016 11:08 am

The EPA could usefully be reduced to three full time employees. I agree that it has a place and was a necessary thing to create at the time. However, most of the heavy lifting has been done. they are mostly now just trying to justify their existence. if some real problem did crop up, it would be possible to add more (temporary) staff as required.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  Bubba Cow
November 9, 2016 12:16 pm

“what to do with their guns?”
Give them to We the People! We paid for them, those guns belong to us!

Chimp
Reply to  Bubba Cow
November 9, 2016 4:55 pm

Auction them off to militia groups.

Chimp
Reply to  Philip Peake
November 9, 2016 4:51 pm

They came; they saw; they cleaned up. Now they won’t go away, but rather look for new reasons for being.

Lance Wallace
November 9, 2016 11:08 am

Whoops, I should know better than to suggest Lord M missed a point. His comment on removing subsidies is clearly there at #3.

SteveC
November 9, 2016 11:23 am

Lots of room for improvement to rein in, and then incorporate the EPA, into other existing Federal agencies.

gnomish
November 9, 2016 11:25 am

#5 Program of U.S. humanitarian assistance with the installation of coal-fired power stations and electricity grid infrastructures in regions without electric power.
nope nope nope.
how about nope.
use your own money, mr M.
charity begins at home.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  gnomish
November 9, 2016 11:55 am

If this were to replace the vast amounts of money we currently spend on foreign aid…then I could agree to it. While I don’t think foreign policy should be driven by a desire to be “popular”, it doesn’t hurt to make a little effort make friends and be good neighbors.

November 9, 2016 11:27 am

My biggest hope is that Trump appoints someone with communication skills to explain why we should not fear CAGW and refute the scare stories. He needs redirect money wasted on fixing problems that do not exist into doing things that are genuinely useful.
To call Climate Change a “Chinese Hoax” is not good enough, it convinces no one to think again or to re-examine their beliefs.
Furthermore it is reasonable to conserve non renewable resources, such as coal and oil stocks.
It would do a lot of good to Trumps credibility if he were to show that he is able to work from a position of reason and reasonableness

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Julian Williams in Wales
November 9, 2016 12:05 pm

There is nothing “reasonable” about conserving coal and oil, unless it actually saves money.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 9, 2016 12:32 pm

It is not reasonable to conserve useful things that are irreplaceable.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 9, 2016 12:34 pm

Mistype, I meant to write: It is reasonable to conserve useful things that are irreplaceable.

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 9, 2016 2:45 pm

Nothing is irreplaceable. Even oil.

AndyG55
Reply to  Julian Williams in Wales
November 9, 2016 12:06 pm

I think you will be pleasantly surprised at who Trump’s advisor on climate will be. 🙂

Reply to  AndyG55
November 9, 2016 12:31 pm

That sounds like very good news.

Johna Till Johnson
Reply to  AndyG55
November 9, 2016 5:08 pm
Reply to  Julian Williams in Wales
November 9, 2016 1:23 pm

“To call Climate Change a “Chinese Hoax” is not good enough”
Agreed, I’m surprised that someone like Marc Morano has not payed him visit to explain the basics a little better.

Marcus
November 9, 2016 11:31 am

..I wish one, just one, of these liberal green Dooms Day believers would explain to me WHEN was the climate NOT changing ? What year…What century…and what was the perfect temperature before Humans made it change…And where did this change occur ? So many questions and so few answers but so many poor and destitute Humans, across the globe, suffering from the idiocy of the misguided ideology of the “Green” movement …Remember…..”The path to Hell is paved with good intentions”

Marcus
November 9, 2016 11:39 am

“So rather than abolish it, which would allow resurgence of those problems by the unscrupulous, I think a significant curtailment, plus a revocation of their powers of enforcement – putting enforcement in the hands of law, is a better choice.. – Anthony”
I more or less agree, but to empty the swamp, the EPA must be brought to a zero power position, then renamed so all the toxic waste within can legally be dismissed…It is a HUGE swamp we are dealing with…You would make a great pick to head the new IEPA..(Intelligent Environmental Protection Agency) because you see the best of things from both sides… ( and no, I am not sucking up to you to get off moderation) LOL

November 9, 2016 11:42 am

Awesome!
How about #11 – Appoint Dr. Judith Curry as science advisor to the president of the United States!

AndyG55
Reply to  wallensworth
November 9, 2016 12:07 pm

I don’t think it will be Judith.

henryp
Reply to  AndyG55
November 9, 2016 12:21 pm

Ted Cruz?

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
November 9, 2016 12:44 pm

Ok, I’m thinking Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen as climate advisor.

troe
November 9, 2016 11:51 am

Break up the EPA and several other cabinet level departments ie. Education and Energy. These were elevated as sops to special interests by politicians who beleived that solutions flowed from a centralized bureaucracy. I think we have enough experience to know that this is a fundamental fallacy.
How many John Beales does it take to convince us of that. The election of DJT means that rollback not reform is a possibility. We will see if the will is there.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  troe
November 9, 2016 12:20 pm

“I think we have enough experience to know that this is a fundamental fallacy”
Yep, it is called 19.5 Trillion Dollars in Debt, of which 9.5 Trillion was added in last 7-3/4 years.
There is a serious problem when Federal Government is the Largest Employer in United States, along with consuming the most money, with lowest rate of R.O.I.

MarkW
Reply to  Dems B. Dcvrs
November 9, 2016 2:46 pm

Actually the US has the largest ROI. The problem is that it’s negative.

November 9, 2016 11:53 am

I strongly disagree with the suggestion to get the US out of the IPCC. To the contrary, we should be even more involved, but with actual scientists (people who are willing to evaluate the data) leading our delegation. The climate is always changing and we should try to understand why. Taking our ball and going home is not the way forward. Providing support for skeptical evaluation of alternate theories is in everyone’s interest (with the exception of a small handful of people who don’t want anyone to see their data).

ECB
Reply to  Robert Clemenzi
November 9, 2016 12:08 pm

I’m for abandoning it. It is a rigged system.

MarkW
Reply to  Robert Clemenzi
November 9, 2016 2:47 pm

Even if 100% of the US delegation was actual scientists they would be ignored and outvoted at every turn. Just attending it gives it more respectability than it deserves.

Reply to  MarkW
November 10, 2016 12:00 pm

Very good point.

Chimp
Reply to  Robert Clemenzi
November 9, 2016 3:58 pm

Better to get rid of the IPCC altogether.
And the UN.

markl
November 9, 2016 11:53 am

First we should announce everything related to AGW is in hold, not canceled. We don’t want to unnecessarily panic the Green Machine into doing something drastic that would jeopardize rational thinking by the people that need to be convinced AGW is not a problem. We should have a proper open scientific investigation of AGW and fully discredit it to never rear it’s ugly head again. Force a maximum 6 months time frame to completion deadline. Then proceed with the plan (#6 will have been done). I agree the EPA has been beneficial in the past and removing CO2 from the pollutant category should fix that issue. I would also like to see all artificially corrupted data returned to its’ native state and those involved with the corruption removed from their positions and censured. How Trump handles AGW will determine if it is obliterated or just put to sleep.

Griff
Reply to  markl
November 10, 2016 5:50 am

Yes…
and then like the Berkley Earth skeptic funded investigation you’ll find warming is real, the surface temp series are reliable and it is human CO2 causing the warming.
really, there is no evidence against human caused climate change, only political rhetoric

November 9, 2016 11:55 am

Continuing from above… I think EPA’s early successes in clean air and cleaning up the real pollution of the ’60s was excellent. But like everything, it has grown too big, too powerful and is doing nothing more than self=-perpetuating now. It should be dismantled, re-built with strict limitations, but not abolished.

Wim Röst
November 9, 2016 11:57 am

11. Stimulate real and fact based climate science, for example in respect to the [deep] oceans, clouds, wind, the sun, paleo data etc. in order to finally understand what is REALLY happening in the world of weather and climate. And, for understanding what has happened in the past. INITIAL laboratorium effects don’t need to happen in the real, complicated and until now badly understood world.
We need more real research, science about the real world. For the whole spectrum of subjects, unbiased. With the best scientists there are and without a priori excluding ‘certain’ scientists with ‘other scientific insights’. Plus science with a special attention for until now partly or wholly excluded pathways. Science whose only goal is to discover the truth about climate. Whether her results will be politically interesting or not.
On bad science or ‘no science’ no good [policy] decisions can be made. There is much more we need to discover, much more we need to know. Climate is important enough to want it to be fully understood. First we need to know what is really happening. Or is NOT happening. And AFTER that we possibly can take policy decisions.
What is one or more billions for good research if compared to hundreds of billions spend in a possibly wrong way? First understanding the whole spectrum of climate, that is what is needed now. So far, no one really knows what the future will give.

eddie willers
November 9, 2016 11:59 am

I agree with all ten.

Man of Kent
November 9, 2016 12:00 pm

Dear Christopher – thanks for all your efforts over so many years in being able to write such a post .Let’s hope that this whole political edifice of international communism and the UN aiming to take over the world at the expense of conservative libertarians can crumble down .The next challenge is to repeal our Climate Change Act

cbdakota
November 9, 2016 12:01 pm

Reblogged this on Climate Change Sanity and commented:
I am reblogging this posting from WattsUpWithThat titled “In light of recent events-a Possible United States Climate Change Action Plan” by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. In a recent posting, I said that if Hillary Clinton was to become the President of the US, there would be no way to stop the misguided catastrophic global warming theory. Monckton has provided a 1O step plan to stop these wasteful expenditures that can be enacted by Donald Trump, who was elected to become the US’s next President.
cbdakota

Schrodinger's Cat
November 9, 2016 12:03 pm

An independent investigation into the science of climate change could be of great value to taxpayers of the world. In particular, they should look at the validity of the models and the extent to which flawed or invalid models are used as the basis for political advocacy and policy making.

henryp
Reply to  Schrodinger's Cat
November 9, 2016 12:27 pm

Good idea

Griff
Reply to  henryp
November 10, 2016 5:51 am

Well hang on – you already had that!
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

Chimp
Reply to  henryp
November 10, 2016 2:04 pm

Griff,
Surely you jest!
BEST is about as independent of the academic-government-Green industrial complex as the MSM are of the Democrap Party.

Bruce Cobb
November 9, 2016 12:07 pm

I like it! Use their own words against them. Hoist by their own petard.

jazznick1
November 9, 2016 12:10 pm

My reading of this seems to suggest that it’s 4 years till a full escape can be secured ?
Like a gym membership you have to sign up for an initial period before you can give a year’s notice !!?
Article 28
1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.

Reply to  jazznick1
November 9, 2016 1:19 pm

1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party,
Needs someone with a sharp legal eye, like Ristvan, but that would not seem to apply to USA which has not ratified the Paris agreement.

Marinus
Reply to  climategrog
November 10, 2016 2:56 am

USA has ratified the Paris agreement: http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-09-25/us-and-china-have-now-officially-ratified-paris-climate-agreement. Unless this article is wrong about that.

markl
Reply to  Marinus
November 10, 2016 10:12 am

Marinus commented: “…USA has ratified the Paris agreement: http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-09-25/us-and-china-have-now-officially-ratified-paris-climate-agreement. Unless this article is wrong about that…”
It’s an “agreement” without substance. Nothing more than Obama grandstanding his opinion. It disappears when Obama goes, which can’t be soon enough.

Reply to  Marinus
November 10, 2016 2:00 pm

@Marinus – your sources are wrong. Obama signed it, but the law of the land is that the Senate must approve it. The senate never did. So all it is, is Obama’s agreement, not America’s.

feliksch
Reply to  climategrog
November 10, 2016 5:04 am

Marinus, they have “accepted” it. http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9444.php
Entry into force of the Paris Agreement: legal requirements
http://unfccc.int/files/paris_agreement/application/pdf/entry_into_force_of_pa.pdf (Entry into force of the Paris Agreement: legal requirements)
The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.
[Arts.2 (1) (b), 14 (1) and 16, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]
The instruments of “acceptance” or “approval” of a treaty have the same legal effect as ratification and consequently express the consent of a state to be bound by a treaty. In the practice of certain states acceptance and approval have been used instead of ratification when, at a national level, constitutional law does not require the treaty to be ratified by the head of state.
[Arts.2 (1) (b) and 14 (2), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/wipolex/en/glossary/vienna-convention-en.pdf (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969)
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Overview.aspx?path=overview/glossary/page1_en.xml (Glossary of terms relating to Treaty actions)
„LEGAL OPTIONS FOR U.S. ACCEPTANCE OF A NEW CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENT“ by Daniel Bodansky , ASU http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/legal-options-us-acceptance-new-climate-change-agreement.pdf
Because international law focuses only on the international act of treaty acceptance, not the domestic approval process, it can reach a different conclusion than U.S. law about whether the United States has validly joined an international agreement. Under U.S. law, an inter- national agreement is invalid if the domestic approval process does not satisfy the Constitution. But, as a matter of international law, an agreement would be binding on the United States internationally even if the president, in consenting to the agreement, acted unconstitutionally. The only exception is if the constitutional violation was “manifest,”a condition unlikely ever to be met, given the uncertainties about the scope of the president’s power to enter into agreements without Senate or con- gressional approval (Henkin 1996, 500 n.174). …
Finally, the nomenclature used to describe agreements differs internationally and domestically. In inter- national law, the term “treaty” is used to refer to any legal agreement between states in writing. In U.S. practice, the term “treaty” has a narrower meaning, and is usually reserved for international agreements that receive the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate pursuant to Article II of the Constitution.
Types of International Agreements under U.S. Law:
– Article II Treaties (consent by 2/3 of Senate)
– Congressional-Executive Agreements (legislative approval by Congress)
Ex post approval by statute
Ex ante authorization by statute
– Treaty-Executive Agreements (accepted by the President under a prior treaty)
– Presidential-Executive Agreements (accepted by the President)
President has independent constitutional authority
Agreement consistent with and can be implemented under existing U.S. law
With respect to a possible Paris agreement, the following options are potentially available to the president: First, submit the agreement to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification, as an Article II treaty; Second, seek congressional approval of the agreement as an ex post congressional-executive agreement.This would require both houses of Congress to enact a law approving the agreement.
Third, accept the agreement without seeking Senate or congressional approval, based on the president’s existing statutory, treaty, or constitutional authority. …
As the COP 21 agreement contains no „has to“, „must“ or „is obliged to“ (no Article II treaty), it seems that the only black person with a white mother can get away with it. „If you vote, you are a citizen“ – if you sign, it’s a treaty. It is a political thing, thus it can be solved politically.

Griff
Reply to  jazznick1
November 10, 2016 5:52 am

That’s right. US can’t leave the Paris agreement for 3 years then must give 1 years notice.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Griff
November 10, 2016 1:19 pm

Griffie, you are so naive. Just by halting the Clean Power Plan The Donald will have negated Obama’s arrogance in signing that worthless piece of paper. The U.S. simply need do nothing, and all the watermelon hot air (ha, ha!) in the world will force compliance with a non-Treaty.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Griff
November 10, 2016 1:20 pm

… not force …

Reply to  Griff
November 10, 2016 2:26 pm

OBAMA cannot. The US can. The US never signed the agreement, nor does Obama have the authority to sign it for the US WITHOUT the consent of the Senate. The consent was never given.

Duncan
November 9, 2016 12:11 pm

Trump shouldn’t withdraw from the Paris Agreement – that could allow some future President to re-join it.
Instead Trump should send the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification. It will be quickly voted down, and with a vote against it on record no future Obama can claim a right to reinstate it.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  Duncan
November 9, 2016 12:22 pm

“Instead Trump should send the treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification. It will be quickly voted down,”
Don’t bet on that with the large number of Democrats in Congress who only need support of a few GOPe and RiNoCs Representatives and Senators.

JEM
Reply to  Dems B. Dcvrs
November 9, 2016 12:37 pm

Treaties require a two-thirds vote for passage.
Even with a few GOP desertions it’d never clear that hurdle.

Reply to  Dems B. Dcvrs
November 9, 2016 1:27 pm

It takes 67 to pass. There would have to be a LOT of Republican support, which is just not there. Even when one party seems to favor a treaty, there is not a monolithic vote for it as it impacts different states in different ways. I can guarantee you that Manchin (D) will not vote for it.

MarkW
Reply to  Duncan
November 9, 2016 2:51 pm

Without Senate ratification, the US can’t enter into the treaty in the first place.
There’s not need for Trump to do anything from a legal standpoint.
Of course giving a speech where he symbolically tears up the treaty is good theatrics and should cause a lot of greenies to explode in indignation.

November 9, 2016 12:21 pm

The problem with the EPA is it has outlived its usefulness. The work left to be done can be done by other agencies. The EPA now does more damage than those who they are supposed to monitor. So while I agree with you that it is unlikely to happen, I agree with Monckton that it should happen.

November 9, 2016 12:26 pm

Most of Lord Monckton’s suggestions are over the top (That’s part of his charm), but his calls for investigations (numbers 6 and 10) are interesting. I think some sort of inquiry on the wind industry is in order. Is there too much cronyism? Are their effects on the environment being critically evaluated? there’s a recent report on them killing more bats than expected. Are they the best use of rare Earth mineral resources? Are they conflicting with more viable nuclear options?
I would also suggest an investigation of past investigations? Why did so many investigations of the hockey stick not include Steve McIntyre? Why didn’t the NAS panel look closer at the R squared allegations?

According to Cicerone in JUly 2006, the House Science COmmittte, which had commissioned the NAS panel (not the House Energy and Commerce Committee) refused to pay NAS for the project because they had failed to deal with the issues that they had asked about.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/looks-like-steynnrceisimberg-dont-get-their-anti-slap-dismissal/#comment-123101

Monckton of Brenchley
Reply to  Canman
November 9, 2016 4:05 pm

None of the suggestions in the head posting is “over the top”. All are reasonable.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 10, 2016 12:06 pm

Lord Monckton, your suggestions – all of them – are more than reasonable, they are exactly what’s needed.

Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 10, 2016 10:21 pm

Lord Monckton, looking over them again, I’ll have to admit that I was being hasty and flippant by saying that most were over the top. The ones I had in mind were 3 and 7. Terminate “all federal government subsidies for climate change research”? I would think that we’d want to keep collecting data from things like argo floats and satellites. Also, since the title of the post calls these suggestions a “climate action plan”, doesn’t number 5 contradict number 2?

Griff
Reply to  Canman
November 10, 2016 5:54 am

They’d certainly find that the claimed effects on eagles are massively exaggerated.
(I note a report today showing Scotland’s eagles doing better than ever… despite all those wind farms)

sarastro92
November 9, 2016 12:31 pm

The Trump Adminsitartioon needs to be sure to install the following figures into senior positions at NOAA, NCAR, NASA Climate Unit and EPA: Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Chris Landsea, Phil Klotzbach, Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke and Willie Soon.
This will be Trump’s litmus test. Then we’ll know if he’s serious.

Chimp
Reply to  sarastro92
November 9, 2016 4:49 pm

Sallie Baliunas.
John Christy.
Shut down NASA-GISS and hire Steve McIntyre to produce for NOAA a new historical temperature series statistically and scientifically valid as any such enterprise can possibly be, which isn’t very. And fold NCAR into the National Snow and Ice Data Center, thus sending both Gavin and Kevin packing back their respective island nation homelands.

Griff
Reply to  sarastro92
November 10, 2016 5:55 am

Willie? Who took money from fossil fuel interests to do research without declaring it?
Only 2 of those have any credibility as scientists on the world stage. and not much, at that.

Gordon Runkle
November 9, 2016 12:41 pm

The Paris Agreement is an illegitimate and unconstitutional “executive agreement,” which is not and cannot be binding upon the United States. Trump should immediately repudiate and rescind it on that basis.

Dan Harrison
November 9, 2016 12:43 pm

As I recall the founder of the Federal EPA recommended several years ago that the responsibilities of the Federal EPA be transferred to the States and the Federal EPA abolished. His reasoning was simple, the original objectives of the Federal Agency were met several years ago. The States can more appropriately handle what still needs to be done.

MarkW
Reply to  Dan Harrison
November 9, 2016 2:52 pm

One size fits all, never does.

November 9, 2016 12:49 pm

Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
I tend to agree that an EPA stripped of is climate mandate could go back to delivering its original objective. However, many of the existing personnel, particularly those at the top, need to be shown the door at the earliest opportunity.

Admin
November 9, 2016 12:51 pm

I agree with the abolition of the EPA. The power it represents is too easy to abuse, a future president could restore its power to harm the economy.
Instead, environment laws should be devolved to state level, with limited federal arbitration in cases where states are affected by activities in neighbouring states.
Let individual states decide what balance they want, between the environment and economic development.

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 9, 2016 2:54 pm

The original meaning of the commerce clause was that the federal government was permitted to arbitrate between two states that were having disagreements.
The idea that the commerce clause allowed the federal government to directly regulate trade was specifically rejected by the people who wrote the constitution.

Jerry Henson
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 9, 2016 3:43 pm

Devolving is Jay Lehr’s position. As I am sure you know, when he was not jumping
out of airplanes, he founded the EPA.

JEM
November 9, 2016 12:54 pm

I agree in toto with a few of his suggestions, in part with a few others.
I do not support the complete abolition of the EPA; I’d propose a substantial (50%ish) headcount reduction, removal from Cabinet rank (place it under Interior), and amendments to the Clean Air Act to remove CO2 from its regulatory authority (as well as amending the Clean Water Act to remove casual rain puddles from ‘waters of the United States’, and other statutory limitations on its remit). Publicly release all email between EPA staff and external pressure groups (and if they used private email for public business, ruin them), terminate as harshly as possible anyone who participated in ‘sue and settle’, and identify and audit the transactions involved of any entity who received fine and settlement monies from EPA enforcement actions over the past thirty years.
As far as an independent review goes, start with the basics: a thorough review of the quality, consistency, and accuracy of available historical temperature, etc. data. Establish a quality-control process mandating full disclosure of data, code, and algorithms and independent reproduction of results for all Federally-funded climate research (and probably more generally through scientific fields as well); eliminate ‘peer review’ as an acceptable level of quality control.
I would not propose large-scale funding of coal power in the Third World, but I would eliminate participation in World Bank and other funding and support programs that use ‘climate impact’ as a program criterion.

Jim Carson
November 9, 2016 12:59 pm

Anthony, “because it did something good in the past” is a terribly weak argument for a fearsome and unconstitutional government agency like EPA. If you truly think it should be federal responsibility, you should argue for an Amendment that makes it legal.

u.k(us)
November 9, 2016 1:01 pm

It’s been a while, so here goes:

Dave in Canmore
November 9, 2016 1:05 pm

“we’ve lost the battle against climate tonight”
Dear Sam Stein, If all the people that support your cause acted to use less fossil fuels then you wouldn’t need the state to force it on anyone. Personal responsibility seems to be utterly a foreign concept to these totalitarians. They chose to not lead by example.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Dave in Canmore
November 9, 2016 3:43 pm

He actually said the battle against climate change. But his statement and your paraphrase are equally idiotic. Either he thinks climate should never change, or he hates the climate.

Uncle Gus
November 9, 2016 1:08 pm

Am I alone in doubting that Trump is going to do any of this?
He mentioned Climate Change just once in his campaign, discovered that his supporters were as unmoved by climate scepticism as they have always been by climate alarmism, and never mentioned it again. It’s not going to play to his core audience, so he won’t waste time on it.

u.k(us)
Reply to  Uncle Gus
November 9, 2016 1:18 pm

Yep, He’s got bigger dogs in the fight, I guess some will have to starve.
Maybe.

MarkW
Reply to  Uncle Gus
November 9, 2016 2:56 pm

If he wants to get jobs back into the US, one of the best ways to do this is by cutting back harmful regulations. Some of the most harmful and easiest to get rid of are in the area of energy.
Making energy cheaper and more reliable will bring back many jobs to the US and give all of his supporters more money to spend.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Uncle Gus
November 9, 2016 5:00 pm

The surrogate issue was energy independence, which pretty much requires us to ignore the green panic over carbon dioxide.

Vlad the Impaler
November 9, 2016 1:16 pm

This is my short list of P.-E. Trump’s ‘to-do’ ——
1) abolish EPA (state enforcement is much more localized and immediate)
2) get the US out of the U.N.
3) get the U.N. out of the US
4) fire and prosecute Comey
5) prosecute Lois Lerner, as well as any other IRS employees involved in TeaPartyGate
6) prosecute Hillary, the Clinton “Foundation”, and any officers thereof
7) make life a living Hell for any Supreme who voted to define CO2 as a ‘pollutant’
Draining the swamp might take a while, but unless you strike hard while the iron is hot, and keep striking, and keep striking and keep striking … … it could all be for naught.
As they say in my part of the country, “When in doubt, empty the magazine.”
Regards,
Vlad

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Vlad the Impaler
November 9, 2016 6:29 pm

He does not have the power to do #1, #2, #3, or #4 without Congressional approval, so I don’t think any of that will happen. Number 5 might be possible, but since Hillary and her staff will most likely be pardoned by Obama before he leaves office, I don’t see #6 happening either. He has no way of legally making #7 happen. The Supreme Court was intended to be separate and unassailable by the other branches of the federal government, and mostly it is.
I’m guessing you really don’t know how the US government works.

markl
Reply to  Paul Penrose
November 9, 2016 8:19 pm

Paul Penrose commented: “…He does not have the power to do #1, #2, #3, or #4 without Congressional approval, so I don’t think any of that will happen
The Republicans are going to start falling all over themselves to get next to Trump and they hold both sides of the house. What problem do you foresee?

Reply to  Paul Penrose
November 10, 2016 12:13 pm

Somewhere in comments either here or at Jo Nova’s someone stated that a pardon cannot be given for treason. Some officials see what H. Clinton did as treason. She’s not out of the woods yet.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
November 10, 2016 12:50 pm

No, the only case where pardons are forbidden is in the case of impeachments. Treason can be pardoned under the Constitution by the President.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
November 11, 2016 6:17 am

The only exception to the pardon is Impeachment. It can be given for treason.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
November 11, 2016 6:18 pm

That’s why Ford could pardon Nixon. He resigned before the impeachment happened.

Reply to  cdquarles
November 14, 2016 1:40 pm

@CD – True. But Impeachment only carries the penalty of removal from office. So when Nixon resigned, he made the issue of Impeachment moot. However, once removed from office, the office holder is liable for criminal proceedings, hence the pardon.

cedarhill
November 9, 2016 1:18 pm

High on the agenda would be to appoint Rudy Giuliani as Attorney General to kick off investigations and indictments on the Washington Swamp including all the junk science from the climate alarmists.

November 9, 2016 1:21 pm

The problem with an EPA is that it is basically a monopoly and dictator and serves no useful function to boot.
Air pollution and water pollution was not defeated by the EPA, but by those who wanted clean rivers, etc.
While there mauy have been some locales where pollution was preferable to unemployment, that was clearly
an odd thing, and the state would most likely have ovrruled the locale. The genius of the Federalist system is that it allows different states to attempt the same or different methods of dealing with a problem. The Federal govt’s most useful role is to enforce such things as standardization of electric outlets, etc. What it amounts to is the realization that seldom is a solution either universal, or obtained by one rather than many ideas and experiments, which states, but not the Federal govt can undertake. Ignorance of the advantages of the Federalist system is almost universal. I seriously doubt whether one in ten U.S. Senators could provide a coherent explanation of these advantages. Our Federalist system is one of our govt’s most valuable atrributes.

November 9, 2016 1:21 pm

The EPA should consist of, at most, 500 employees. It should have no legislative/regulatory authority. It should possess no firearms. It should not have ANY legislative/regulatory authority over a State of the USA. It should only identify problems and propose solutions for either a: Congress to put into legislation, or b: States to put into legislation. All regulations put into effect by the EPA since 1990 should be marked for death by 2025 unless congress legislates each separate regulation into US law, by a full vote of the Senate, the House, and ratification by the President, just as the founders law to be put into effect.

Peter Sable
Reply to  DNA Goatherder
November 9, 2016 5:29 pm

It should only identify problems and propose solutions for either a: Congress to put into legislation, or b: States to put into legislation.

In my ideal Federal government, the same goes for all agencies that don’t involve military, police, or courts. That would drop the budget down to < $1T and we could pay off our debt in about a decade.

Reply to  Peter Sable
November 11, 2016 6:20 pm

Mine, too; we have governments for cops, courts and armies. The rest are within the purview of a free people.

willhaas
November 9, 2016 1:32 pm

The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is plenty of scientific reasoning that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really zero. The most important task for the IPCC is to make an accurate determination of the climate sensitivity of CO2. In their first report they published a wide range of possible values. In their last report they published the exact same values. So after more than two decades of effort they have learned nothing that would allow them to narrow their range of guestamates one iota. To date their efforts have been a complete failure and wasting money on then should stop. The United State’s federal government is continuing to run at a loss with huge annual deficits. The United States has become a debtor nation with huge annual trade deficits. The red ink has to stop. The Unites States needs to stop spending money on useless efforts like fighting climate change. No one yet knows how to force the sun and the oceans to provide the ideal climate for everyone all the time. The ideal climate has yet to be defined. Mankind has been unable to change a single weather event let alone change global climate. Rather than spend money on problems that we cannot solve, we need to spend it on problems that we can solve, on efforts that will result in a real return for our investment.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  willhaas
November 9, 2016 2:06 pm

Will the reality is that there is no empirical, definitive evidence that adding more co2 to the atmosphere has any measurable effect on temperature. Please read that carefully

Hocus Locus
November 9, 2016 1:46 pm

Reversal of scientifically-unjustifiable measures such as the (de)listing of polar bears as endangered should be carried out at the earliest opportunity.

Gently and slowly, or you’ll terrify the children.
The ones who think they’ll be soon drown’d.

u.k(us)
November 9, 2016 1:50 pm

I can’t stop:

Paul Penrose
Reply to  u.k(us)
November 9, 2016 6:31 pm

For the dems you should throw in “Land of Confusion” by Genesis. The video is a hoot, BTW.

William Astley
November 9, 2016 1:55 pm

The EPA is completely out of control. More EPA regulations more job security for EPA employees, less jobs for Americans.
EPA justification science related to energy use was fudged as the objective (hidden agenda) was to increase the cost of hydrocarbon energy and to force the use of green scams.
An example of EPA fudged science is the justification for the mandated blending of ethanol with gasoline in the US which results in a 37% increase in energy use, not a reduction.
Trump’s challenge will be how to downsize the EPA without creating future problems which would result in the EPA’s return.
The EPA downsizing problem is solvable, as there is no CAGW problem to solve and regardless the green scams do not work to significantly reduce CO2 emissions due to the combined cycle paradox.