From Paul K. Driessen and Mark J. Carr.
Dear Mr. President: Please Exit Paris
Are you are still wondering whether to Exit Paris? Overseas and US officials, environmentalists and bureaucrats urge you to Remain. But you promised voters you would Exit. Please keep your promises.
Exit Paris isn’t about the environment. It’s about letting us utilize our fossil fuel energy to create jobs, rebuild our economy, and Make America Great Again. It’s about avoiding immense transfer payments from the USA to foreign governments, bureaucrats and parties unaccountable to Trump-voting taxpayers.
Worse, even if the USA Remains, and the repulsive payments flow, Paris offers no help in removing real air pollutants. Carbon dioxide isn’t one of them, by the way: it’s plant food, not poison.
Exit Paris: Business
Some high profile American companies recently signed a note urging Remain. Follow the money. Many leaders of those companies didn’t support your election and voted Hillary. And they expect to get billions from us taxpayers and consumers, for locking up our fossil fuels and switching to renewable energy.
We who voted Trump, your base, want Exit. Just as you promised.
Remain, so that we maintain markets for American energy technologies? Some companies will make off like bandits. The rest of us will get skewered. Global buyers of energy systems understand the benefits of America’s world-beating fossil technologies. They understand the life-cycle value of after-sales support poorly delivered by our international competitors. Trust Chinese warranties? We don’t either.
Continue reading “Dear Mr. President: Please Exit Paris”
May 25, 2017 by CFACT
Twenty-two Republican Senators sent a letter to President Trump today calling on him to withdraw from the UN Paris climate agreement.
Read the full letter. [PDF]
The Senators warn that, “Because of existing provisions within the Clean Air Act and others embedded in the Paris Agreement, remaining in it would subject the United States to significant litigation risk that could upend your Administration’s ability to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan. Accordingly, we strongly encourage you to make a clean break from the Paris Agreement.”
“Leading environmental attorneys have been candid that they intend to use the Paris Agreement and the existing endangerment finding to force EPA to regulate under Section 115 of the Clean Air Act.”
Today the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a prohibition on the President’s ban on travel from nations he considers terrorist risks. The federal judiciary has proven its willingness to thwart the President’s executive authority with a heavy hand.
Making a “clean break” from the Paris Agreement is the sure-fire way to prevent the courts from doing the same to thwart the President’s energy policy.
By William Happer
The United States should withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. For too long, well-meaning policymakers have been misled by propaganda, masquerading as science, that more atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will harm the planet. Paris represents the culmination of this campaign. The pact extends into perpetuity, its very terms dispensing with the value of the supposedly previous “seat at the table.” For this and many other reasons, the time to withdraw is now.
Real pollutants from fossil fuel combustion, such as oxides of sulfur, nitrogen and fly ash, are rightly controlled, and by cost-effective technology. But more CO2 is not a pollutant but is a benefit to humanity. The “social cost of carbon,” aka CO2, is negative. It is immoral to prevent developing countries from using reliable, inexpensive fossil fuels to escape centuries of poverty.
Most developing countries have offered no plans to limit CO2 emissions any time soon, rhetoric about Paris’ universal inclusivity notwithstanding. Without their cooperation, stabilizing atmospheric levels of CO2 is not possible, nor would this stop climate change if it could be done. Climate has been changing since the Earth was formed — some 4.5 billion years ago — according to geological evidence. Climate changes on every time scale — decades, centuries, millennia and even longer periods.
Continue reading “The Case for Nixing the Paris Agreement”
By Viv Forbes, Secretary of the Clexit Coalition
The Clexit Coalition today called on President Trump to keep his election promise to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty and stop US payments to all UN global warming programs.
The Clexit (ClimateExit) Coalition, comprising over 175 representatives from 25 countries, aims to prevent ratification or local enforcement of the UN Paris climate treaty.
The Secretary of Clexit, Mr Viv Forbes of Australia, said that all nations will suffer from the destructive energy policies being promoted in the UN’s war on cheap, reliable hydro-carbon fuels and the backbone industries that rely on them – mining and smelting, farming, fishing, forestry, processing and manufacturing.
Continue reading “Kill the Paris Treaty and Rip Out the Roots”
Clexit Members are presenting sceptical papers at the Marrakech Climate Carnival.
“Attempts to verify the greenhouse effect by Experiments” by Jan-Eric Solheim of Norway.
“Reconsidering the Role of Livestock and Agriculture in Clmate Change” by Dr Albrecht Galtzle of Paraguay.
“Reconsidering Solar forcing, Climate Change and Sea Level Rise” by Nils-Alex Morner, of Sweden.
More details: http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/marrakech-papers-by-clexit-members.pdf [PDF, 75 KB]
By Viv Forbes, Albrecht Glatzle and others
Grasslands and arable land cover just 10% of Earth’s surface but (with the oceans) they produce all of our food and fibre. But the productivity and health of our grasslands, farms and livestock are under threat from global warming alarmists and green preservationists.
We are afflicted by climate crazies and methane madness. It is poor public policy that condones restrictions on grazing operations, or taxes on grazing animals, based on disputed theories that claim that bodily emissions from farm animals will cause dangerous global warming.
New Zealand was the first cattle country to propose a “livestock fart tax”. Four hundred farmers then drove 20 tractors to the Parliament in Wellington waving placards and banners saying “STOP THE FART TAX”. The proposal was laughed out of Parliament. But the war on farmers and livestock continues.
Permission is given to reproduce this cartoon providing the source (www.clexit.net) is credited.
Continue reading “The Battle for our Grasslands and Livestock”
In only 20 times the length of time since the Battle of Hastings, the Polar Ice Cap has shrunk from London to the other side of Greenland. And the English Channel has filled with sea water.
In only 100 times the length of time since the Battle of Hastings, the Polar Ice Cap has expanded from the other side of Greenland all the way to London and then back again. And the English Channel has emptied of sea water and then filled-up again.
by Terence Cardwell
This is NOT a once off event- it will happen again in the not too distant future and continue to do so.
Why? Because of the continual instability created in the grid system by the constantly changing wind generators and the reliance of power from Victoria, who have to continually get them out of their insane situation.
Any change in power generation from the wind generators has to be compensated for and chased by thermal power generation units which decreases their efficiency substantially and more than obviates any gain from wind generators. These severe load changes can create a power wave within the grid system that causes instability as the thermal units try to match the wind generators’ severe load changes.
Because the winds were so severe the wind generators would already have been non-operative and locked. So that 40% of the power was already out of service before the blackout. If the wind generators were allowed to operate in such severe winds they would have torn themselves apart.
So YES the wind generators DID cause the blackout by increasing the load substantially on the Victoria to S.A. interconnector.
Continue reading “The South Australian Blackout”
By Daniel W. Nebert.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. — John Adams, December 1770; in “Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials”
By Daniel W. Nebert
Concerned about “global warming” and “climate change,” the European Union has been far ahead of the United States in solar- and wind-energy development. But — economically — how have they fared? The answer is: Not so well. In fact, not good at all.
Denmark has been the EU leader in renewable energy. In 2012, the Danish Parliament agreed politically to 50 percent of energy consumption from wind power by 2020, 84 percent by 2035.
The Danish government has now completely changed its mind. In recent months, it decided to abandon plans to build five offshore wind power farms — to be functional by 2020. Denmark realized its green policies have become too expensive to maintain.
Danish consumers and companies pay the highest electricity prices within the EU, according to Eur electric, the European Electricity Association. In 2014, 66 percent of an average Danish electricity bill went to taxes and fees; 18 percent went to transportation, and only 15 percent for the electricity itself. (Germany was second highest, with 52 percent in electricity taxes.) The Danish climate minister recently stated: “We can’t accept this, as the private sector and households are paying far too much. Denmark’s renewable policy has turned out to be too expensive.”
It has become obvious that all the green energy plans mandated to reduce EU emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) will not achieve substantial reductions. In some cases, the actions are actually making matters worse.
A serious examination of successful and failed introductions of technology… might teach us some lessons.
Continue reading “The Too-high Price of Green Power”