Tag: climategate

EPA chief Lee Zeldin to kill car feature ‘everyone hates’

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin hinted Monday that he’s preparing to roll back one car feature that every driver “hates.”

“Start/stop technology: where your car dies at every red light so companies get a climate participation trophy,” Zeldin tweeted Monday in a post that has since racked up more than 8 million views.

“EPA approved it, and everyone hates it, so we’re fixing it.”

The feature kills internal combustion engines at red lights and has been touted by proponents for being able to conserve fuel and cut down on pollution.

Critics have questioned whether the feature can wear down the car’s battery or engine more quickly.

The “off-cycle CO2 reducing” tech has its origins in a federal rule proposed under President Barack Obama in 2012 — but didn’t take effect until new fuel economy standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions five years later.

Between 2012 and 2021, the number of vehicles produced with a stop-start feature due to the carbon credits surged from 1% to 45%.

Up to 65% of vehicles had the technology included in new models by 2023.

Keep reading

Inside The Dysfunctional Process Driving Biden’s ‘Clean Energy’ Frenzy

On Jan. 20, President Trump ordered a pause in federal leasing and permitting of offshore wind plants. In mid-April, he halted construction of the Empire Wind installation off the coast of Long Island, a relief to many in the local fishing and hospitality industries. He also ordered a leasing and permitting review of all 11 offshore wind projects approved during the Biden years.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said that Empire Wind’s approval “was rushed through by the prior administration without sufficient analysis or consultation among the relevant agencies as relates to the potential effects from the project.”

There was a lot of that going around. Offshore wind was a centerpiece of the Biden administration’s mad dash for “clean energy” and “net-zero” emissions. The administration acted as though it had this one shot — a limited window in which to throw up as many wind installations as it could. As it turns out, that was true enough. But in the meantime, there were toes to step on and corners to cut.

Just up the coast from Empire Wind is the South Fork Wind installation off Rhode Island. The Biden Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) folks didn’t exactly endear themselves to the locals. Protect the Public’s Trust obtained a letter sent to BOEM in November 2022 by a coalition of local townships, Indian tribes, historic preservation groups and others. “We have NEVER seen a more dysfunctional process,” it said.

As part of the permitting process, the Interior Department is required to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, to assess the effects of federal projects on historic properties, including those of cultural significance to Native Americans. Ocean Energy Management officials told attorneys for the locals they “don’t have time to comply with National Historic Preservation Act.” An appeal to the federal advisory council tasked with oversight of compliance with that act got them nowhere. As the letter to BOEM said, the “permitting review has become a theater of the absurd.”

Keep reading

Reports say corporations retreated from net zero, but critics say ESG policies still enforced

Shortly before President Donald Trump was inaugurated in January, the Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) initiative announced it was suspending its activities. The announcement came after the investment firm Blackrock said it was withdrawing, joining an exodus of firms from the group. That month, six of the largest U.S. banks also left a similar group for banks, the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA).

Critics had called NZAM and NZBA “cartels,” and firms were facing Congressional investigations and lawsuits, arguing their activities violated anti-trust laws. By coordinating an effort to harm politically unfavored companies, the lawsuits argued, they were engaging in illegal collusion, accusations the firms say are baseless. 

However, with litigation risks mounting, the firms fled NZAM and NZAB. Blackrock, the world’s largest asset management company with $11.6 trillion in assets under management, said in a statement that its “memberships in some of these organizations have caused confusion regarding BlackRock’s practices and subjected us to legal inquiries from various public officials.” 

Not really the end of ESG

The environment, social and governance (ESG) sustainable investing movement recently appeared to be nearing its end. However, that may not be the case, at least for some companies. The American Energy Institute (AEI), which defends the production of petroleum as a means of reliable and affordable energy, was recently notified its insurance wouldn’t be renewed. 

According to AEI, the Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company reportedly stated the reason for the non-renewal was that the group’s Facebook page indicated that their operations “include trade associations involved in promoting social/political causes related to energy production. This is not an acceptable exposure under the Hartford Small Commercial business segment’s guidelines.” 

“They’re really not changing their behaviors whatsoever. They’re just dropping some alliances and probably saving a few bucks on dues,” Jason Isaac, executive director of the AEI told Just the News. 

Hartford-Boycott-of-American-Energy.pdf

The Hartford didn’t respond to Just the News‘ questions about its decision not to renew AEI’s insurance or what policies the AEI was violating. 

Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, testified before the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs last month in a hearing considering anti-ESG legislation. Hild argued that even though banks have left net-zero alliances, they continue to advance policies aimed at getting companies to reduce their emissions. 

Keep reading

Hawaii Sues Oil Companies Over Climate Change – Exempts One Refinery That Donates to Democrats

The blue state of Hawaii is suing oil companies over climate change, but for some strange reason they have exempted one refinery that has executives who give a lot of cash to Democrats. What an odd coincidence.

The entire conversation about climate change should have ended the instant that leftists began targeting Teslas and Tesla dealerships over DOGE. It proved that the left doesn’t really care about this issue, they just want what they want.

The lawyers for the oil companies will surely point this out, if they’re smart.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

Hawaii Sues Oil Industry for Causing Climate Change—But Spares State’s Largest Refiner Whose Executives Donate to Dems

The State of Hawaii filed a major lawsuit against a dozen major oil companies and the nation’s largest oil industry group, accusing them of marketing and selling products that have caused higher temperatures, increased sea levels, more frequent flooding, coastal erosion, and more intense heat waves.

But Hawaii’s sprawling complaint—which prosecutors hope will force oil industry defendants to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages—excluded Houston-based Par Pacific and its subsidiary Par Hawaii, the oil company that operates Hawaii’s sole petroleum refinery and remains the state’s leading supplier of gasoline and jet fuel. That means prosecutors spared a company that is likely the single largest driver of the emissions in the state.

The complaint makes just one reference to Par’s Hawaii refinery, chastising ExxonMobil for supplying crude oil to the facility that is then ‘refined on Hawaii and distributed to consumers.’ In addition to ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, BP, Chevron, Shell, Equilon Enterprises, Sunoco, Aloha Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, Woodside Energy Hawaii, BHP Hawaii are all listed as defendants.

Could it be any more obvious what’s happening here?

Keep reading

Transportation Secretary Cancels $54 Million in University Grants Tied to DEI, Climate Agenda

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Friday announced the termination of seven federally funded university research grants totaling $54 million, saying the programs are wasteful and ideologically divisive projects that fall outside the scope of the Department of Transportation’s core mission.

“The previous administration turned the Department of Transportation into the Department of Woke,” Duffy said in a May 2 statement. “I’ve focused the Department on what matters; safety, making travel great again, and building big, beautiful infrastructure projects.”

The grants supported research projects that Duffy said were used to advance a “radical DEI and green agenda” that wasted taxpayer resources and were not aligned with the transportation priorities of Americans.

The seven canceled grants had been awarded to research centers at the University of California–Davis, City College of New York, University of Southern California, New York University, San Jose State University, University of New Orleans, and Johns Hopkins University.

He cited specific examples of what he called ideological misuse of funds, including a $12 million grant to UC Davis for research on “accelerating equitable decarbonization,” a $9 million grant to the City College of New York for studying “equitable transportation for the disadvantaged workforce,” and a $6 million grant to San Jose State University that examined infrastructure and safety issues facing women and gender non-conforming individuals.

“We’re taking out all the racist DEI and green new scam and injecting a dose of reality back into our higher education system,” Duffy said in a video statement.

Keep reading

More Climate Litigation Silliness From Academia

A recent article published in Nature claims that climate liability lawsuits, such as the ones various U.S. states and municipalities continue to pursue, are on rock-solid legal grounds, thanks to the authors’ new research “proving” that the world would be $28 trillion richer today but for carbon emissions from fossil fuels over a 30-year period, 1991 -2020. Ignoring the emissions from developing countries, notably China, which today accounts for one-third of all energy-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the authors focus instead on oil companies, which they call the “carbon majors” – especially Saudi Aramco, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, and Gasprom.

For example, according to the authors Chevron has caused an estimated $2 trillion in damages, and perhaps as much as $3.6 trillion. Exxon Mobil is right behind at $1.9 trillion. Similarly, Saudi Aramco and Gazprom are each responsible for $2 trillion in damages. BP is the laggard, at just under $1.5 trillion in damages. Levying fines of those amounts, which greatly exceed these companies’ market values, would lead to their immediate bankruptcy. While the authors may consider such an outcome a “win,” bankrupting these companies would not change the physical and economic realities that the world depends on fossil fuels and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. (Moreover, it is not clear who would levy the fines and who would receive the monies received – other than trial lawyers.)

Keep reading

Trump DOJ Suing Blue States Over Unconstitutional Climate Laws That Threaten U.S. Energy Security

The Trump Justice Department is suing multiple blue states over ridiculous progressive climate laws that they claim are unconstitutional and which threaten United States energy security.

Returning the country to a state of energy independence was one of the pillars of Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. It’s extremely important and not just to our economy. Energy independence is a national security issue.

The left wants to destroy the fossil fuel industry and they’ve been quite open about that. Yet as we just saw in Spain, using only green and renewable energy sources doesn’t work.

FOX News reports:

DOJ sues four blue states over ‘unconstitutional’ climate laws threatening US energy security

The Justice Department (DOJ) has filed lawsuits against four Democrat-led states: Hawaii, Michigan, New York and Vermont, over what it calls unconstitutional climate policies that threaten U.S. energy independence and national security.

The move follows President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14260, Protecting American Energy from State Overreach, directing federal action against state laws that burden domestic energy development.

“These burdensome and ideologically motivated laws and lawsuits threaten American energy independence and our country’s economic and national security,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi…

The DOJ filed complaints Tuesday against New York and Vermont over newly passed “climate superfund” laws, which would impose strict liability on fossil fuel companies for alleged contributions to climate change.

New York’s law alone seeks $75 billion in damages from energy firms. According to the DOJ, these laws are preempted by the federal Clean Air Act, violate the Constitution, and infringe on federal foreign affairs powers.

This is absolutely necessary. When the power goes out, all bets are off.

Keep reading

Geoengineers Want Boeing 777s To Dump Sulfur Into The Sky, Risking Acid Rain Catastrophe: Study

Scientists are proposing to modify Boeing 777 aircraft to spray sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere in an attempt to cool the Earth in the name of debunked, so-called “climate change”—despite fully acknowledging the serious risk of acid rain and other environmental disasters.

A new study published today in Earth’s Future openly admits that this method, called stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), would sharply increase dangerous side effects like acid rain because it requires “three times more” aerosol to achieve the same cooling effect compared to previous high-altitude schemes.

“However, this low‐altitude strategy requires three times more injection than high‐altitude SAI, and so would strongly increase side‐effects such as acid rain,” the study’s authors warn​.

Rather than developing new, specially-designed aircraft to reach the ideal 65,000 feet altitude, researchers from University College London and Yale now propose dumping sulfur at just 42,000 feet—within the existing capabilities of modified 777s​.

The ironic catch?

At lower altitudes, sulfur particles would rain out of the sky much faster—meaning a massive increase in the amount of pollutant dumped into the atmosphere.

Instead of solving anything, their plan could flood the atmosphere with even more toxic material, accelerating the very environmental destruction they claim to be fighting.

The study projects injecting 12 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide per year​—comparable to the volume released by the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991, which famously cooled the planet temporarily but also triggered severe acid rain​.

In fact, the researchers admit outright that this new strategy would mean “a proportionate increase in the side-effects of SAI per unit cooling, such as human exposure to descending particulate matter.”

The new proposal to retrofit Boeing 777s to spray sulfur mirrors the large-scale atmospheric modification that anti-geoengineering expert Jim Lee shows is already being carried out daily through commercial aviation’s sulfur-doped emissions.​

Keep reading

It Takes A Lot Of Jet Fuel To Throw A Funeral For A Climate Alarmist Pope

In his final act as pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, Francis, in keeping with his deep commitment to the climate and well-cultivated image of personal humility, could have foregone a papal funeral.

To the thousands of world leaders and dignitaries flying to Rome as required by international protocol, Pope Francis could have extended an invitation to stay home. He could have ordered he not lie in state, preventing the Vatican pilgrimage of hundreds of thousands of faithful to pay their respects. He could have even skipped the motorcade through the streets of Rome. All this, as a memorable gesture to maintain a smaller carbon footprint — one last gift to the planet by not contributing to the climate crisis.

He did not.

In the final moments Francis’ mortal body was on this earth, the Holy Father demonstrated ever more clearly that indeed, there is no climate crisis. There are no personal actions he or the world’s elite would ever, ever, take for the climate. It is all theater.

On climate change, Francis died as he lived: another political hypocrite.

Harsh words coming from me, a Catholic, about the Pope, let alone the recently deceased Pope, but Francis’ climate alarmism, nay his downright climate ignorance, are far, far worse. If Francis’ climate beliefs were ever to become policy prescriptions, most of the world would die, starting with the poor, elderly, and infirm. We can only thank God the Pope no longer has an army.

Francis visited 68 countries during his reign. The jet fuel and the tanks of gas came from somewhere. So too the altars erected in parks and fields so the enormous crowds could gather to his side. For example, at World Youth Day in Manila, the largest ever Mass in history saw 6 million in attendance. Quite a petrochemical-heavy event. Media praised Francis, who braved the pouring rain, driving the gas-powered Popemobile around the grounds wearing a waterproof, plastic poncho.

Thank you, fossil fuels, for making it possible for the Bishop of Rome to be in the Philippines. Thank you, fossil fuel workers, laboring in difficult, even dangerous jobs, for providing him with these resources.

Keep reading

Tony Blair says Net Zero push has become ‘irrational’ and ‘hysterical’ and warns critics of green energy costs must not be dismissed as ‘climate deniers’

The climate change debate has become riven with ‘irrationality’ and ‘hysteria’ and needs a pragmatic reset to win over voters, Tony Blair warns today.

The former Labour prime minister said that while most people in developed countries like the UK believe it is real they are turning away from the politics because of the sacrifices they are being asked to make. 

In a forward to a new report by his Institute for Global Change he said there needs to be a switch from ‘protest to pragmatic policy’ because ‘the current approach isn’t working’.

He questioned the Net Zero move to phase out fossil fuels, pointing out that their use is increasing, not falling, and due to predicted energy demand, especially in the developing world, that would continue.

‘These are the inconvenient facts, which mean that any strategy based on either ”phasing out” fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail,’ he wrote.

‘Political leaders by and large know that the debate has become irrational. But they’re terrified of saying so, for fear of being accused of being ”climate deniers”. 

‘As ever, when sensible people don’t speak up about the way a campaign is being conducted, the campaign stays in the hands of those who end up alienating the very opinion on which consent for action depends’.

Despite having been an adviser to COP host Azerbaijan last year, he also criticised the annual UN climate summits as ‘a forum that frankly doesn’t have the heft to drive action and impact.’

Keep reading