Category Archives: Energy Agenda

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.

Ah…Rex Tillerson has Another Special Friend in Russia

Posted on by

We are supposed to dislike the NYT’s for many reasons, but there are times when researchers do good work even if some truths hurt. Such is the case with Rex Tillerson and Igor Sechin.

 HuffPo

MOSCOW — It’s June 2014. War is underway in eastern Ukraine, and Russia has recently annexed Crimea. Western countries are introducing sanctions against Russian companies and the people in President Vladimir V. Putin’s inner circle. It seems that Russia will soon be completely isolated from the rest of the world.

But the 21st World Petroleum Congress is taking place in Moscow. The atmosphere at the Crocus Expo International Exhibition Center, where the congress is being held, is decidedly nonconfrontational. On a stage, two men in suits hold an amicable conversation, addressing each other as “my friend.” The men are captains of the global petroleum industry: Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, and Igor I. Sechin, the head of Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, and one of Mr. Putin’s longtime allies.

Mr. Sechin is not just the chief executive of Rosneft, he is also one of the heroes of contemporary Russian politics. He is believed to have served as a K.G.B. agent in Africa and had no real experience in the business world until he was over 40. He didn’t come to lead the state oil company because of his business acumen; he earned his position through his loyalty to Mr. Putin.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Mr. Sechin aligned himself with Mr. Putin, another former K.G.B. officer, as he began consolidating power in post-Soviet politics. Everywhere Mr. Putin went, Mr. Sechin was by his side as a trusted aide and adviser.

In 2003, Russian authorities arrested Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the owner of Yukos, a huge oil company. At the time, Mr. Sechin was working as Mr. Putin’s deputy chief of staff, and though he had no formal judicial or investigatory authority, Mr. Khodorkovsky accused him of initiating his arrest — and the campaign that followed to nationalize Yukos. It’s impossible to know, but it seems likely. Following Mr. Khodorkovsky’s arrest, Rosneft absorbed Yukos’s assets. In 2004, Mr. Sechin was appointed to head Rosneft’s board.

Mr. Sechin isn’t just a businessman, though. He’s an influential political figure and a crucial Putin ally who has demonstrated his power. The arrest last month of Aleksei Ulyukayev, the minister of economic development, on charges of bribery was widely viewed as an act of revenge by Mr. Sechin. With the arrest, the first of an active government minister in post-Soviet Russia, he again confirmed his image as the most sinister man in the president’s inner circle.

Earlier this year, Mr. Sechin’s expansion was so aggressive that it seemed plausible that Mr. Putin himself would get tired of him, and would try to rid himself of such an odious comrade in arms.

Now Mr. Sechin has nothing to fear. A gift has arrived from across the ocean. This man, whose international experience up to this point has been limited to his friendship with Hugo Chávez, the deceased president of Venezuela, has an exclusive international trump card that even Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov lacks. More here.

****

Judicial Watch says it this way, ‘Rex and the Russian Swamp’:

Amid controversy over the extent of Kremlin penetration into the American electoral system (detailed last week in Investigative Bulletin), Donald Trump has doubled down on the Russian connection with his nomination of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to become the next secretary of state.

Mr. Trump has been signaling a new Russia tilt for months and Mr. Tillerson seems an excellent candidate to carry it out. Whether this is sound policy or sheer folly remains to be seen, but from an anti-corruption perspective—taking Mr. Trump at his pledge to “drain the swamp”—the Tillerson nomination is strange indeed.

Mr. Tillerson is up to his eyeballs in Russian oil deals with Vladimir Putin, whose kleptocratic regime makes the Washington swamp look like the pool at Mar-a-Lago. Last week, U.S. intelligence leaked a new estimate of Mr. Putin’s personal wealth: $85 billion.

His Kremlin salary: $144,444.

You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Mr. Tillerson’s role in the Rosneft oil deal is a case in point. Rosneft is a Russian energy giant closely allied with Mr. Putin. Mr. Tillerson negotiated a deal with Rosneft giving ExxonMobil access to vast Russian oil reserves in the Arctic and Black Sea. ExxonMobil pledged millions to provide the technology and expertise for exploration and drilling. In return, it received a one-third stake in the venture. Successful exploitation of the oil fields could bring more than $100 billion into ExxonMobil coffers.

Rosneft was formerly known as the Yukos Oil Company, Russia’s largest energy enterprise. In 2003, Mr. Putin decided he wanted it.

Yukos’s founder, the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was becoming a threat to Mr. Putin. He jailed Mr. Khodorkovsky on bogus fraud charges, seized Yukos assets and bankrupted the company. Mr. Khodorkovsky served ten years behind bars. Other Yukos officials were jailed or fled the country. American and Russian investors were robbed. The Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague awarded investors $50 billion in damages, but the decision was later overturned.

Some might say Mr. Khodorkovsky got off easy. Here’s a list of Putin critics who ended up dead.

Yukos was raped and pillaged and its assets were transferred to Rosneft. Control of the company was given to a key Putin lieutenant, Igor Sechin. Like Mr. Putin, Mr. Sechin is a former KGB agent. Mr. Sechin is a leading figure in the siloviki—literally, “strongmen”—faction of former law enforcement, military and intelligence figures around Mr. Putin.

In 2012, Mr. Tillerson struck his deal with Rosneft. “Today really is a historic day,” Mr. Tillerson said at the signing ceremony.

Former Yukos officials and shareholders felt differently. When the Mafia or a drug cartel washes its ill-gotten gains into a new, “clean” financial entity, that’s called money laundering. “Through today’s agreement with Exxon,” the Committee for Russian Economic Freedom declared, “Rosneft has finally managed to give an aura of legitimacy to the theft of assets stolen from Yukos.” The former CFO of Yukos wrote in the Moscow Times that “Exxon is investing with a company whose largest assets were stolen from Yukos shareholders by the Russian government.”

Mr. Tillerson has a long history with Mr. Sechin. In 1998, Mr. Tillerson ran ExxonMobil’s oil and gas enterprise on Sakahalin Island, off the coast of Siberia. Mr. Sechin took over the Russian side of the project in 2004. Mr. Tillerson’s ExxonMobil predecessor as CEO tried to buy into Yukos but was driven off by the jailing of Mr. Khodorkovsky.

Mr. Tillerson persisted. The Rosneft deal giving ExxonMobil access to Arctic and Black Sea oil fields elevated the relationship between Mr. Tillerson and the Kremlin leadership. Mr. Tillerson calls Mr. Sechin a “friend.” Mr. Sechin says he wants to come to the United States to ride motorcycle with Mr. Tillerson. In 2013, Mr. Putin awarded Mr. Tillerson the Russian Order of Friendship for his “big contribution to developing cooperation in the energy sector.”

The bromance hit a rough patch in 2014 when the U.S. government sanctioned Russian officials and entities—including Mr. Sechin and Rosneft—for annexing Crimea and sending forces into Ukraine. The Rosneft deal was put on hold. Losses to ExxonMobil are estimated at more than $1 billion. In 2015, Mr. Tillerson declared at a conference, “We’ll await a time in which the sanctions environment changes or the sanctions requirements change.”

He may not have to wait much longer.

Soros 3 Day Secret Huddle in DC Underway

Posted on by

Full the 3 day agenda is packed full of communists, Marxists and progressives and is found here.

Soros bands with donors to resist Trump, ‘take back power’

Major liberal funders huddle behind closed doors with Pelosi, Warren, Ellison, and union bosses to lick wounds, retrench.

Politico: George Soros and other rich liberals who spent tens of millions of dollars trying to elect Hillary Clinton are gathering in Washington for a three-day, closed door meeting to retool the big-money left to fight back against Donald Trump.

The conference, which kicked off Sunday night at Washington’s pricey Mandarin Oriental hotel, is sponsored by the influential Democracy Alliance donor club, and will include appearances by leaders of most leading unions and liberal groups, as well as darlings of the left such as House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairman Keith Ellison, according to an agenda and other documents obtained by POLITICO.

The meeting is the first major gathering of the institutional left since Trump’s shocking victory over Hillary Clinton in last week’s presidential election, and, if the agenda is any indication, liberals plan full-on trench warfare against Trump from Day One. Some sessions deal with gearing up for 2017 and 2018 elections, while others focus on thwarting President-elect Trump’s 100-day plan, which the agenda calls “a terrifying assault on President Obama’s achievements — and our progressive vision for an equitable and just nation.”

Yet the meeting also comes as many liberals are reassessing their approach to politics — and the role of the Democracy Alliance, or DA, as the club is known in Democratic finance circles. The DA, its donors and beneficiary groups over the last decade have had a major hand in shaping the institutions of the left, including by orienting some of its key organizations around Clinton, and by basing their strategy around the idea that minorities and women constituted a so-called “rising American electorate” that could tip elections to Democrats.

That didn’t happen in the presidential election, where Trump won largely on the strength of his support from working-class whites. Additionally, exit polls suggested that issues like fighting climate change and the role of money in politics — which the DA’s beneficiary groups have used to try to turn out voters — didn’t resonate as much with the voters who carried Trump to victory.

“The DA itself should be called into question,” said one Democratic strategist who has been active in the group and is attending the meeting. “You can make a very good case it’s nothing more than a social club for a handful wealthy white donors and labor union officials to drink wine and read memos, as the Democratic Party burns down around them.”

Another liberal operative who has been active in the DA since its founding rejected the notion that the group — or the left, more generally — needed to completely retool its approach to politics.

“We should not learn the wrong lesson from this election,” said the operative, pointing out that Clinton is on track to win the popular vote and that Trump got fewer votes than the last GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. “We need our people to vote in greater numbers. For that to happen, we need candidates who inspire them to go to the polls on Election Day.”

But Gara LaMarche, the president of the DA, on Sunday evening told donors gathered at the Mandarin for a welcome dinner that some reassessment was in order. According to prepared remarks he provided to POLITICO, he said, “You don’t lose an election you were supposed to win, with so much at stake, without making some big mistakes, in assumptions, strategy and tactics.”

LaMarche added that the reassessment “must take place without recrimination and finger-pointing, whatever frustration and anger some of us feel about our own allies in these efforts,” and he said “It is a process we should not rush, even as we gear up to resist the Trump administration.”

LaMarche emailed the donors last week that the meeting would begin the process of assessing “what steps we will take together to resist the assaults that are coming and take back power, beginning in the states in 2017 and 2018.”

In addition to sessions focusing on protecting Obamacare and other pillars of Obama’s legacy against dismantling by President-elect Trump, the agenda includes panels on rethinking polling and the left’s approach to winning the working-class vote, as well as sessions stressing the importance of channeling cash to state legislative policy battles and races, where Republicans won big victories last week.

Democrats need to invest more in training officials and developing policies in the states, argued Rep. Ellison (D-Minn.) on a Friday afternoon donor conference call, according to someone on the call. The call was organized by a DA-endorsed group called the State Innovation Exchange (or SiX), which Ellison urged the donors to support.

Ellison, who is scheduled to speak on a Monday afternoon panel at the DA meeting on the challenge Democrats face in winning working-class votes, has been a leading liberal voice for a form of economic populism that Trump at times channeled more than Clinton.

As liberals look to rebuild the post-Clinton Democratic Party on a more aggressively liberal bearing, Ellison has emerged as a top candidate to take over the Democratic National Committee, and he figures to be in high demand at the DA meeting. An Ellison spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday evening. Nor did a Trump spokesman.

Raj Goyle, a New York Democratic activist who previously served in the Kansas state legislature and now sits on SiX’s board, argued that many liberal activists and donors are “disconnected from working class voters’ concerns” because they’re cluster in coastal cities. “And that hurt us this election,” said Goyle, who is involved in the DA, and said its donors would do well to steer more cash to groups on the ground in landlocked states. “Progressive donors and organizations need to immediately correct the lack of investment in state and local strategies.”

The Democracy Alliance was launched after the 2004 election by Soros, the late insurance mogul Peter Lewis, and a handful of fellow Democratic mega-donors who had combined to spend tens of millions trying to boost then-Sen. John Kerry’s ultimately unsuccessful challenge to then-President George W. Bush.

The donors’ goal was to seed a set of advocacy groups and think tanks outside the Democratic Party that could push the party and its politicians to the left while also defending them against attack from the right.

The group requires its members — a group that now numbers more than 100 and includes finance titans like Soros, Tom Steyer and Donald Sussman, as well as major labor unions and liberal foundations — to contribute a total of at least $200,000 a year to recommended groups. Members also pay annual dues of $30,000 to fund the DA staff and its meetings, which include catered meals and entertainment (on Sunday, interested donors were treated to a VIP tour of the recently opened National Museum of African American History and Culture).

Since its inception in 2005, the DA has steered upward of $500 million to a range of groups, including pillars of the political left such as the watchdog group Media Matters, the policy advocacy outfit Center for American Progress and the data firm Catalist — all of which are run by Clinton allies who are expected to send representatives to the DA meeting.

The degree to which those groups will be able to adapt to the post-Clinton Democratic Party is not entirely clear, though some of the key DA donors have given generously to them for years.

That includes Soros, who, after stepping back a bit from campaign-related giving in recent years, had committed or donated $25 million to boosting Clinton and other Democratic candidates and causes in 2016. During the presidential primaries, Soros had argued that Trump and his GOP rival Ted Cruz were “doing the work of ISIS.”

A Soros spokesman declined to comment for this story.

But, given that the billionaire financier only periodically attends DA meetings and is seldom a part of the formal proceedings, his scheduled Tuesday morning appearance as a speaker suggests that he’s committed to investing in opposing President Trump.

The agenda item for a Tuesday morning “conversation with George Soros” invokes Soros’ personal experience living through the Holocaust and Soviet Communism in the context of preparing for a Trump presidency. The agenda notes that the billionaire currency trader, who grew up in Hungary, “has lived through Nazism and Communism, and has devoted his foundations to protecting the kinds of open societies around the world that are now threatened in the United States itself.”

LaMarche, who for years worked for Soros’s Open Society foundations, told POLITICO that the references to Nazism and Communism are “part of his standard bio.”

LaMarche, who is set to moderate the discussion with Soros, said the donor “does not plan to compare whatever we face under Trump to Nazism, I can tell you that.” LaMarche he also said, “I don’t think there is anyone who has looked at Trump, including many respected conservatives, who doesn’t think the experience of authoritarian states would not be important to learn from here. And to the extent that Soros and his foundations have experience with xenophobia in Europe, Brexit, etc., we want to learn from that as well.”

The Soros conversation was added to the agenda after Election Day. It was just one of many changes made on the fly to adjust for last week’s jarring result and the stark new reality facing liberals, who went from discussing ways to push an incoming President Clinton leftward, to instead discussing how to play defense.

A pre-election working draft of the DA’s agenda, obtained by POLITICO, featured a session on Clinton’s first 100 days and another on “moving a progressive national policy agenda in 2017.” Those sessions were rebranded so that the first instead will examine “what happened” on the “cataclysm of Election Day,” while the second will focus on “combating the massive threats from Trump and Congress in 2017.”

A session that before the election had been titled “Can Our Elections Be Hacked,” after the election was renamed “Was the 2016 Election Hacked” — a theory that has percolated without evidence on the left to explain the surprising result.

In his post-election emails to donors and operatives, LaMarche acknowledged the group had to “scrap many of the original plans for the conference,” explaining “while we made no explicit assumptions about the outcome, the conference we planned, and the agenda you have seen, made more sense in the event of a Hillary Clinton victory.”

Cap and Trade DID Not Go Away

Posted on by

New Principles to Help Accelerate the Growing Global Momentum for Carbon Pricing

2015:

  • New report shows the number of implemented or planned carbon pricing schemes around the world has almost doubled since 2012, with existing schemes now worth about $50 billion.

 

  • About 40 nations and 23 cities, states or regions are using a carbon price. This represents the equivalent of about 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, or 12 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions.
  • And new report lays out six key principles to put a price on carbon – the FASTER principles – for putting a price on carbon based on economic principles and experience of what is already working around the world

The spotlight is on New York now with the upcoming United Nations meeting on the new Sustainable Development Goals, Climate Week New York, and in about two months, global leaders will meet again in Paris for COP 21.  More from the World Bank.

****

California’s Cap-And-Trade Program Is Sick And Will Take High-Speed Rail Down With It

Chuck DeVore,  Contributor

Forbes: California concluded its most recent cap-and-trade program auction last week. Out of 44,268,323 metric tons of carbon dioxide credits offered for sale by the state Air Resources Board, only 660,560 were sold, 1.5 percent of the total, raising a paltry $8.4 million out of a hoped-for $620 million. Last May’s auction was almost as bad, raising $10 million out of an anticipated $500 million.

California’s carbon dioxide cap-and-trade auction program was expected to bring in more than $2 billion in the current fiscal year that ends June 30, 2017, a quarter of which is earmarked for the high-speed rail project narrowly approved by voters in a 2008 ballot initiative. As a hedge against uncertainty, a $500 million reserve was built into the cap-and-trade budget. But, with the August auction falling 98.5 percent short, the entire reserve was consumed in the first of four auctions for the fiscal year.

Further complicating matters is a pending lawsuit against the legality of California’s cap-and-trade program. Business groups and fiscal conservatives claim the program amounts to a tax, under a 2010 ballot initiative that better defined what exactly constitutes taxes and fees under California law, thus would requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the legislature.

Further, with the program slated to end in 2020, many businesses that are forced to buy the carbon credits are conflicted by the risk that they may end up buying the California equivalent of Confederate bonds, doomed to be worthless when the state loses its cap-and-trade war.

In the meantime, the High-Speed Rail project, currently promised to cost “only” $68 billion to run from the Bay Area some 400 miles south to Los Angeles may be looking at $50 billion in overruns. To fund the costly train, which was sold to voters as not costing a dime in new taxes, the expected revenue stream from cap-and-trade has been securitized, putting the state on the hook to Wall Street for billions in construction money advanced on the promise of future cap-and-trade revenue.

But the cap-and-trade market is showing dangerous signs of weakness. Not only have auction revenues collapsed in the last two auctions in May and August, but the competitive landscape for the auctions has collapsed as well. The Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI), a commonly-used measure of competitive markets, signaled that last May’s auction was dominated by a sole market player. Last week’s auction improved somewhat, but was still moderately concentrated among a small number of buyers and sellers.

The lack of interest in California’s cap-and-trade carbon credits shows that the Golden State will likely have to come up with a significant amount of General Fund tax revenue, more than $2 billion annually, to build out its government-run rail project—something that isn’t likely to last much beyond the end of Gov. Jerry Brown’s fourth term in office in January 2019.

California's Cap and Trade Auction is Collapsing

California’s Cap and Trade Auction is Collapsing

**** Back in 2014:

In part from Politico: Cap and trade was a key part of the George H.W. Bush administration’s strategy for reducing acid rain in 1990, and it would have been the centerpiece of the climate bill that stalled and died in the Senate in 2010.

Despite the concept’s bipartisan heritage, cap and trade has become politically toxic in some circles — especially among supporters of coal, the carbon-intensive fuel that would face the heaviest costs under any trading system. Republicans derided the climate bill as “cap and tax,” while West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin famously unloaded a rifle into a copy of the legislation during a Senate campaign commercial.

Still, cap and trade never went away.

With RGGI and California combined, about a quarter of the U.S. population lives in areas covered by trading programs designed to drive down carbon emissions, said Janet Peace, vice president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, at a Senate briefing Thursday.

Other programs exist in Alberta, Canada; Australia; New Zealand; Norway; and South Korea. Next year, cap-and-trade programs are expected to launch in Switzerland, Tokyo, the United Kingdom and South Africa. Others are in development or undergoing pilot tests in Brazil, China, India, Japan, Mexico and even Kazakhstan.

“Eventually, 250 million people will be covered by a carbon price in China,” Peace said. The full article here.

*** The New York Times stays current on Cap and Trade.

 

And So it Begins: DoJ Suing Exxon on Climate Change

Posted on by

The subpoena to Exxon Mobile here: DoJ Suing Exxon

NewsMax: Authoritarianism, always latent in progressivism, is becoming explicit. Progressivism’s determination to regulate thought by regulating speech is apparent in the campaign by 16 states’ attorneys general and those of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, none Republican, to criminalize skepticism about the supposedly “settled” conclusions of climate science.

Four core tenets of progressivism are: First, history has a destination. Second, progressives uniquely discern it. (Barack Obama frequently declares things to be on or opposed to “the right side of history.”) Third, politics should be democratic but peripheral to governance, which is the responsibility of experts scientifically administering the regulatory state. Fourth, enlightened progressives should enforce limits on speech (witness IRS suppression of conservative advocacy groups) in order to prevent thinking unhelpful to history’s progressive unfolding.

Progressivism is already enforced on campuses by restrictions on speech that might produce what progressives consider retrograde intellectual diversity. Now, from the so-called party of science, aka Democrats, comes a campaign to criminalize debate about science.

“The debate is settled,” says Obama. “Climate change is a fact.” Indeed. The epithet “climate change deniers,” obviously coined to stigmatize skeptics as akin to Holocaust deniers, is designed to obscure something obvious: “Of course the climate is changing; it never is not changing — neither before nor after the Medieval warm period (end of the 9th century to the 13th) and the little ice age (1640s to 1690s), neither of which was caused by fossil fuels.”

Today, debatable questions include: To what extent is human activity contributing to climate change? Are climate change models, many of which have generated projections refuted by events, suddenly reliable enough to predict the trajectory of change? Is change necessarily ominous because today’s climate is necessarily optimum? Are the costs, in money expended and freedom curtailed, of combating climate change less than the cost of adapting to it?

But these questions may not forever be debatable. The initial target of Democratic “scientific” silencers is ExxonMobil, which they hope to demonstrate misled investors and the public about climate change. There is, however, no limiting principle to restrain unprincipled people from punishing research entities, advocacy groups and individuals.

But it is difficult to establish what constitutes culpable “misleading” about climate science, of which a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report says: “Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).”

Did Al Gore “mislead” when he said seven years ago that computer modeling projected the Arctic to be ice-free during the summer in as few as five years?

The attorney general of the Virgin Islands accuses ExxonMobil with criminal misrepresentation regarding climate change. This, even though before the U.S. government in 2009 first issued an endangerment finding regarding greenhouse gases, ExxonMobil favored a carbon tax to mitigate climate consequences of those gases.

This grandstanding attorney general’s contribution to today’s gangster government is the use of law enforcement tools to pursue political goals — wielding prosecutorial weapons to chill debate, including subpoenaing private donor information from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.

The party of science, busy protecting science from scrutiny, has forgotten Karl Popper (1902-1994), the philosopher whose “The Open Society and Its Enemies” warned against people incapable of distinguishing between certainty and certitude. In his essay “Science as Falsification,” Popper explains why “the criterion of a scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” America’s party of science seems eager to insulate its scientific theories from the possibility of refutation.

The leader of the attorneys general, New York’s Eric Schneiderman, dismisses those who disagree with him as “morally vacant.” His moral content is apparent in his campaign to ban fantasy sports gambling because it competes with the gambling (state lottery, casinos, off-track betting) that enriches his government.

Then there is Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who suggests using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, written to fight organized crime, to criminalize what he calls the fossil fuel industry’s “climate denial apparatus.” The Justice Department, which has abetted the IRS cover-up of its criminal activity, has referred this idea to the FBI.

These garden-variety authoritarians are eager to regulate us into conformity with the “settled” consensus du jour, whatever it is. But they are progressives, so it is for our own good.