Prodding Trump’s EPA to reexamine Endangerment

Use external pressure to overcome Administration inertia on reviewing Endangerment Finding

William L. Kovacs

Campaign rhetoric strongly suggested that the Trump Administration would redress the Obama Administration’s insane attempts to regulate every aspect of society in a futile attempt to control nature and climate. President Trump withdrew from the Paris Accord, initiated repeal of the Clean Power Plan, sought a reasonable replacement for the plan, and turned off the regulatory fire hose. Great start!

But two years in, it is clear that the administration has stalled on dealing with the most significant part of Obama regulatory overreach: the 2009 Endangerment Finding – the Environmental Protection Agency’s declaration that plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere threaten the health and welfare of current and future generations.

While the Finding itself does not impose any new regulations, it does provide the administrative basis to justify a massive number of regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, data and facts asserted as supporting the Endangerment Finding (EF) drive many climate change studies, including the November 23, 2018 study titled Climate Change Special Report – Fourth National Climate Assessment Authoritative Report on the Science of Climate Change with a Focus on the United States.

Most unfortunate of all, while the evidentiary basis for the Endangerment Finding was subject to informal public comment and the scope of the Obama era Clean Power Plan was enjoined by a court, the studies underlying EPA’s Endangerment Finding have not been subjected to outside, independent expert analysis, nor tested in the rigors of cross-examination in a court or courtroom setting.

Simply put, without independent testing of the factual claims establishing its Finding, EPA retains the power to regulate all energy-producing and energy-using activities throughout the United States – and thus to regulate our production, consumption, transportation, employment base and living standards.

Since the climate change issue could not be resolved when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, it is even more improbable that a divided Congress could ever reach a compromise. Even worse, while EPA talked tough on climate change in the early days of the Trump Administration, it has since hung a “Do Not Disturb” sign on its front door.

So, what can citizens do in the next two years, knowing that neither Congress nor the administration will act to critically examine the supposed “facts” set forth in EPA’s Endangerment Finding?

My moral code prohibits me from saying “there is nothing we can do.” So I will set forth some modest proposals that can be taken up by younger people who have the energy and willingness to discover, highlight and dramatize the true facts and evolving knowledge underlying the science of climate change.

First and foremost, EPA must release all of its climate studies. It might surprise some, but many of the foundational studies have never been publicly released or are so old they are corrupted. In a similar case, amid my 20-year effort to obtain the “Six-City” health study, EPA told me in the late 1990s that the information belonged to Harvard University. A few years later, when I sought it under the Data Access law, EPA said information in the studies was developed before 2000 and the law was not retroactive. The Bush administration responded to my FOIA with documents that were so redacted that the only readable words were the “to” and “from” on the first page. And finally, the Obama administration told me the studies could not be produced because the information is now too corrupted to be usable.

But this is not about the lack of transparency in government. It is about obtaining and analyzing EPA’s climate data and studies, so that the science underlying the Endangerment Finding can be tested. That means you should not pre-judge any of the studies. You must let the analysis of facts in the studies be your guide. This is essential, because otherwise environmentalist groups, the news media, left-leaning politicians and others with a stake in the 2009 Finding will paint the entire effort as an attempt to destroy the planet and human civilization.

This search for the facts is crucial since establishing the facts is essential for developing the right policies for now and for after the Trump administration is gone. If the science proves the EF is solidly supported by the evidence, we will all know that we must develop and implement the very costly policies needed for mitigation. If the facts prove the Finding is faulty or highly uncertain, then the nation could save trillions of dollars by not implementing numerous useless projects. Here are my suggestions:

1) File a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requesting from EPA a list of all climate studies it has undertaken and links to the electronic version of the Endangerment Finding studies. A citizen friendly EPA should be most willing to provide the list of and link to the studies.

2) Should EPA provide this list and links, scientists from around the world could review the quality of the studies by evaluating them under the standards of review set out in the OMB Information Quality Act (IQA) Guidance Document: peer review, objectivity, reproducibility and similar standards. There are likely thousands of studies, so the essential first task is to identify the most influential studies, of which there are likely only a few.

3) A similar request could be filed under the Data Access Law for studies performed after 1999.

4) For the most influential studies, request that EPA provide the underlying data so that the actual data can be tested in accordance with the IQA Guidance Document. The government paid for and owns this data, so it should be available to citizens to test its reliability, reproducibility and the peer review quality.

5) When the most influential studies are identified and the underlying data secured, hire a team of forensic data scientists to analyze the data used in EPA’s studies, to determine whether the studies’ authors used the data properly … or used them in ways that supported a personal bias. For the most influential studies, the forensic data team should also review the emails that relate to the government study.

6) Concurrently, a group of non-scientists should compile a list of the scientists who performed the studies, the amounts the scientists were paid, potential conflicts of interest, the total number of federal grants each scientist received, and the qualifications of each scientist working on the climate studies.

7) Establish a review board of independent, non-political climate experts to determine the soundness of the facts underlying the Endangerment Finding. If the facts are sound, the matter is settled.

8) If the facts are judged not to support the EF or if they establish a high degree of uncertainty, then it is essential that a Petition for Rulemaking be presented to EPA to conform its Endangerment Finding with the data. If it is granted, then the process of getting the facts corrected will start.

9) If EPA denies the petition, the matter should be taken to federal trial court to challenge the arbitrariness of EPA’s decision. Keep in mind: this crazy idea to challenge an EPA denial of a petition for rulemaking in court is exactly the process that environmental groups used to win the Massachusetts v. EPA case in the Supreme Court. Just don’t forget – you need to include a few states to have standing to sue.

What is outlined is a long, long shot. It requires that EPA make government-owned scientific data available to the public for review. It assumes the Trump administration will be open to such a process and can make it happen in two years. It assumes that funds can be raised to hire the best scientists in the world to analyze the facts and defend them in court, if necessary. Finally, to paraphrase Colonel Jessup in the movie “A Few Good Men,” it assumes that both sides will be prepared to handle the truth.

But at least we will all have attempted to find the truth behind the Endangerment Finding, so our country will have the best information possible on which to make some very expensive and far-reaching public policy decisions.

William L. Kovacs was active in national policy issues for over forty years. He served as a senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs for a major business trade association, as chief counsel on Capitol Hill, as chairman of a state environmental board and as a partner in several Washington, DC law firms.

Advertisements

46 thoughts on “Prodding Trump’s EPA to reexamine Endangerment

  1. Back then someone based an entire political construction on the presumption that some “species” endanger the entire civilization. That endangerment was obviously “proven” by concerned scientists and two world wars ensued.

    Today the stakes are way higher since all complex organisms exhale CO2 as unavoidable part of their metabolism.

    Extending the “endangerment” mitigation actions to about all things living on earth since objectively there’s no chemical difference between the CO2 that we exhale and the CO2 our engines exhaust.

    Rooting CO2 as “endangerment” opens horizons far beyond what the darkest nazi theorists could envision.

    Take a tour on the old continent. We have more than enough preserved memorials of what it looks like.

    • By ‘species’ do you actually mean ‘breed’ or ‘race’?
      Groups of human being although ethnically dissimilar to other groups are still ‘homo sapiens’. Furthermore, I suspect the bias was railed against an ideology and not against genetic differentiation.

      • Mr. Rocket, they were “species”, UNTERMENSCHEN, “underpeople”.

        In which the green CO2 folly is even scarier since all things living exhale CO2, therefore harmful and endangering.

        Green ideology takes it to the next and final level.

  2. Good piece.

    The real issue for the EPA is not whether CO2 emissions globally are a threat to health and safety. Suppose they are. This would not justify the endangerment ruling.

    CO2 is unlike any other emission that the EPA deals with. The EPA has previously regulated US emissions which affect US citizens where they live, or the US territorial environment which is US territory.

    If for instance we regulate the discharge of particulates out of chimney stacks or noxious waste into waterways, we are dealing with harm or potential harm from people breathing or consuming them, or we are dealing with damage to the fish, wildlife or plant life.

    So regulation of this sort is clearly what the EPA was meant to do, and I think very few people would want unrestricted discharges either by agriculture or industry. We can see from the Chinese air quality now, or that of London before the Clean Air legislation, what the result of that is, and no-one in their right mind would want to live in it. Or take the result of the discharges of mercury into Japanese fishing waters.

    But CO2 is different. Its not US emissions which, on the theory, are damaging the interests of US citizens. Its global emissions, where the US only accounts for under 10% of them, and falling. There is no valid argument that cutting US emissions will make any impression on global emissions.

    If you really believe the CAGW story, then the obligation on a US government should be not to assent to Paris, because its just a way of reducing a tiny fraction of the supposedly damaging emissions, while permitting the bulk of them to grow on a scale that will more than wipe out the savings.

    The obligation should also not be to take unilateral action to lower US emissions, since that will be totally ineffective.

    The obligation should be to join with other countries and compel effective action to lower global emissions. From something like 37 billion tons a year to something well under 10 billion. That means, for instance, coercion applied to China and India, as part of a global program. It means real sanctions, starting with a total ban on imports unless emissions fall.

    Now it may be that as part of such a program countries in the West have also to lower emissions in tons – they would have to. We are talking a situation in which the UK’s emissions might fall from 450 million tons to well under 100 million, and the US from 5 billion to well under 1 billion. This would require, to start out with, the total elimination of the ICE and associated industries and living patterns.

    At that point however we are not dealing with policies that are properly the role of the EPA, but which require international treaties and commitments to social and economic changes of a kind that require a huge national program. Changes which are useless if done unilaterally without the big emitter participating.

    The original EPA endangerment finding contained the usual huge logical hole in the background: the assumption that if CO2 emissions globally endangered health and safety, then it must be that reducing them locally will make a difference and prevent that. But it will not, and this is why it should be reversed.

    Notice, its the same fallacy in Pelosi’s recent remarks, and in the PBS assertion about washing clothes in cold water. And in the Green New Deal. Keeps on coming up, as otherwise you cannot justify the proposed local measures.

    • “The obligation should be to join with other countries and compel effective action to lower global emissions. From something like 37 billion tons a year to something well under 10 billion. That means, for instance, coercion applied to China and India, as part of a global program. It means real sanctions, starting with a total ban on imports unless emissions fall.”

      Therin lie the horns of the dilemma Michel. The ‘advanced’ West got advanced by having a free 150 year free pass on emissions. According to the WRI 54% of total emissions (2011) have come from the US and Europe.

      https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/uploads/cumulative_emissions.png?_ga=2.251257422.978018145.1546939086-575078785.1546939086

      Now China and India, still at a per capita emission waay below ours, are expected to cease and desist. What do you think 600 million Indian villagers with no electricity think of that?

      • But they don’t need high emission electricity….solar and wind is much cheaper with nlower emissions so they don’t need to go down the fossil fuel path

        • I am hoping you just forgot the /sarc tag. Otherwise it means you know nothing about how an electrical grid works.

          • Yeah, it’s sad that lefties are so clueless that it’s hard to tell when you are talking to a clueless lefty or a non-lefty who is merely being sarcastic.

      • This is also characteristic of the green argument on warming, and is a fallacy. The argument starts out being that we have to have huge global reductions in emissions. And then all of a sudden we find ourselves arguing that its only fair that the biggest emitters continue.

        If the greens are right, and really believe what they say, then how 600 million Indians feel is neither here nor there. Nor is catchup by the Chinese an appropriate course of action.

        What this argument amounts to is the view, if you take what the greens say seriously, that its only fair that China and India should destroy human civilization on earth.

        If the greens believed what they claim, they would argue that its very unfair and a tragedy of history, but given were we are, there is no alternative but for the Chinese and Indians to reduce, starting now.

        Because otherwise, no matter how much various people emitted in the past, no matter why they are now emitting, eg for export, no matter how much wind and solar they are installing, no matter any of this.

        Because you cannot get to 10 billion tons a year and lower if they carry on without reducing. So, do you really believe we need to get under 10 billion? Under 5 billion? To zero net emissions, globally?

        And how are we all going to do that with the Chinese emitting 5 billion and rising, the Indians rising like there was no tomorrow, not to mention everyone else?

        This is just basic math. Do you really want the world to stop emitting? Yes or no. If you do, then stop talking fairness and start talking reductions in tonnage.

        If not, do you really believe the world needs to reduce or experience catastrophe?

        Which is it?

        • I agree with all you say Michel but the dilemma seems so horny to me as to be intractable and so emissions will not be reduced much at all. Is it fair the Chinese and the Indians must sacrifice their development because of the ignorance of the west? No. Should we pay them to sacrifice?

          • Life isn’t fair. But beyond that emissions of CO2 are not a danger (if anything they are a net benefit as plants, including food crops, love the additional plant food) so I don’t blame the Chinese and Indians and developing nations for not being on board with reducing their opportunity for prosperity (brought about by cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels) that we in the west have long enjoyed.

  3. 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. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Since CO2 has no effect on climate and is far below a level that should cause anyone any health problems, the endangerment finding should be removed.

    • Probably so, but this is not the point. Its actually irrelevant.

      The point is, even if it were true that CO2 drives climate, its not US CO2 that drives the US or global climate. Therefore the regulation of US CO2 cannot be justified on endangerment grounds.

      It is counterproductive to make the argument that CO2 doesn’t drive climate. All that leads to is arguments about an irrelevancy, the science regarding the effects of CO2.

      The correct argument is that even if it does, the regulation of US CO2 is not going to affect the climate at all, so the endangerment ruling is inappropriate whatever you think about if CO2 drives climate.

      Don’t allow the key point to be obscured. Don’t let the argument get diverted onto an irrelevant issue. The key point is that US emissions cannot and do not endanger US citizens regardless of whether CO2 drives climate.

      • If US CO2 doesn’t drive the climate, then it stands to reason that Canada’s CO2, which is about one tenth that of the US level, does. Therefore, we need a Carbon tax. The preceding statement is logic 101 according to Justin Trudeau.

  4. A couple of points that we already know, but that need to be repeated often:

    1. Science is based on reproducible results. If the results/findings of a scientific study aren’t reproducible, the study is BS.

    2. Scientists share data and methods so their results/findings can be reproduced. The fact that the EPA refuses to share their data and methods speaks volumes. It proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Endangerment Finding is BS and not based on sound science.

    3. Any and all taxpayer funded research should be available to the people who paid for it. PERIOD!

    • Agreed. The whole “secret science” culture that has taken hold using excuses like “intellectual property” is, by definition, NON-science. Science REQUIRES replication and open sharing of information, otherwise it’s little more than government-funded agenda fodder.

  5. Its simple.
    It’s warmer in the day than at night, because of the Sun.
    It’s warmer in summer than in winter, because of the Sun.
    It’s been a bit warmer recently than it was a hundred years ago, because of the Sun.

    Climate is a “buggers muddle” of complexity, possibly beyond understanding. But I think one basic fact is recognisable.

    William Herschel noted that grain prices of his time had a recognizable relationship with sun cycles. This was before science was political. this before ratbags used “tricks” to “hide” as a scientific method.

    (note, a paper I read about the turn of the century confirmed Herschel’s findings and made the point that the relationship breaks down as international trade developed.
    You can now go the Wikipedia and read a warminst on this subject who runs the comparison into this century to discredit Herschel.
    Another ratbag using “tricks” to “hide”).

    • Ever since the migration of WUWT, none of my comments EVER show up right after I submit them. And it varies when they DO show — sometimes eithinin minutes, sometimes not until I visit the next day. Before the migration, they always showed up immediately. And every now and then they don’t show up at all, I assume because they are so suckworthy, and that’s just a fact of editor’s choice — no big deal — I have failures and successes — that’s life.

  6. It gets back to the same question that pops up in every FOI request: why should they provide you with data if you can end up proving them wrong?

    So far, that’s been sufficient to block the release of nearly all information.

    • The correct question to ask is: what evidence do they have that US CO2 endangers US citizens?

      What evidence do they have that lowering US emissions will safeguard? How much of a safeguarding effect do they have evidence for?

      This is the way to get it overturned.

  7. “Climate science” is that abstruse, illogical and dadaistic one could declare the whole thing in good conscience as a subdivision of contemporary arts, arrange a special exhibition in an art museum and let it go.

  8. You are all getting diverted into irrelvancies. The question to ask is:

    Suppose that global CO2 emissions drive global climate. Suppose that the current and forecast levels of emissions really are endangering humanity.

    Then how do the EPA regulations help? All they can do is lower US emissions. Well, how much does it reduce the endangerment to reduce US emissions?

    A similar case just surfaced in the UK. Caroline Lucas of the Green Party wants to tax meat in the UK becaue cattle rearing and meat eating contribute to emissions.

    You can at this point get involved with a huge argument about whether emissions have a warming effect, but its pointless. The question to ask is, assume they do, then how much effect will a UK meat tax have on global temperatures? And the answer is, it will have minimal effects on UK emissions, none on world emissions, and none, no matter what you think of the science, on global temperatures.

    So there is no argument from global warming to a UK meat tax. Tell me again why you want to impose one?

    Similarly, there is no argument from global warming to a US CO2 endangerment and reduction regulation.

    You have to tackle the basic problem with the climatist arguments, that the remedies they propose are inconsistent with what they claim to believe the problem is. The problem is not so much one of what the science is (though that is a problem). Its more that the policies advocated are inconsistent with what they claim to be their view of the science.

    • But we would have the moral high ground! China and India would have to hang their heads low in shame every time they hear about all the changes the USA made. Sure, their economies will boom while ours busts, their poverty will decrease while ours increases and China will be able to force its will upon the rest of the world, but imagine the applause when one of our leaders is introduced at a climate conference.

    • Never mind the fact that US activities have little or no impact on the globe. The proponents of warming would argue that the US should nonetheless set the tone, hoping that China and India, and various other countries, would follow our lead. But that suicidal argument is not relevant, in the first place, because there is no evidence that co2 has any impact on the climate. Not only that, it is true that the MWP was global and as warm, likely warmer, than it is now and back then co2 level was constant.

      The computer model projections (not evidence of anything apart from the authors’ understanding) cannot replicate the MWP because there was no increase in co2. That also implies that water vapor feedback was also zero during the MWP. There are sufficient MWP studies, as well as other supporting data available to now be recognized as an adequate global analysis.

    • Michel…
      “….You have to tackle the basic problem with the climatist arguments,…”
      Unfortunately, even if you win with logic you will get the John Kerry irrefutable assertion: “..Even if we’re wrong it’s the right thing to do” !!?
      You can’t argue a sound conclusion from a false premise…. no more than you can you construct a sound building on an unsound foundation
      cheers
      Mike

  9. Good article, William. The EPA was given extraordinary power by several administrations and then became infected with environmental loonies, this lead to utilizing the EPA to make political decisions without the need for all of that messy science. I live in the Province of Mendoza, Argentina, and the anti-mining law, 7722, prohibits, among other things, arsenic. I regularly play golf with a business guy that imports arsenic from Chile, and it is used to treat wood posts in vineyards so they resist bug attacks. Prohibit arsenic in mining, but contact with food is OK? This is an example of politics first and science a distant second, same as the EPA tendency. I hope President Trump gets the EPA reformed so it can do the important work it was originally charged with.

  10. Until the endangerment finding is overturned, the country and its citizens will remain vulnerable to those who have and will continue to abuse science as a means to attain political goals that would not otherwise be achievable.

  11. In related news, the Trump administration has forced Jim Yong Kim to resign as President of the World Bank effective February.

    Kim has turned the World Bank (previously known for funding infrastructure around the world) into the “Climate Change Bank”. Big news and the real reason is that Mnuchin moved him out.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/07/jim-yong-kim-to-resign-as-president-of-the-world-bank

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/world-bank-president-jim-yong-kim-to-resign-in-february-11546879066

  12. This completely ignores the main force that stopped the former EPA chief from reversing the endangerment: Ivanka and Jared. nothing can happen until the Brick and Birdbrain are running the WH.

  13. Regarding the GHG Endangerment Finding, we had last month a publication in Science Magazine Strengthened scientific support for the Endangerment Finding for atmospheric greenhouse gases, by Philip B. Duffy et al.
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/12/12/science.aat5982#ref-281

    Abstract
    “We assess scientific evidence that has emerged since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 Endangerment Finding for six well-mixed greenhouse gases, and find that this new evidence lends increased support to the conclusion that these gases pose a danger to public health and welfare. Newly available evidence about a wide range of observed and projected impacts strengthens the association between risk of some of these impacts and anthropogenic climate change; indicates that some impacts or combinations of impacts have the potential to be more severe than previously understood; and identifies substantial risk of additional impacts through processes and pathways not considered in the endangerment finding.”

    It is a classic example of extraordinary claims backed by suppositions rather than evidence. My deconstruction of the paper and its argument is here: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/12/24/ghgs-endangerment-evidence/

    This paper does not prove GHGs endanger the climate. It repeats old suppositions and disregards contrary observational evidence, both new and long-established.

  14. The Endangerment Finding rests on the belief that the alleged Endangerment, increased atmospheric CO2, can be regulated – namely, by regulation of CO2 emissions (through increased taxation and bureaucracy, naturally). As shown by Salby, then Harde, and most recently by Berry, it’s now abundantly clear that this presumption is rubbish.

    https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/my-poster-presentation-for-the-ams-annual-meeting-jan-8-2019/

    Reducing CO2 emissions wouldn’t even reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. The fallacy is laid bare in new research which, from real data in the atmosphere, shows (1) that human emissions are insignificant in increasing atmospheric CO2 and (2) the corruption that’s employed to conceal the fallacy by those who would benefit.

    https://youtu.be/rohF6K2avtY

    If regulating CO2 emissions can’t even decrease atmospheric CO2, its control over the alleged knock-on effects (too numerous to count) reduces to intellectual masturbation.

  15. This sounds like a job for Judicial Watch.
    They have been able to extract Hilliary’s emails while the Senate investigations were not able to. They have shone light upon many issues of corruption and political malfeasance. I think I’ll send in a request for them to turn their attention to this plan.

  16. This article discusses the new process by the Interior Dept. ‘and their new rules for using Open Science, similar to one issued by the EPA. The article is dated October 10, 2018. The first link in the article, under the word ‘directive’ in the opening sentence, takes the reader to the text of the directive.

    Perhaps things are moving slowly because there is a difficulty in duplicating the science previously used to create the endangerment finding?

    https://www.aip.org/fyi/2018/interior-department-open-science-directive-echoes-epa-effort

  17. I doubt these,EPA, bureaucrats can do anything but redact the documents.
    Once you have committed yourselves to policy based evidence manufacturing, you must stall,deny,obstruct and divert attention,hopefully until retirement or at least until the public attention moves away.

    If they had substantial scientific evidence to support their case,they would be shouting it from on high.
    That every request to see “their evidence” is a prolonged and frustrated battle, is evidence enough for me.
    The “evidence”EPA (TM) is not supportable and will not be willingly released to anyone.
    This too is a “tell” of climatology.
    It is “respect my authority” all the way down.

    Situation is identical to the measured anthropogenic impact on climate.
    Speculation is held up as evidence,because no such measurements exist.
    What part of the imagined global warming is natural and what part due to our machines?
    What warming ,over which period,using what for data?
    Science is no part of this meme.

    To see a religion so blatantly imposed by bureaucracy, is very educational, but extremely annoying.

  18. I’ll post it again, with clarification — this is the so called “Technical Support Document” for the EPA endangerment finding (210 pages long):

    https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/endangerment_tsd.pdf

    The conclusions here and the information throughout this document are
    primarily drawn from the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and the National Research Council (NRC).

    The info subject to any independent objective review, thus, lies in everything that the IPCC, CCSP, USGCRP, and NRC have already published, which the EPA relied on to make this flawed finding. And reviews of all this info have already been done, I thought. Those reviews must not be in front of the right people’s eyes with enough emphasis, or they are not being given any serious attention.

    I’m not sure what else the original poster of the article might be asking for — maybe a panel to pick apart this document specifically ?

  19. The other Michael, January the 8th summed it up perfectly, if CO2 is indeed the major problem as the Greens tell is, then we need to close down world wide the production of this gas, and instead only produce electricity via none CO2 sources, obviously via Nuclear.

    So lets go back to Kyoto, this was the original proposal , a total stop of CO2 emissions, by a all nations.

    But then all of the None developed nations said ” No way”, not us. So to prevent the conference from total failure, they exempted the so called None developed nations. Why the West did not strongly object I don’t understand, but the conference was saved.

    Today of course every time, the latest being Pres. Trump, anyone says all or nothing, we hear the cry “Bur we must be allowed to catch up with the West”.

    So of course its now just a sick joke.

    Its either a all or nothing, to allow the likes of India and China to be exempt is nonsence if indeed as the IPCC says “We have a major problem”.

    But then the UN is two thirds run by the black and brown races these days, so what can one expect.

    As usual its all about money, we the guilty West must pay up for our past sins.

    MJE

    • While I agree with most of what you said, I think the second to last sentence comes across a wee bit racist. I’ve reword it:
      But then the UN is two thirds run by the third world countries these days, so what can one expect.

    • “I’ve reword it” should have read “I’d reword it:” or “I would have reworded it:” I sure do miss having an edit button.

  20. I want Pruitt back… the media and the left (mostly the same) were all over him which means he was doing an outstanding job.

    His replacement sucks, hardly have heard anything about him since he became epa Head.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *