Ideas For An Incoming Trump Administration: Climate And Energy Edition

Francis Menton

The arena of climate and energy is sufficiently large that it deserves its own post of ideas for the incoming Trump administration. The Biden people went so far off the rails in this area that there are far more topics than I can cover. I’ll have to stick to some highlights.

Communications.

As I noted in the previous post, changing the communications of the prior administration should be an easy and obvious first priority. However, the Trump people notably did a poor job on this subject the first time out.

The subject of climate and energy is pervasive through the websites of dozens of federal agencies. Let’s just note a few examples:

At the Department of Energy, a big section is devoted to “Combating the Climate Crisis.” From the intro:

There is no greater challenge facing our nation and our planet than the climate crisis. That’s why President Biden has laid out the boldest climate agenda in our nation’s history—one that will spur an equitable clean energy economy and cement America on a path to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. . . . DOE has long been the nation’s powerhouse for scientific and innovative solutions to the challenges we face, including the climate emergency. Our program offices and 17 National Laboratories are working every single day to research, develop, and deploy the clean energy technologies of the future, including battery storage, renewable power, electric vehicles, carbon capture, and resilient grid infrastructure.

And don’t forget the subject of “Energy Justice,” otherwise known as the scam of justifying vast wasteful subsidies to useless energy sources as some kind of quasi-reparations to minority communities:

For far too long, communities of color and low-income communities have borne the brunt of pollution to the air, water, and soil they rely on to live and raise their families. The clean energy revolution must lift up these communities that have been left behind, and make sure those who have suffered the most are the first to benefit.

Over at EPA, the huge “Climate Change” section of the website pretends that the regulatory onslaught attacking hydrocarbon fuels has something to do with “human health.” Example:

Understanding and addressing climate change is critical to EPA’s mission of protecting human health and the environment.

A massive section on “Climate Change Indicators” falsely claims that things like hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and floods have been increasing and are proof of dangerous climate change. Example:

Tropical storm activity in the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico has increased during the past 30 years. Storm intensity, a measure of strength, duration, and frequency,  is closely related to variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic and has risen noticeably during that time.

At NOAA and NASA, an endless succession of press releases touts the claims that the most recent week, month or year was the “warmest on record.” They somehow never mention that the data set in question only goes back to the late 1800s, and that they lack any data for, for example, the Southern Hemisphere oceans, for almost all of the period in question.

There is no reason why all of this claptrap, and hundreds or thousands of other examples of same, cannot just be wiped away on January 20. Putting up something new can then begin, but is not necessarily a rush.

Executive Orders and Actions

From the day he entered office,President Biden took numerous executive actions and signed a series of Executive Orders directing an “all of government” approach to the climate/energy issue. Examples include: “Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis,” January 25, 2021; “Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” January 27, 2021; and “Executive Order on Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration,” February 4, 2021. There are plenty more such. And yes, the official Biden administration line is that the main reason for the surge of illegal migrants across the Southern border is “climate change.”

Also in the executive action category are things like Biden administration efforts to restrict leasing of drilling rights on federal lands, to delay or refuse permits to pipelines and other energy-related projects, and the like.

All of these can be wiped away at the stroke of a pen on day one.

Paris Climate Agreement

Obama joined this Agreement by executive action. Trump exited by the same method. And Biden rejoined, again by executive action, right on January 20, 2021.

Trump could follow the previous method and just quit again. But my preferred suggestion would be to submit the Agreement to the Senate as a treaty. There is zero chance that the Senate would ratify. That would kill this thing much more securely than the other method.

Regulations

“Regulations” are different from mere Executive Orders and actions, in that in order to be adopted they have gone through some complex and time-consuming processes prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act. The processes are designed to give these “regulations” some purported legitimacy and heft, to make them hard to undo, and to distract the gullible public from the fact that they have not gone through the only process that counts under the Constitution for valid legislative action, namely passage by both houses of Congress and signature by the President. The result of all the procedural rigamarole is that — if you buy the legitimacy of enactment of massive substantive regulations by administrative agencies in the first place — then the processes to eliminate the regulations are the same complex and time-consuming mess that it previously took to adopt them.

The Biden administration has seen a veritable blizzard of major regulations designed to restrict, hobble, and ultimately eliminate the use of hydrocarbon fuels. I have had numerous posts on multiple of these regulations, for example this one from May 1, 2024 on no fewer than four big new Rules from EPA, then-newly-adopted, intended to force the phase out of fossil fuel power plants, and this post from June 8, 2024 on two big new Rules, one from EPA and the other from NHTSA, intended to force the conversion to electric vehicles. These Rules in the aggregate are thousands of pages long. There are other comparable gigantic Regulations sprinkled around dozens of other federal agencies, for example a massive SEC Rule requiring burdensome disclosures of “carbon emissions” for all public companies. All of these Rules had gone through the lengthy and difficult “notice and comment” process, which involves widely disseminating notices of the proposed rule-making, collecting comments from the public over the course of months (in these instances there were tens of thousands of such), responding to all of the comments, modifying the proposed Rule accordingly, and finally going public with a final Rule after many, many months. I should mention that all of these Rules were then promptly challenged by litigation brought by interested parties, which in this case include large numbers of the red states.

Do the Trump people really need to go through the same labyrinth to rescind these Rules? Here’s an approach I would take: First, announce that the legal opinion of the administration is that the Rules are invalid under Supreme Court precedent (i.e., the “major questions doctrine” of West Virginia v. EPA), and therefore they will not be enforced. Next, announce that permitting on power plant and other fossil fuel projects will take place as if these Rules did not exist. Finally, switch sides in the litigation, and join the red states and other plaintiffs seeking to have the Rules invalidated. Simultaneously, start the rescission process under the APA. It should be completed in about two years.

Cost and feasibility study of Net Zero

So far all of these ideas have been things that many others have thought of. But how about this one that I haven’t seen anywhere else: launch a cost and feasibility study of the plans to transition the U.S. economy to “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050.

It is truly incredible that our federal government has launched a supposed “energy transition,” with an announced goal of reaching “net zero” emissions by 2050, without any cost or feasibility study of whether this can possibly work. Somehow, the bureaucrats have the idea that their job is just to order up a multi-trillion dollar transformation that has never been done before, and then the little people will figure out the details. In the real world the chance that this energy transformation can actually be accomplished are about zero. Meanwhile, enormous damage is being inflicted.

There are plenty of people who understand the problems who could be used to staff the study commission. I’d be happy to volunteer!

Audit the NOAA and NASA surface temperature data

The record of what are called “global average surface temperatures” has been altered and manipulated to reduce earlier-year temperatures and increase more recent temperatures, the better to show a strong warming trend and to support the narrative of dangerous climate change. For more details than you will ever want, see my 33 part series “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time.”

As a first step, the incoming administration should replace the statements on the existing websites that the most recent month or year was “the warmest ever” with a statement that the surface temperature records have been altered and therefore are not to be used for any public policy purpose. Then start an audit process. As part of the audit, fully disclose the computer code that executes the “homogenization” process of temperature alteration, and disclose quantitatively how much the temperatures have been altered. Any discrediting of the crooks who have been doing the alterations is merely a side benefit.

Rescind the Endangerment Finding

Underlying all efforts of the bureaucracy to regulate CO2 emissions and “climate change” is a regulatory determination made by EPA in 2009, shortly after Barack Obama first took office, the CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” constitute a “threat to human health and safety.” What a crock. The first Trump administration never got around to rescinding this ridiculous regulatory overreach. The existence of the EF gives environmental litigants as evergreen basis to try to force more and more regulation from agencies that are often very willing to go along.

I recommend convening a commission of scientists to evaluate the EF. Key suggestion: anyone who gets any grants from the government for studying climate issues should be disqualified for conflict of interest. The CO2 Coalition should be able to come up with plenty of highly qualified and non-conflicted genuine scientists to study the matter. The EF will shortly be gone.

And finally — Repeal the “Inflation Reduction Act”

The fraudulently-named “Inflation Reduction Act” is the fount of trillions of dollars of subsidies for useless wind and solar energy generators. The subsidies are mostly in the form of tax credits and are uncapped, meaning that they could run into multiple trillions of dollars.

Unlike the other items on this to-do list, repeal of the IRA clearly requires Congressional action. However, note that this is a budgetary item and thus could be included in so-called “reconciliation,” thus requiring only a simple majority vote in the Senate, rather than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.

As I said, this topic is so broad that my list here is only a start. I can’t wait for them to get going.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.9 21 votes
Article Rating
86 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 14, 2024 2:16 am

We need a “Baku” agreement, that says nobody has to do a single darn thing about reducing CO2.

This would supersede the Paris pseudo-agreement.

Scissor
Reply to  bnice2000
November 14, 2024 4:39 am

And say Baku AOC.

strativarius
November 14, 2024 2:18 am

There is no greater challenge facing our nation 

Than Starmer’s barmy army – featuring Field Marshal Miliband.

Martin Brumby
November 14, 2024 2:18 am

Good report.
I would add that the most eggregious liars and pseudo-scientists should be held to account in courts of law.
But not in DC or New York.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Martin Brumby
November 14, 2024 8:30 am

” should be held to account in courts of law.”
Nothing much, if anything will be done in court.
The quote “Clean up in aisle 5” comes to mind. Insofar as possible, people in the agencies should be fired or reassigned** and all the filing cabinets cleaned out and the offending documents shredded.
**Unless a person commits a serious crime {murder} or found to be looking at kiddy pictures on the agency computer, getting rid of government employees is a hard slog.

November 14, 2024 2:19 am

Wow! Good start. Um I didn’t see the Keystone pipe line mentioned.

Trump could follow the previous method (to exit the Paris Agreement) and just quit again. But my preferred suggestion would be to submit the Agreement to the Senate as a treaty. There is zero chance that the Senate would ratify. That would kill this thing much more securely than the other method.

Start that ball rolling on day one.

As part of the audit . . . disclose quantitatively how much the temperatures have been altered.

My file of NASA’s LOTI files back to 1997 is available to anyone who wants it.

roaddog
Reply to  Steve Case
November 14, 2024 10:19 pm

TRP is never going to go back in on the Keystone pipeline. Schozophrenic American politics burned them too badly the last time.

Hoyt C Hottel
November 14, 2024 2:33 am

Donald Trump is unpredictable. If he truly believes that global warming is a scam /hoax why has he appointed Elon Musk to a position in his future administration. Elon is not exactly an advocate for the internal combustion engine and the continuing use of fossil fuels for pwer generation.

Hoyt C Hottel
Reply to  Hoyt C Hottel
November 14, 2024 2:35 am

… power generation.

Hoyt C Hottel
Reply to  Hoyt C Hottel
November 19, 2024 3:20 am

Donald Trump is a Pragmatist would be more accurate

Reply to  Hoyt C Hottel
November 14, 2024 3:02 am

 Elon is not exactly an advocate for the internal combustion engine 

Guess Elon must be working on a battery powered rocket to get to Mars…..:) But no, the Raptor rocket engine burns a mixture of methane & liquid oxygen.

Bryan A
Reply to  SteveG
November 14, 2024 6:36 am

Those Li-Ion batteries do pack a certain amount of thrust when they fail though. Solid fuel potential.
Couldn’t imagine the decades it would require to recharge a battery powered Rocket though

rtj1211
Reply to  Hoyt C Hottel
November 14, 2024 4:32 am

He’s given Elon Musk a job to cut costs, not to be energy secretary. Elon Musk would not be able to be involved in any policy in which he had a conflict of interest, which most certainly includes the automotive industry and how it is fuelled.

Hoyt C Hottel
Reply to  rtj1211
November 15, 2024 5:09 am

Thanks for that. Perhaps Elon will sell his car business and concentrate on something worthwhile. Actually Elon seems to be the least radical potential appointment – must be a loyalty test for the Republicans in congress.

strativarius
Reply to  Hoyt C Hottel
November 14, 2024 4:37 am

Donald Trump is unpredictable. Whereas every other Western leader you can name is more than predictable. So, what? Given we know what they propose Trump is a very necessary opposite reaction.

As for Musk, have you any idea what SpaceX’s Carbon footprint is? You could view Tesla as making amends. But I see it as an entrepreneur making money and quite a lot of it, too.

Someone
Reply to  strativarius
November 14, 2024 1:20 pm

Making money on subsidies, government contracts and stock price manipulation.

Max More
Reply to  Someone
November 14, 2024 4:24 pm

He would be a business fool not to take advantage of the subsidies. He didn’t create them. Blame those who did. Do you blame people who accepted Covid relief checks, or Medicare, etc.?

Someone
Reply to  Max More
November 15, 2024 6:40 am

I am not looking to blame anybody, Whatever is legal is legal, and if do not like laws, we need to change them. My point was different.

Hoyt C Hottel and rtj1211 suggested that conflict of interests will likely prevent Musk from being efficient manager tasked with cutting red tape and removing subsidies to green.

strativarius brought up Musk’s skills as an entrepreneur making money as an argument enhancing Musk’s credibility in this regard.

I think Musk is an excellent opportunistic wheeler and dealer (he fully exploited CCCGW scam to his advantage), but his dubious skills do not necessarily reduce conflict of interest.

Hoyt C Hottel
Reply to  strativarius
November 19, 2024 3:25 am

Could not care less about his carbon footprint it just gets absorbed in the undergrowth

Reply to  Hoyt C Hottel
November 14, 2024 6:12 am

Ban the Offshore Wind Turbine FIASCO NOW
Eliminate all subsidies of any kind to all industries, etc., NOW
.
Regarding the disintegrating rotor blades in Cape Cod, ultrasonic testing is fine, radiological testing is fine, but FIELD TESTING of fully instrumented, 351-ft long, rotor blades on a mast, for AT LEAST one year, in a windy area of the North Sea, is the most important and vital part, which GE executives decided to “omit”.
.
These rotor blades are about three times as long as an airplane wing of a Boeing-747.
Nobody with a sane mind would ever “omit” field testing, including torsion testing.
.
What were these GE top executives thinking? 
How in hell did they get into these top positions?
.
Then, falsifying test records to endanger people, and the environment, and ocean fauna, and fisheries, and tourism? 
All these are felonious offenses.
All involved should be fired and prosecuted for gross malfeasance, and blacklisted, and never again be allowed to be employed in any industry.
.
Bureau of Safety and Environment Enforcement, BSEE, (what a name for a useless bureau) WANTS TO ESTABLISH FACTS ON THE GROUND (by building wind turbine projects without rotors) SO PROJECTS WILL BE HARDER TO CANCEL BY SANE PEOPLE IN EARLY 2025. Downright treasonous.
.
Forcing utilities to pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale (after 50% subsidies), is gross economic insanity, plus all of us: 
.
– paying for grid reinforcement and extension
– paying for traditional plants counteracting wind/solar variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
– paying for traditional plants providing electricity during low-wind (and during high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place), and during low solar conditions
– paying owners of wind and solar systems for the electricity they COULD have produced, if not curtailed
– paying for expensive hazardous waste landfill of gigantic rotor blades, etc.
.
The insanity and environmental damage it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth economy is in such big do-do
.
Europe wants to foist high electricity prices onto the US (using the canard of global-warming/climate-change), so the US will be in big do-do as well, TO PRESERVE ITS EXTREMELY ADVANTAGEOUS TRADE BALANCE WITH THE US.
.
Why in hell is GE, a US company, building several hundred EXPERIMENTAL rotor blades in Quebec, Canada, and have them transported, from Cape Cod to France and back, on European-owned, specialized ships, to a French blade production facility, which happens to have a suitable testing lab?
.
How low and idiotic can a US company and US government go by screwing US workers out of jobs?
The Inflation Reduction Act was sold to the gullible public, because “it would create jobs in the US”
.
The Socialist, Democrat cabal, using demented BIDEN/joyful HARRIS as its puppets for 4 years, did its Offshore Wind thing, and its Open Borders thing, its Woke thing, etc.
All such “things” ended up screwing the American people, and fatten the treasure chest of Europe, the reason the European elites like Biden/Harris so much.
What was that traitorous cabal thinking?

Now you see why the American people finally had to take revenge by voting the cabal idiots out
.
Now you see why European elites hate Trump, because Trump puts AMERICA FIRST, UNLIKE TWO-FACED RINOS, LIKE SENATOR COLLINS, etc.

Bryan A
Reply to  wilpost
November 14, 2024 6:39 am

Eliminate the subsidies for Wind (offshore and onshore) and the debacle vanishes like a fart in the wind

Reply to  Bryan A
November 14, 2024 7:39 am

Surprise, the clean up costs and debts remain to be paid off.

Bryan A
Reply to  wilpost
November 14, 2024 7:52 am

There is that
But at least the Money for Nothing aspect would vanish

Reply to  wilpost
November 14, 2024 9:53 am

I struggle to imagine a wind turbine with blades 350 feet long. Mind-boggling.

Hoyt C Hottel
Reply to  wilpost
November 15, 2024 5:17 am

Perhaps 4 years will be too short a time for Donald to put things right. After 8 years of Obama he had too much to dismantle.

Reply to  Hoyt C Hottel
November 14, 2024 8:02 am

Elon’s Teslas will not have to compete with Chinese EV’s….is why.

Hoyt C Hottel
Reply to  DMacKenzie
November 15, 2024 5:39 am

China dominates the Lithium business. Subcontracting that polluting process to them will have to be revised quickly.

Reply to  Hoyt C Hottel
November 14, 2024 8:06 am

why has he appointed Elon Musk

Yeah, why would he appoint someone who he might disagree with on one subject to work on something totally unrelated? It’s a mystery why people don’t only work with those with 100% agreement on everything, right?

Hoyt C Hottel
Reply to  Tony_G
November 15, 2024 5:44 am

Perhaps its a ploy to distract Elon from his core business

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Hoyt C Hottel
November 14, 2024 8:29 am

Elon Musk is a businessman who understands cost-risk-benefit.
He saw a market opening and developed a product for that opportunity.
That does not mean he buys into the climate apocalypse ideology.

His appointment is not anything to do with climate. His appointment is to make the government efficient, cut out waste, etc. He is fully qualified to do just this, assuming he is able to successfully gather accurate data.

Hoyt C Hottel
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
November 15, 2024 5:58 am

That maybe so. But this Blog is about precisely that debunking the insane theory that 400 ppm CO2 can cause runaway global warming – cutting emissions causing completely needless suffering .

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Hoyt C Hottel
November 15, 2024 11:16 am

As I had it pointed out to me, this blog is not just about that and this article is about political concerns.

I was responding to a post that stated:

Donald Trump is unpredictable. If he truly believes that global warming is a scam /hoax why has he appointed Elon Musk to a position in his future administration. Elon is not exactly an advocate for the internal combustion engine and the continuing use of fossil fuels for pwer generation.

So, why did you post the above if you hold the opinion that:

But this Blog is about precisely that debunking the insane theory that 400 ppm CO2 can cause runaway global warming – cutting emissions causing completely needless suffering .

Or did you forget about your original post?

Hoyt C Hottel
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
November 17, 2024 3:03 am

The two posts are compatible.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Hoyt C Hottel
November 14, 2024 8:41 am

 Elon thinks like a chess master while the government and “green” follies have been playing Tiddlywinks. He did not come up with the idea of Tesla but did realize the degree to which the proper strategy could harvest subsidizes and earn $$$ from the regulatory credits purchased by the major auto companies. See the following links:

History of Tesla, Inc. – Wikipedia
Other Automakers Paid Tesla a Record $428 Million Last Quarter

Hoyt C Hottel
Reply to  John Hultquist
November 15, 2024 6:01 am

That maybe so. But this Blog is about precisely that debunking the insane theory that 400 ppm CO2 can cause runaway global warming – cutting emissions causing completely needless suffering .

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Hoyt C Hottel
November 15, 2024 11:16 am

You say that well after you posted:

Donald Trump is unpredictable. If he truly believes that global warming is a scam /hoax why has he appointed Elon Musk to a position in his future administration. Elon is not exactly an advocate for the internal combustion engine and the continuing use of fossil fuels for pwer generation.

Hoyt C Hottel
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
November 19, 2024 3:44 am

Perhaps EVs are desirable in the LA basin due to the photo catalytic reaction converting unburnt HCs to a chemical smog; but for the rest of us they are not needed.

Reply to  Hoyt C Hottel
November 14, 2024 11:24 am

Why do people think Elon is a one trick pony… when he most certainly isn’t.

roaddog
Reply to  Hoyt C Hottel
November 14, 2024 10:21 pm

I’m not concerned about Elon landing on his feet.

Hoyt C Hottel
Reply to  roaddog
November 15, 2024 6:02 am

Neither am I

Coeur de Lion
November 14, 2024 2:43 am

Add a lot of Public Relations information which shows that the IPCC cannot find provable trends in extreme weather events; that the increase in CO2 is unstoppable and is provably harmless

rtj1211
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
November 14, 2024 4:32 am

USA should simply say they won’t pay a penny to fund the IPCC any longer. The sooner it’s depoliticised, the better.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
November 14, 2024 8:14 am

You need to quit assuming the next IPCC report won’t conclude there IS CC attribution and “it’s worse than we thought”. It’s just part of their long range spin on the thousands of CC papers they choose to tout. Also, there is often a gap between the “policy maker’s summary” and the actual report on the IPCC reviewed input papers.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
November 14, 2024 9:45 am

Table 12.12, P. 90, Chapter 12, WGI, UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, August 2021 says it all. Just plaster that all over the place the same way they did for the “Hockey Stick” graph. Make sure every school child sees it often.

Idle Eric
November 14, 2024 2:44 am

I like the idea of a feasibility study, that could have knock-on effects around the world.

I would also like to see a cost/benefit analysis of net-zero.

rtj1211
Reply to  Idle Eric
November 14, 2024 4:35 am

What would be better would be a rigorous study of how modes of energy generation may change over the next 50 years. Oil and gas will run out eventually, so there will have to be some kind of transition. What’s important is working out to where the transition should go and over what kind of timescale?

This may be different in different geographies, which may be why such evaluations are best done on national/regional levels rather than globally.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  rtj1211
November 14, 2024 8:31 am

Exactly. This misnamed green energy transition is not a transition, it is a step function, which in control theory always causes instability.

Someone
Reply to  rtj1211
November 14, 2024 1:39 pm

“What would be better would be a rigorous study of how modes of energy generation may change over the next 50 years. Oil and gas will run out eventually, so there will have to be some kind of transition.”

This was covered at WUWT in a recent post. Other than nuclear, humans will always use liquid hydrocarbons. Nothing is more practical for energy content, handling and transportability.

Oil and gas will not run out in the next 50 years, they will become more expensive as we deplete easily extracted resources and switch to deeper more costly ones.

When oil and gas start to run out, and when they become more expensive, coal liquefaction will become commercially viable.

There is enough coal out there for a few more 100 years. If/when coal ever becomes used up, biomass such as wood or algae can be used instead of coal for liquefaction.

Everything has been already invented, but is is more profitable now to extract oil and gas than liquify coal. Since coal is available globally, everybody will have access to liquid hydrocarbons.

There are other proposals like running large solar cell powered fuel cells in reverse to generate H2 with sunlight, but nothing practical so far. H2 is not likely to be practical for safety/energy content/ handling/ transportation considerations, but if they could generate methane by a similar reverse fuel cell process, it would still be a question of cost vs known coal gasification.

Michael C. Roberts
Reply to  Someone
November 14, 2024 8:54 pm

Once humanity perfects a process to capture/collect methane clathrates, we can extend the end of ‘fossil’ fuels by many more hundreds of years. Weren’t the Japanese doing research in this area years ago?
Regards,
MCR

Reply to  Someone
November 14, 2024 9:40 pm

Other options that will become available in the future (near, mid, far) and dependent on competing forms:

Natural hydrogen (not sure what colour the eco-nazis are calling it these days) – apparently water seeping deep down into very hot rocks of the right chemistry leads to it it being disassociated into hydrogen and oxygen, one large reservoir has been found or conjectured to be under the central area of N. America.

That hydrogen bubbling up through other carbonate rich rocks at high temps and pressures maybe be the source of methane deposits that don’t seem attached to oil formation.

Methane hydrates locked up in the ocean around the various continental shelfs. Definitely hard to recover but will be a huge and more dependable source of energy than intermittent so-called renewables.

Someone
Reply to  PCman999
November 15, 2024 8:22 am

Methane hydrates – maybe.

Hydrogen is too problematic for handling/ transportation, has low energy content. If any commercial reserves could be burned at the site of extraction for making electricity, it would be a rare occasion.

Natural hydrogen meeting with coal under the right temperatures and pressures makes methane and liquid hydrocarbons. This is how they get replenished. This is what we should use.

Using natural hydrogen for coal gasification/liquefaction at the site of extraction would be another way to use it. Same as above, but we bring coal to meet hydrogen and control the process.

Hoyt C Hottel
Reply to  Someone
November 19, 2024 4:18 am

Synthetic fuels can be produced from heavy ends and coal by hydrogenation processes developed by the Germans during WW11. Just as the Haber Process allowed them to fight the First War. Necessity is the mother of invention and we do not need evs, wind farms, solar panels and net zero schemes. Co2 levels can double to 800ppm and have no effect on global warming.

strativarius
Reply to  Idle Eric
November 14, 2024 5:07 am

That would be a cost… analysis.

Idle Eric
Reply to  strativarius
November 14, 2024 5:16 am

Technically no, even if there are no benefits, it’s still a cost/benefit analysis.

strativarius
Reply to  Idle Eric
November 14, 2024 6:12 am

even if there are no benefits, it’s still a cost/benefit analysis”

No Eric, I disagree, it’s a waste of time and effort.

Someone
Reply to  strativarius
November 14, 2024 1:58 pm

Analysis of waste of time and effort is waste of time and effort.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Someone
November 15, 2024 11:18 am

Only if the results do not lead to efficiency improvements and cutting of waste.

observa
November 14, 2024 2:50 am

All of these can be wiped away at the stroke of a pen on day one.

Yes Minister we’ll get on to it right away-
Chris Minns’ bid to fix NSW’s housing crisis begins with ’27 stage’ builder’s diagram

One day you wake up and you go- That’s enough old boy and time to leave it to the next generation and good luck to you (and the homeless).

November 14, 2024 4:02 am

Trump could follow the previous method and just quit again. But my preferred suggestion would be to submit the Agreement to the Senate as a treaty. There is zero chance that the Senate would ratify. That would kill this thing much more securely than the other method.

I dunno man, I suspect there are enough green-blooded Republicans that this would actually pass and the opposite would happen. If Trump puts this to the Senate he’d better be damn sure of the numbers.

Bryan A
Reply to  PariahDog
November 14, 2024 6:44 am

I was having that exact same thought.
Most if not all Dems would vote to ratify.
Are there sufficient RINOs in office for a 2/3 majority?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  PariahDog
November 14, 2024 8:32 am

It takes 2/3rds of the Senate to ratify a treaty.
Submit the treaty with a recommendation of don’t ratify and that will be the end of it.

John Hultquist
Reply to  PariahDog
November 14, 2024 8:48 am

 The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties. Look it up: The Treaty Clause: “… and holds that the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate renders a treaty binding with the force of federal law.”

Bryan A
Reply to  John Hultquist
November 14, 2024 10:07 am

Advice and Consent (aka 2/3 majority) Consent being the keyword

Reply to  PariahDog
November 14, 2024 10:56 am

You don’t just submit the Paris climate agreement to the Senate and sit around to see what happens. You submit it to the Senate when you know the likely outcome is what you desire.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
November 15, 2024 11:20 am

And with a recommendation.

November 14, 2024 5:12 am

Good article!
I agree that withdrawing the Endangerment Finding of 2009 is high priority. Incremental CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. are inherently not capable of driving any of the climate-related metrics in a bad direction. This is because of the atmosphere’s dynamic response to absorbed energy, producing overturning circulation, energy conversion, the formation and dissipation of clouds, and powerful convective weather.

But in parallel, the Congress should amend the Clean Air Act to exclude planet-wide “warming” as a class of harm to be addressed under the Act. Obviously this was never intended in the first place. This would disempower the EPA from doing any future rulemaking or enforcement on these grounds.

Oh, one more thing that I think could be done immediately – Set the ill-conceived and purely fictional “Social Cost of Carbon” to zero or as near to zero as possible.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  David Dibbell
November 14, 2024 8:34 am

Specifically removing CO2 from the pollutant list is a top priority.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
November 14, 2024 8:47 am

True, but to protect the farmers from absurd regulation, removing the “pollutant” tag from CH4 and N2O is essential too.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  David Dibbell
November 15, 2024 11:21 am

Agreed. Those would be No. 2 and No. 3 on the “hit parade.”

hiskorr
November 14, 2024 6:03 am

The first step for all agencies is to stop the “sue and settle” fraud by which agencies collude with outsiders (typically NGOs) to bring suits against the agencies. The courts then agree to a “settlement” that directs the agency to do what they wanted to do all along. No pesky “laws” or “regulations” to mess with!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  hiskorr
November 14, 2024 8:34 am

Not to mention a funding stream for those NGOs.

Coach Springer
November 14, 2024 6:16 am

You left out the Department of Education – yet there are more. Department of Defense……

Reply to  Coach Springer
November 14, 2024 10:58 am

We need a Department of Defense. We don’t need a federal Department of Education.

not you
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
November 14, 2024 12:49 pm

department of defense?

defense from what or who?

the DoD was rebranded from its true name and function: the WAR department

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  not you
November 15, 2024 11:23 am

The best defense is a good offense.

A rose by any other name….

I object to my own post. Conflating words and altering definitions is not something I subscribe to.

You are correct. It originally was the WAR department and whether defense or offense, it is still WAR.

Bryan A
November 14, 2024 6:32 am

Beyond Executive Orders … Even though Republicans clearly have control of Both House and Senate, getting legislation passed to overturn prior passed legislation might prove difficult. The Democrat side of the chambers still has the filibuster to squelch any attempt at doing so. The most the Republicans have is throwing the needed legislation as riders onto the budget bills to keep government running.
Unless there is another way around the filibuster.

Reply to  Bryan A
November 14, 2024 7:50 am

Let’s kill the filibuster. Pack the courts. Unwrap Project 2025 and see what’s in it.

Bryan A
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
November 14, 2024 7:55 am

Kamala wanted to eliminate the filibuster, perhaps the Republicans should grant her wish on Jan 21 2025

mleskovarsocalrrcom
November 14, 2024 7:51 am

Just ignoring “Climate Change” by removing all the edicts won’t work, he already tried that although it was a poor effort. Remember, CC is not high on the list of things people are worried about so it will be the same for Trump. What Trump needs to do is put “catastrophic Climate Change” to bed for good and the only way to do that is something like a debate or open forum. Don’t let the CC fanatics weasel out by claiming ‘settled science’. We need to make the people that don’t care about
CC understand the folly so they will care about being duped.

Someone
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
November 14, 2024 2:09 pm

“Just ignoring “Climate Change” by removing all the edicts won’t work, he already tried that although it was a poor effort. Remember, CC is not high on the list of things people are worried about so it will be the same for Trump. ” 

This is because most people do not make the connection between the green scam and growing energy prices, inflation, deindustrialization, loss of jobs, stock market bubbles/crashes, national debt, blackouts, EV mandates, growing insurance costs etc. DT and Republicans must explain this connection to get broad popular support to kill CCC narrative, green subsidies and any carbon regulations that stand in the way of real energy, industry and agriculture. They should have done it during the election campaign, but better start somewhere.

Tom Halla
November 14, 2024 9:16 am

Undoing malevolent executive orders can seemingly take forever. The enforcement of environmental impact studies is still operating under Jimmy Carter procedures.

November 14, 2024 10:52 am

Day one: Stop doing everything Biden is doing.

The SEC should not be involved in decarbonization or Net-Zero or ending fossil fuels usage, for example. It seems every agency and department has made fighting climate change part of its agenda. Just stop it.

That’s the basic strategy to start America on the correct path. Undo all the Biden executive orders that put America on the wrong track. Ensure the agencies focus on their core missions. Clean house of activists.

November 14, 2024 12:38 pm

How come nobody ever mentions the carbon footprint of flying immigrants from Central America into the United States? Why don’t those emissions count?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
November 15, 2024 11:24 am

It’s called cherry picking.