Category Archives: Climate Change Fraud Lies

AOC’S Green New Deal at $7 TRILLION

Posted on by

The entire stock of all cows will have to die due to flatulence. Furthermore, no way Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wrote this alone, she has no clue what quantitative easing is, her method to pay for this deal by 2030. How will people travel to Hawaii when AOC grounds all airplanes? Has she calculated the cost of no airline travel to worldwide industry?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Fights the Power | The Nation

BTW: The actual resolution that outlines the Green New Deal does not include the “unwilling to work” part, but the overview document, released by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s office, does include the “unwilling” language. The overview entails the “nuts and bolts” of the plan. Ocasio-Cortez identifies as a democratic socialist.

***

We will begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to put the nuts and bolts on the plan described in this resolution (important to say so someone else can’t claim this mantle).

  • This is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a timeline.

 

*The Green New Deal resolution a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all. It will:

§Move America to 100% clean and renewable energy

§Create millions of family supporting-wage, union jobs

§Ensure a just transition for all communities and workers to ensure economic security for people and communities that have historically relied on fossil fuel industries§Ensure justice and equity for front-line communities by prioritizing investment, training, climate and community resiliency, economic and environmental benefits in these communities.

§Build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing:·

A job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security·

High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools·

Clean air and water and access to nature· Healthy food· High-quality health care· Safe, affordable, adequate housing ·Economic environment free of monopolies ·Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work· There is no time to waste.

*IPCC Report said global emissions must be cut by by 40-60% by 2030. US is 20% of total emissions. We must get to 0 by 2030 and lead the world in a global Green New Deal.·Americans love a challenge. This is our moonshot.

*When JFK said we’d go to the by the end of the decade, people said impossible.

*If Eisenhower wanted to build the interstate highway system today, people would ask how we’d pay for it.

*When FDR called on America to build 185,000 planes to fight World War 2, every business leader, CEO, and general laughed at him. At the time, the U.S. had produced 3,000 planes in the last year. By the end of the war, we produced 300,000 planes. That’s what we are capable of if we have real leadership· This is massive investment in our economy and society, not expenditure.

*We invested 40-50% of GDP into our economy during World War 2 and created the greatest middle class the US has seen.

*The interstate highway system has returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost.

*This is massively expanding existing and building new industries at a rapid pace – growing our economy· The Green New Deal has momentum. o92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green New Deal

*Nearly every major Democratic Presidential contender say they back the Green New deal including: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Jeff Merkeley, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jay Inslee.

*45 House Reps and 330+ groups backed the original resolution for a select committee

*Over 300 local and state politicians have called for a federal Green New Deal

*New Resolution has20 co-sponsors, about 30 groups (numbers will change by Thursday).

FAQ

Why 100% clean and renewable and not just 100% renewable? Are you saying we won’t transition off fossil fuels?

Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases. Anyone who has read the resolution sees that we spell this out through a plan that calls for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of the economy. Simply banning fossil fuels immediately won’t build the new economy to replace it – this is the plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically. We do this through a huge mobilization to create the renewable energy economy as fast as possible. We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.

Is nuclear a part of this?

A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible. No one has put the full 10-year plan together yet, and if it is possible to get to fully 100% renewable in 10 years, we will do that.

Does this include a carbon tax?

The Green New Deal is a massive investment in the production of renewable energy industries and infrastructure. We cannot simply tax gas and expect workers to figure out another way to get to work unless we’ve first created a better, more affordable option. So we’re not ruling a carbon tax out, but a carbon tax would be a tiny part of a Green New Deal in the face of the gigantic expansion of our productive economy and would have to be preceded by first creating the solutions necessary so that workers and working class communities are not affected. While a carbon tax may be a part of the Green New Deal, it misses the point and would be off the table unless we create the clean, affordable options first. Does this include cap and trade?

 

The Green New Deal is about creating the renewable energy economy through a massive investment in our society and economy. Cap and trade assumes the existing market will solve this problem for us, and that’s simply not true. While cap and trade may be a tiny part of the larger Green New Deal plan to mobilize our economy, any cap and trade legislation will pale in comparison to the size of the mobilization and must recognize that existing legislation can incentivize companies to create toxic hot spots in frontline communities, so anything here must ensure that front-line communities are prioritized.

Does a GND ban all new fossil fuel infrastructure or nuclear power plants?

The Green New Deal makes new fossil fuel infrastructure or nuclear plants unnecessary. This is a massive mobilization of all our resources into renewable energies. It would simply not make sense to build new fossil fuel infrastructure because we will be creating a plan to reorient our entire economy to work off renewable energy. Simply banning fossil fuels and nuclear plants immediately won’t build the new economy to replace it – this is the plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically.

Are you for CCUS?

We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective.

How will you pay for it? The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs. The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity.

Why do we need a sweeping Green New Deal investment program? Why can’t we just rely on regulations and taxes and the private sector to invest alone such as a carbon tax or a ban on fossil fuels?

  • The level of investment required is massive. Even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could make would not be sufficient.
  • The speed of investment required will be massive. Even if all the billionaires and companies could make the investments required, they would not be able to pull together a coordinated response in the narrow window of time required to jump-start major new projects and major new economic sectors. Also, private companies are wary of making massive investments in unproven

research and technologies; the government, however, has the time horizon to be able to patiently make investments in new tech and R&D, without necessarily having a commercial outcome or application in mind at the time the investment is made. Major examples of government investments in “new” tech that subsequently spurred a boom in the private section include DARPA-projects, the creation of the internet – and, perhaps most recently, the government’s investment in Tesla.

  • Simply put, we don’t need to just stop doing some things we are doing (like using fossil fuels for energy needs); we also need to start doing new things (like overhauling whole industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy efficient). Starting to do new things requires some upfront investment. In the same way that a company that is trying to change how it does business may need to make big upfront capital investments today in order to reap future benefits (for e.g., building a new factory to increase production or buying newhardware and software to totally modernize its IT system), a country that is trying to change how its economy works will need to make big investments today to jump-start and develop new projects and sectors to power the new economy.
  • Merely incentivizing the private sector doesn’t work – e.g. the tax incentives and subsidies given to wind and solar projects have been a valuable spur to growth in the US renewables industry but, even with such investment-promotion subsidies, the present level of such projects is simply inadequate to transition to a fully greenhouse gas neutral economy as quickly as needed.
  • Once again, we’re not saying that there isn’t a role for private sector investments; we’re just saying that the level of investment required will need every actor to pitch in and that the government is best placed to be the prime driver.

Resolution Summary

  • Created in consultation with multiple groups from environmental community, environmental justice community, and labor community
  • 5 goals in 10 years:

 

*Net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers

*Create millions of high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all

*Invest in infrastructure and industry to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century

*Clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all

*Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of front-line and vulnerable communities

  • National mobilization our economy through 14 infrastructure and industrial projects. Every project strives to remove greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from every sector of our economy:

*Build infrastructure to create resiliency against climate change-related disasters

*Repair and upgrade U.S. infrastructure. ASCE estimates this is $4.6 trillion at minimum.

*Meet 100% of power demand through clean and renewable energy sources

*Build energy-efficient, distributed smart grids and ensure affordable access to electricity

*Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency

*Massively expand clean manufacturing (like solar panel factories, wind turbine factories, battery and storage manufacturing, energy efficient manufacturing components) and remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing

*Work with farmers and ranchers to create a sustainable, pollution and greenhouse gas free, food system that ensures universal access to healthy food and expands independent family farming

*Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle

*Mitigate long-term health effects of climate change and pollution

*Remove greenhouse gases from our atmosphere and pollution through afforestation, preservation, and other methods of restoring our natural ecosystems

*Restore all our damaged and threatened ecosystems

*Clean up all the existing hazardous waste sites and abandoned sitesoIdentify new emission sources and create solutions to eliminate those emissions

*Make the US the leader in addressing climate change and share our technology, expertise and products with the rest of the world to bring about a global Green New Deal

 

  • Social and economic justice and security through 15 requirements:

 

*Massive federal investments and assistance to organizations and businesses participating in the green new deal and ensuring the public gets a return on that investment

*Ensure the environmental and social costs of emissions are taken into account

*Provide job training and education to all

*Invest in R&D of new clean and renewable energy technologies

*Doing direct investments in frontline and deindustrialized communities that would otherwise be hurt by the transition to prioritize economic benefits there

*Use democratic and participatory processes led by frontline and vulnerable communities to implement GND projects locally

*Insure that all GND jobs are union jobs that pay prevailing wages and hire local

*Guarantee a job with family-sustaining wages

*Protect right of all workers to unionize and organize

*Strengthen and enforce labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards

*Enact and enforce trade rules to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas and grow domestic manufacturing

*Ensure public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and eminent domain is not abused

*Obtain free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples

*Ensure an economic environment free of monopolies and unfair competition

*Provide high-quality health care, housing, economic security, and clean-air, clean water, healthy food, and nature to all

PG&E Heads to Bankruptcy Due to Wildfire Liabilities

Posted on by

PG&E is the largest power company in the United States and is giving employees a 15 day notice of intent to file Chapter 11.

California Wildfires Force Hollywood Stars, Sets, Studio ...

The catastrophic fires of 2017 and 2018 in California could reach upwards of $30 billion in damages and liability. The CEO has announced his exit and has been replaced on a temporary basis by the corporate lawyer, John Simon. PG&E serves 16 million customers and this legal process is not supposed to impact services for electric power or natural gas.

California fires: Death toll rises to 17 - CNN

The November Camp fire that swept through a mountain community in California, killed 86 people and the property and business damage has yet to be estimated. It is estimated that PG&E has $1.5 billion in liquidity and could take as much as two years to recover from Chapter 11.

Meanwhile, there was quite the travel and play junket to Hawaii as those fires burned. What you say?

California lawmakers are no different from those in Congress taking little vacations at really bad times in the worst of bad judgement. (30+ Hispanic lawmakers, part of the BOLD PAC took a multi-lobby paid vacation to Puerto Rico during the government shutdown)

***

FNC: A group of California lawmakers took a trip to Hawaii with utility companies last year as wildfires wreaked havoc in their state.

During the junket, representatives from utility companies discussed with the bipartisan group of lawmakers just how much responsibility they should bear for wildfires – even as Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) could be on the hook for several billions of dollars in damages for fires it caused over the past few years.

The utility companies are pushing for a new state law that would raise electricity prices to offset costs incurred from wildfires, according to The New York Times.

The annual event, hosted by the nonprofit Independent Voter Project, was held in Maui in November. PG&E executives did not attend the conference because of the wildfires, but representatives from San Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison did, KABC-TV reported.

Those in attendance at the Wailea conference included California Assembly members Frank Bigelow, Bill Brough, Ian Calderon, Jim Cooper, Tom Daly, Heath Flora, Jim Frazier, Reggie Jones-Sawyer, Freddie Rodriguez and Blanca Rubio. State Sens. Ben Hueso and Cathleen Galgiani also attended, nonprofit Consumer Watchdog reports.

Bigelow and Brough are Republicans. The rest of the group are Democrats.

Thanks to Consumer Watchdog, a non-profit that is dedicated to being a consumer advocate with regard to protecting taxpayers and taking on special interests regardless of party. Ah but take caution, keep an eye on a possible financial bailout of PG&E. There are some energy billionaires out there that will lobby for financial assistance for PG&E.

It was just last June that a report was published revealing that PG&E has the makings of another Enron. For the highlights of that report, go here.

 

Top Progressives/Dark Money Meeting at Cali Resort

Posted on by

Beyond Resistance it is called….watch that hashtag through 2020. Meanwhile, if Kamala Harris is there with Van Jones and George Soros with Nancy Pelosi, you know the agenda is being crafted.

Image result for beyond resistance soros photo

Resistance Royalty: Pelosi, Soros Headline Left’s Biggest Dark Money Conference

Private memo gives inside look at Democracy Alliance’s latest secret donor meeting

CARLSBAD, Calif.—A secretive three-day conference where big money liberal donors are plotting the next steps of the “resistance” will be headlined by Friday speeches by billionaire George Soros and Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, according to internal documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The Democracy Alliance, a donor club of deep-pocketed liberal donors that each pledge to direct hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding to approved left-wing groups, descended on California’s posh La Costa Resort on Wednesday morning for its fall donor summit. The group continued its tradition of secrecy, promising all members and guests of the summit their participation would “remain confidential.”

The 38 page conference program is found here.

The first page of the conference agenda, which was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon and can be viewed in its entirety below, lays out “participation guidelines,” explaining that the Democracy Alliance is a “safe place” for donors and activists to meet. Guests are instructed not to share members’ names with the press and not to post to any social media sites, to contact Democracy Alliance if “the media or a blogger” contacts them, and to “refrain from leaving sensitive materials out where others may find them.”

This latter directive was ignored.

The agenda for the meeting, titled “Beyond #Resistance: Reclaiming our Progressive Future,” lays out three full days of events culminating in a Friday night dinner headlined by Pelosi.

A few hours earlier guests can attend “A Talk with George Soros,” who will be introduced with a “special videotaped message” by Democratic senator Kamala Harris (Calif.).

All of the events are scheduled to take place at the La Costa Resort, which features 17 tennis courts of both clay and hard surfaces including one with 1,000 seats for spectators, 36 holes of golf on the Legends Course and the Champions Course, an array of pools including three hot tubs that overlook said golf courses, a spa building, and the Deepak Chopra Center, where guests can do yoga or receive mind-body medical consultations.

Pelosi and Harris are not the only two politicians to have a presence at the swanky conference—Pennsylvania governor Tom Wolf (D.) held a Thursday event on his reelection efforts, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) will speak on Friday about “Russian interference in the 2016 election,” and Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D., Minn.), who chairs the DCCC, will attend a “festive brunch” on Saturday morning. Also making a “special appearance” on Friday will be Virginia’s governor-elect Ralph Northam.

The agenda also lists “special guests” at the conference, some more famous than others. Attendees showcased in the agenda range from failed California politician Sandra Fluke to liberal CNN contributor Van Jones to Center for American Progress CEO Neera Tanden.

Jones was headlining a Thursday dinner on “going outside the bubble” and learning from Trump voters.

Not all events and prominent guests are listed in the conference agenda.

Not listed, for example, was a Thursday night happy hour hosted by Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, who was spotted in attendance.

Also not listed as a special guest at the conference was David Brock, who checked in early Wednesday afternoon and has made himself highly visible at La Costa—slowly strolling around the sprawling property and staying up at the hotel bar till past midnight.

Brock is not a “partner” of Democracy Alliance—in fact, he has worked to create his own liberal donor network—but groups he controls, such as Media Matters for America, are among the many groups Democracy Alliance directs funding to.

Not listed in the agenda or spotted at the resort has been billionaire Tom Steyer, one of Democracy Alliance’s most prominent members in the past. Pelosi publicly reprimanded Steyer earlier this month for running a $10 million ad calling for President Trump’s impeachment.

Also not listed in the Democracy Alliance program was a meeting held by Patriotic Millionaires, who gave a Thursday morning briefing on the “tax fight” and “what is at stake.” The briefing was delivered by Larry Mishel of Americans for Tax Fairness, Thea Lee of Economic Policy Institute, and Jacob Leibenluft, a member of the Obama administration’s National Economic Council who is now with the Centeron Budget and Policy Priorities.

Not all meetings at the conference are open to all guests. Some meetings are “by invitation only,” “for prospective partners only,” or for “partners only.”

Right before Pelosi’s speech, for example, will be a “Partners only” forum dedicated to “committing resources.” The Democracy Alliance has never made its commitment decisions available to the public.

Democracy Alliance president Gara LaMarche wrote in a letter to attendees included in the agenda that President Trump’s November victory was “the most cataclysmic election of modern history.”

They are show a film by Heather Booth….the founding director of Midwest Academy. Just a few minutes into this video, you can see that child care is a social issue….other people need to pay for it…setting the table as child care turned into political power.

The Midwest Academy has been the go-to training school for turning social justice organizing into practical lessons for social justice organizers. Trainers from the Academy will join CTCP-funded staff for a three-day training that will cover the essentials of community organizing and developing strategies to build organizational power.

In the 1980s, MA was indirectly responsible for funding Barack Obama’s early organizing work, which began in June of 1985 in Chicago. At the time, Obama received key support from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) and the Woods Fund of Chicago. In both cases, Ken Rolling — who was a high official with the Midwest Academy, a Woods Fund board member, and a longtime member of CCHD’s national committee — likely played a major role in dispensing this money.

To this day, MA continues to indoctrinate its students in “us-versus-them” ideology, thereby producing an ever-growing cadre of radicalized activists. One prominent MA graduate is Service Employees International Union (SEIU) president Andrew Stern.

MA’s training sessions — titled “Organizing for Social Change” — are typically five days long. They teach techniques of “direct-action organizing,” whereby people are made “aware of their own power” to “take collective action on their own behalf” and address such societal issues as “rising inequalty in income and wealth.” MA’s openly confrontational modus operandi is reflected in a quote, attributed to Frederick Douglass, which appeared on the Academy website’s homepage as of January 2011: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will.” The chief objectives of MA’s tactics are interrelated: “electing our people to office” and “changing laws and regulations.”

MA training sessions cover such topics as “choosing problems and issues” on which to focus, “understanding preconditions for social change movements,” and obtaining “good media coverage.” Role-play techniques are used in order to help students determine what tactics work best in various situations: e.g., “stand or sit, shout or remain calm, make threats or try to reach consensus.”

An inviolable core principle undergirding all of MA’s tactics is that in every case, activists must “target” a “decision maker”; i.e., a “person or persons” who can be “forced” to “give you what you want.” Observing a central tenet of Saul Alinsky’s community-organizing doctrines, MA emphasizes: “The decision maker is always a person, never as institution.” (Alinsky taught that the people’s discontent must be directed, without exception, at an identifiable face — “a personification, not something general and abstract like a corporation or City Hall.”)

Toward this end, MA activists commonly employ a technique known as the “accountability session,” whereby they target a specific person — e.g., a government official or corporate CEO who possesses the authority necessary to make a decision vis a vis a matter of concern to MA. The activists arrange to meet with this person, telling him or her that they merely wish to have a certain existing policy or plan explained to them. At the meeting, however, the official is confronted by a large number of angry protesters; their activities are directed by an experienced organizer who has analyzed the official’s personal and family life, political connections, and career to find vulnerabilities where pressure can be applied.

To provide an overall structure for its training programs, MA has produced a 425-page manual titled Organizing for Social Change, co-authored by former MA trainer Kim Bobo, MA co-founder Steve Max, and current MA executive director Jackie Kendall. This publication is widely used by radicals and community organizations around the world as a textbook on how to conduct direct-action organizing. Such groups as the Children’s Defense Fund, NARAL, the Sierra Club, and the United States Student Organization have used the manual for training purposes. The AFL-CIO has incorporated the manual’s teachings into its “Union Summer” training camp for labor organizers. Former AFL-CIO president John Sweeney and the Rev. Jesse Jackson have highly encouraged their supporters to read it.

In December 2005, MA announced its establishment of an annual “Heather Award,” in honor of Heather Booth’s decades of work as an activist leader.
To view a list of this award’s past recipients, click here.

In 2008, MA executive director Jackie Kendall served on the team that developed the first volunteer-training program for “Camp Obama,” a two-to-four day intensive course — run in conjunction with Barack Obama’s presidential campaign — designed to cultivate political activists who could help the Illinois senator win the White House.

MA endorsed the October 2, 2010 “March on Washington” organized by One Nation Working Together, an event whose purpose was to inspire “an intensive voter-mobilization program for Election Day 2010.”
For a list of other notable endorsers, click here.

Image result for midwest academy chicago

 

U.S. of Paris Accord, will take 3 Years However

Posted on by

Paris Accord – TALKERS

Topline: The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for Americans, and the President’s action today is keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first. The Accord was negotiated poorly by the Obama Administration and signed out of desperation. It frontloads costs on the American people to the detriment of our economy and job growth while extracting meaningless commitments from the world’s top global emitters, like China. The U.S. is already leading the world in energy production and doesn’t need a bad deal that will harm American workers.

UNDERMINES U.S. Competitiveness and Jobs

According to a study by NERA Consulting, meeting the Obama Administration’s requirements in the Paris Accord would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion over the next several decades.

By 2040, our economy would lose 6.5 million industrial sector jobs – including 3.1 million manufacturing sector jobs

It would effectively decapitate our coal industry, which now supplies about one-third of our electric power

The deal was negotiated BADLY, and extracts meaningless commitments from the world’s top polluters

The Obama-negotiated Accord imposes unrealistic targets on the U.S. for reducing our carbon emissions, while giving countries like China a free pass for years to come.

 Under the Accord, China will actually increase emissions until 2030

The U.S. is ALREADY a Clean Energy and Oil & Gas Energy Leader; we can reduce our emissions and continue to produce American energy without the Paris Accord

America has already reduced its carbon-dioxide emissions dramatically.

Since 2006, CO2 emissions have declined by 12 percent, and are expected to continue to decline.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. is the leader in oil & gas production.

The agreement funds a UN Climate Slush Fund underwritten by American taxpayers

President Obama committed $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund – which is about 30 percent of the initial funding – without authorization from Congress

With $20 trillion in debt, the U.S. taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize other countries’ energy needs.

The deal also accomplishes LITTLE for the climate

According to researchers at MIT, if all member nations met their obligations, the impact on the climate would be negligible. The impacts have been estimated to be likely to reduce global temperature rise by less than .2 degrees Celsius in 2100.

*** Image result for paris accords climate

The Legal and Economic Case Against the Paris Climate Treaty

Canceling U.S. Participation Protects Competitiveness and the Constitution

President Trump should keep his two-part campaign promise to cancel U.S. participation in the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments to United Nations global warming programs. The Paris Agreement is a costly and ineffectual solution to the alleged climate crisis. It is also plainly a treaty, despite President Obama’s attempt to implement it without the Senate’s advice and consent. Failure to withdraw from the agreement would entrench a constitutionally damaging precedent, set President Trump’s domestic and foreign policies in conflict, and ensure decades of diplomatic blowback.

For those and other reasons, the Paris Agreement imperils both America’s economic future and capacity for self-government.

The Paris Agreement and the 1992 treaty it purports to modify, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, both contain provisions for withdrawal. Concerns about diplomatic blowback if President Trump withdraws from the Agreement or submits it for the Senate’s advice and consent actually confirm the wisdom of exercising one of those options. The Paris Agreement is designed to institutionalize a running campaign of diplomatic blowback unless the U.S. submits to ever-tightening constraints, ratcheting up every five years. If Trump withdraws, any diplomatic blowback would largely be a muted one-off event, without the economic, political, and security costs that staying in the Paris Agreement entails.

To safeguard America’s economic future and capacity for self-government, President Trump should pull out of the Paris Agreement. There are several options for doing so, which are discussed in this paper. Regardless of which option Trump selects, his  administration should make the case for withdrawal based on the following key points:

  1. The Paris Climate Agreement is a treaty by virtue of its costs and risks, ambition compared to predecessor climate treaties, dependence on subsequent legislation by Congress, intent to affect state laws, U.S. historic practice with regard to multilateral environmental agreements, and other common-sense criteria.
  2. In America’s constitutional system, treaties must obtain the advice and consent of the Senate before the United States may lawfully join them. President Obama deemed the Paris Agreement to not be a treaty in order to evade constitutional review, which the Agreement almost certainly would not have survived.
  3. Allowing Obama’s climate coup to stand will set a dangerous precedent that will undermine one of the Constitution’s important checks and balances. It will allow a future president to adopt any treaty he and foreign elites want, without Senate ratification, just by deeming it “not a treaty.”
  4. The Agreement endangers America’s capacity for self-government. It empowers one administration to make legislative commitments for decades to come, without congressional authorization, and regardless of the outcome of future elections. It would also make U.S. energy policies increasingly unaccountable to voters, and increasingly beholden to the demands of foreign leaders, U.N. bureaucrats, and international pressure groups.
  5. The United States cannot comply with the Paris Agreement and pursue a pro-growth energy agenda. Affordable, plentiful, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern economic life. Yet, the Paris Agreement’s central goal is to make fossil fuels, America’s most plentiful and affordable energy source, more expensive across the board. Implementing the agreement’s progressively more restrictive five-year emission-reduction pledges—called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—would destroy U.S. manufacturing’s energy price edge.
  6. The Agreement entails more cost and risk than the country is willing to bear. A majority of states have sued to overturn the Obama Environmental Protection Agency’s end-run around Congress, the Clean Power Plan, which is also the centerpiece of the U.S. NDC under the Paris Agreement. Yet, the CPP is only a start. All of Obama’s adopted and proposed climate policies would only achieve about 51 percent of just the first NDC, and the Paris Agreement requires parties to promise more “ambitious” NDCs every five years.
  7. The Agreement has no democratic legitimacy. President Obama kept mum about climate change during the 2012 elections. Only after being reelected did he unveil a climate agenda featuring an EPA-redesigned electric power system and the most “ambitious” climate agreement in history.
  8. Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is a humanitarian imperative. The Agreement will produce no detectable climate benefits. Instead, it will divert trillions of dollars from productive investments that would advance global welfare to political uses. Worse, the Agreement’s mid-century emission-reduction goals cannot be achieved without drastically reducing energy-poor countries’ current access to affordable energy from fossil fuels.

For all the foregoing reasons, President Trump should stick to his campaign promises to end America’s participation in the Paris Climate Agreement and stop payments to the U.N. Green Climate Fund.

EPA Possible Buyout, Why Not Education?

Posted on by

Personally, why do we have to buyout any government employee? Just begin to defund departments within agencies and non-mandatory employees are laid-off right? Remember that quasi government shutdown during the Obama administration where no one missed anything that government did or didn’t do?

Meanwhile, offering EPA employees an early buyout is an option for sure, but why not apply the same plan to the Department of Education?

The U.S. Department of Education promotes student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access to educational opportunity. To support this mission, the Budget provides $70.7 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Education in 2016, an increase of $3.6 billion, or 5.4 percent, over the 2015 level. The Budget also proposes $145 billion in new mandatory spending and reforms over the next decade to fund early learning, support teachers, and reform postsecondary education.

While investing in education in all domains, the Budget places particular emphasis in four areas: (1) increasing equity; (2) expanding access to high-quality early learning; (3) increasing support for teachers; and (4) expanding college opportunity and quality. In addition, the Budget makes a cross-cutting commitment to using and developing evidence in order to maximize results for taxpayers and students. In recent years, the Department has pioneered several evidence-based programs and introduced priorities for the use of evidence into existing initiatives. By investing in what works, learning more about what works, and sharing what we learn, we can help more students succeed. (blah blah blah, right)

Meanwhile, back to the EPA…. an agency that has declared a temporary rain puddle is the property of the Federal government….

EPA To Offer Employees Buyouts, Early Retirement This Year

The Environmental Protection Agency will begin offering employees financial incentives to leave the agency this year, according to an internal memorandum obtained by Government Executive.

As part of its efforts to meet the requirements of recently issued guidance from the Office of Management and Budget calling on all agencies to restructure themselves and reduce their workforces, EPA will continue a freeze on external hiring and begin offering early retirement and buyouts. Details of the plans were not made clear in the memo, which was sent by acting Deputy Administrator Mike Flynn. He noted only that EPA’s goal was to complete the separation incentive program by Sept. 30, the end of fiscal 2017.

Agencies can offer up to $25,000 to employees who have worked in the federal government at least three years through a Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment and allow employees not otherwise eligible for retirement benefits to receive them through Voluntary Early Retirement Authority. The Office of Personnel Management must approve all early out and buyout programs.

In its guidance, OMB said OPM would “provide expedited reviews for most [VERA and VSIP] requests within 30 days.” While OMB said it would not prescribe any specific strategy or set reduction targets for individual agencies, President Trump’s fiscal 2018 budget called on the EPA to cut 25 percent of its workforce, amounting to 3,200 employees. The proposal suggested slashing 31 percent of the agency’s budget.

EPA has endured significant spending cuts in recent years, with its spending level already reduced more than 20 percent since 2010 and its workforce at its smallest total since 1989. EPA last offered separation incentives to its employees in 2014, targeting mostly regional offices.

A recently released inspector general report found EPA paid $11.3 million to get 456 employees to leave the agency that year. Generally, the IG found the incentives “aided workforce restructuring goals,” though it was unclear if EPA had successfully reached its other goals of obtaining staff with new skillsets and increasing the number of staffers per supervisor. When accounting for the additional annual leave payments, EPA doled out a total of $16.2 million in 2014 to separate the employees. The IG noted the agency could not control how many or which employees would voluntarily leave, but that the various EPA offices adequately analyzed their workforce data to determine which positions to target.

Under OMB’s guidance, all agencies must come up with both short and long-term plans to reduce their staffing levels, with preliminary plans due June 30. Flynn said EPA has recently formed a workgroup to develop its agency reform plan. EPA is at least the third agency to continue its hiring freeze despite Trump ending it last week. Flynn said the agency will approve “very limited exceptions” to the moratorium and allow certain internal reassignments.

“I appreciate your patience as we work through the details of the guidance and will work with you as we move forward,” Flynn said.

Liz Bowman, an EPA spokeswoman, said the approach mirrored the one taken by the Obama administration and would ensure “payroll expenses do not overtake funds used for vital programs to protect the environment.”

“Streamlining and reorganizing is good government and important to maximizing taxpayer dollars,” she said.

John O’Grady, president of the American Federation of Government Employees council that represents many EPA workers, said reaching the administration’s desired cuts through incentive payments would prove prohibitively expensive. EPA, he added, is already “underfunded and understaffed.”

“Any further cuts will absolutely cripple the agency,” O’Grady said.

OPM did not immediately respond to requests for further details on the separation incentives.

Then….the progressives are fighting back on this proposed legislation regarding the EPA:

Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 or the HONEST Act

(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such action is the best available science, specifically identified, and publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results. A covered action includes a risk, exposure, or hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance. Personally identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential must be redacted prior to public availability. Read more about it here.