Last night, there was this tweet:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Awesome!
How about #11 – Appoint Dr. Judith Curry as science advisor to the president of the United States!
I don’t think it will be Judith.
Ted Cruz?
Ok, I’m thinking Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen as climate advisor.
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.
“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.
Actually the US has the largest ROI. The problem is that it’s negative.
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).
I’m for abandoning it. It is a rigged system.
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.
Very good point.
Better to get rid of the IPCC altogether.
And the UN.
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.
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
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.
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.
I agree with all ten.
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
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
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.
Good idea
Well hang on – you already had that!
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
Griff,
Surely you jest!
BEST is about as independent of the academic-government-Green industrial complex as the MSM are of the Democrap Party.
I like it! Use their own words against them. Hoist by their own petard.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
That’s right. US can’t leave the Paris agreement for 3 years then must give 1 years notice.
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.
… not force …
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.
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.
“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.
Treaties require a two-thirds vote for passage.
Even with a few GOP desertions it’d never clear that hurdle.
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.
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.
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.
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?
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/looks-like-steynnrceisimberg-dont-get-their-anti-slap-dismissal/#comment-123101
None of the suggestions in the head posting is “over the top”. All are reasonable.
Lord Monckton, your suggestions – all of them – are more than reasonable, they are exactly what’s needed.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
One size fits all, never does.
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.
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.
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.
Devolving is Jay Lehr’s position. As I am sure you know, when he was not jumping
out of airplanes, he founded the EPA.
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.
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.
It’s been a while, so here goes:
“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.
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.
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.
Yep, He’s got bigger dogs in the fight, I guess some will have to starve.
Maybe.
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.
The surrogate issue was energy independence, which pretty much requires us to ignore the green panic over carbon dioxide.