The Black Hole of Environmental Impact Assessment

David Wojick August 6th, 2022 Environment, Regulation 88 Comments

Despite lots of talk about streamlining NEPA, this cannot actually be done. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) of large projects takes a long time for two inescapable reasons. First, nature is a complex system. Second, science takes time.

The result is what I call the Black Hole of environmental impact assessment because once you get in, you cannot get out. There is simply no end to the unanswered questions. Research is often like that with every answer raising more questions.

To begin with, in principle you have to identify every living thing that might be affected by the project, as well as all the important physical features. For the myriad animals and plants this is especially important if any are classified as threatened or endangered under the various protection laws.

You cannot just list all these things, oh no. You have to say where they are and in many cases what they are doing. Also how they interact, such that affecting one kind might affect others. There is the food web for example. Plus things like nesting, denning, hiding, travel, and so forth. All of this is potentially incredibly complex if an Agency or Court decides it is important.

Then, given all these living things, and what they are doing, and their physical world, comes the even more complex issue of impact. It is more complex because you are entering the world of possibility. Possibilities can be truly endless.

This is the impact part of the assessment, which only comes after a great deal of research on the actual environment is done. But considering possible adverse impacts can easily lead to new questions about the existing environment, calling for even more research.

Then after some of the more serious possible impacts become clear, we get into the issue called “mitigation”. This can mean one of two things. One is to figure out ways to change the project so as to reduce or eliminate the adverse impact. One nasty possibility is simply not to do the project. Or mitigation can mean doing things to offset the adverse impact. Improving things someplace else for example.

I have personally been down this long EIS road, trapped in the Black Hole (if black holes can have roads). In fact I took one of the first hits from NEPA. As a junior engineer I was helping design large dams for the US flood control program. One of my dams became one of the first test cases for what Environmental Impact Assessment meant in actual practice.

There being no benchmark EIA to follow, we just sent in a few pages from the planning report. We were promptly sued for failure to comply with NEPA. Serious environmental questions were raised and the research began. I eventually left the program for a faculty position at Carnegie Mellon. Some years later I lost track of the case when the EIA was well over a foot thick and had just been bounced again because the aesthetics section was deemed inadequate.

The dam was never built. In fact the entire flood control program came to a grinding halt. This was the clear intent of NEPA at the time and it was unhappily effective. I still feel bad when floods ravaged communities knowing we could have prevented it.

I was getting a Ph.D. in philosophy of science at the time so paid close attention to the central role that scientific research played in bogging us down. The term “environment” sounds deceptively simple but the physical environment is wondrously complex. I doubt Congress realized this at the time, or even today.

The NEPA mandate basically says this: “First understand everything that is going on, that might be adversely affected by your project, then figure out how to minimize or make up for these adverse effects. This kind of understanding cannot be streamlined. If the mandate is pushed hard enough it is actually impossible to achieve.

As a closing aside I want to mention the huge offshore wind projects presently proposed to line the East Coast. As my regular readers know, I have been looking into the potential EIA issues with these projects, especially off Virginia. See my articles to date listed at the end.

These EIA issues are massive for all offshore wind projects, not just Virginia’s. To begin with there is no precedent, just like with my dam many years ago. We have never built this sort of thing, which is really big, in this environment. What is the proper scope of the research?

Then too there is at least one severely endangered critter, the North Atlantic Right Whale, which lives along the entire Coast. There may well be others, migratory birds for example. Even worse, a lot of the environment is practically inaccessible for research purposes. It is under the water.

A lawsuit challenging the superficial EIA for a relatively small offshore wind project in New England has already been filed. If this sort of challenge becomes widespread along the Coast it is likely that nothing will be built for many years. It may never be built, just like our flood control dams.

Mind you I think these huge offshore wind projects are a very bad idea so would not mourn their demise. I fact I welcome it. The Black Hole can have them.

In closing here are my offshore wind EIA articles:

https://www.cfact.org/2022/07/13/virginias-offshore-wind-proposal-threatens-endangered-whales/

https://www.cfact.org/2022/07/22/are-the-feds-hiding-the-virginia-endangered-whales/

https://www.cfact.org/2022/07/26/threat-to-endangered-whales-gets-louder/

Author

• David Wojick

  David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/ Available for confidential research and consulting.

 

 

The Green New Deal means monumental disruption

Not just for energy, but for every aspect of our lives, living standards, culture and freedoms

David Wojick and Paul Driessen

Kamala Harris co-sponsored the Senate resolution to support the Green New Deal. Now Joe Biden has endorsed the plan. Naturally, people want to know what the GND will cost – usually meaning in state and federal government spending. But that is the wrong question.

The real question is, how much do Green New Dealers expect to get out of it, at what total cost? Mr. Biden says he wants the feds to spend nearly $7 trillion over the next decade on healthcare, energy and housing transformation, climate change and other GND agenda items. But that is only part of the picture.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who has a degree in some socialist version of economics) and the folks who helped her write Biden's so-called Climate Plan have a clear idea of how much money they want, and pretty much know where they expect the money to come from. Here it is in its clearest form, as stated by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s then chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti:

“The resolution describes the 10-year plan to transform every sector of our economy to remove GHG [greenhouse gases] and pollution. It says it does this through huge investments in renewables, at WW2 scales (which was 40-60% of America’s GDP).” [emphasis added]

World War II was a time of great sacrifice and hardship, as part of a dramatic and historic mobilization to win a horrific global war. However, that hard reality doesn’t matter to these folks. They say we are now waging a war to stop catastrophic climate change. So money, sacrifice and disruption are irrelevant.

Our nation’s GDP is around $20 trillion a year, or $200 trillion in ten years. 40-60% of that is $80-120 trillion. For simplicity, let’s call it an even $100 trillion to finance the Green New Deal utopian dream.

$100 trillion! The ways and means of raising this stupendous sum are also clear in their minds. It will be done the same way WW2 was financed, however that was. To them, it’s obvious that we can simply do this, because we did it before. The specifics don’t matter. Government elites will figure them out.

But even this arrogant, cavalier attitude is only part of the picture.

If you read what Green New Dealers say, confusion arises because people think the GND is an ordinary policy proposal: “Here’s what we want done, and this what it should cost.” It is nothing like that. The Green New Deal is more along the lines of, “Here’s the level of effort we require to transform our entire economy, and this is what we should be able to do with that much money.”

People tend to interpret Green New Dealer talk of a WW2-like mobilization as a simple metaphor. But these folks mean it as an actual measure of what they are determined to do. So far they have glossed over and ignored the extreme hardships of mobilization. Here’s just one example – not from front lines mayhem, but from the United States home front during World War II.

Gasoline, meat and clothing were tightly rationed. Most families were allocated three US gallons of gasoline a week, which sharply curtailed driving for any purpose. Production of most durable goods, like cars, new housing, vacuum cleaners and kitchen appliances, was banned until the war ended. In industrial areas housing was in short supply as people doubled up and lived in cramped quarters. Prices and wages were controlled. [Harold Vatter, The US Economy in World War II]

No doubt the Green New Deal mobilization would impose different hardships. But all mobilizations are oppressive. You can’t commandeer half of the GDP without inflicting severe disruption on people’s lives.

The argument is sound in its way, provided there is a need for all-out war – which there is not. The minor to modest temperature, climate and extreme weather changes we’ve been seeing (in the real world  outside computer models) explain why most Americans see no need for a painful war. So does the fact that China, India and other emerging economies are not about to give up fossil fuels anytime soon.

In fact, polls show that roughly half of Americans do not even believe in the idea of human caused global warming, much less that it is an “existential threat,” as Senator Harris claims it is. The latest Gallup poll found that only 1% of US adults consider “climate change/environment/pollution” to be “the most important problem facing this country today.” That’s down from a meager 2% in the May 28-June 4 poll.

Even more revealing, a 2019 AP-NORC poll found that 68% of adult Americans were unwilling to pay even an extra $10 on their monthly electricity bill to combat global warming. Indeed, 57% of them would not be willing to pay more than $1.00 in added electricity charges to fight climate change!

Just wait until they see what the Biden-Harris-AOC-Democrat Green New Deal would cost them.

And it’s not just that their costs would likely skyrocket from an average US 13.2¢ per kilowatt hour (11.4¢ or less in ten states) to well beyond the nearly 20¢ per kWh that families are already paying in California and New York, or the 30¢ that families are now paying in ultra-green Germany. Or that factories, businesses, hospitals, schools and everyone else would also see their costs escalate – with blue collar families, the sick and elderly, poor and minority communities hammered hardest.

It’s that the GND would force every American to replace their gasoline and diesel cars and trucks with expensive short-haul electric vehicles; their gas furnaces and stoves with electric systems; their home, local and state electrical and transmission systems with expensive upgrades that can handle a totally electric economy. They’ll see their landscapes, coastlines and wildlife habitats blanketed with wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines and warehouses filled with thousands of half-ton batteries. Virtually every component of this GND nation would be manufactured in China and other faraway places.

The cost of this massive, total transformation of our energy and economic system would easily reach $10 trillion: $30,000 per person or $120,000 per family – on top of those skyrocketing electricity prices. And that’s just the intermittent, unreliable energy component of this all-encompassing Green New Deal.

These are stupendous, outrageous costs and personal sacrifices. Every American, at every campaign event and town meeting, should ask Green New Deal supporters if they think America needs to – or can afford to – cough up $10 trillion or $100 trillion over the next ten years. And not let them get away with glib, evasive answers, or attempts to laugh these questions off as meritless or irrelevant.

The American people are not about to be mobilized into an all-out war against dubious climate change, with price tags like these coupled with repeated blackouts, huge personal sacrifices, and massive joblessness in every sector of the economy – except among enlightened government ruling classes.

They’ve already seen news stories about the latest rolling blackouts in California (here, here, here and here) – resulting from one-third of that state’s electricity coming from “renewable” sources, and with another third of the state’s electricity imported from other states that also get heat waves. They should ponder what their lives, livelihoods and living standards would be under 100% wind and solar power.

And yet, once again, even all this insanity is only a small part of the picture.

Remember, the Green New Deal is also about government run healthcare – and an economy and nation where “progressive” “woke” legislators, regulators, judges and activists tell companies what they can manufacture and sell ... and tell us what we can buy, eat and drink; how and how much we can heat and cool our homes; and what we can read, hear, think and say, as they “transform” our culture and traditions.

The GND is being promoted by politicians, news and social media, “educators” and “reformers” who also want to eliminate free enterprise capitalism; have totally open borders, even for criminals and people who might have Covid and other diseases; and want to defund the police, put anarchists, looters and arsonists back on our streets, and take away our right and ability to defend ourselves, our homes and our families.

The time to think long and hard about all of this is NOW. Not sometime after the November 3 elections.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues. David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.

Alarmist queen Hayhoe takedown by Friends of Science

David Wojick |June 1st, 2020| Climate| 25 Comments  @ CFACT

If Greta Thunberg is an alarmist princess then Katherine Hayhoe is the queen of climate alarmism, at least in the U.S. and Canada. She was the de facto spokesperson for the atrocious third National Climate Assessment. After that she started doing bogus “Here’s what is going to happen to you” climate studies for various states and cities. Making big bucks scaring people.

Last year Hayhoe delivered a doomsday forecast to the Province of Alberta, Canada, and here our story begins. Alberta is home to the Friends of Science Society (FOSS), one of Canada’s top skeptical organizations. FOSS has now produced a 77 page takedown report, shredding Hayhoe’s so-called study in detail. It is an elegant critical work, with implications far beyond Canada.

The topic is technical but it is written for policy makers. The plain English table of contents gives the flavor and shows the scope, with 37 succinct chapters. There are even chapters titled “What is “Climate Change”?” and “What is a Climate Model?” In the same vein Hayhoe’s report is arrogantly titled “Alberta’s Climate Future” so the FOSS takedown is “Facts versus Fortune Telling”.
There are lots of data issues, especially since the Hayhoe report uses truncated trends. The FOSS rebuttal does a lot of longer term analysis.

Another big issue is that the Hayhoe report is based on so-called “downscaling” of hot climate models. This means taking huge crude regional results and interpolating questionable local details. Hayhoe bills herself as an “atmospheric scientist” but her Ph.D. work was on downscaling, which is just computer science. It is fitting that she is now in a university Political Science department, as her work is certainly political.

What Hayhoe ignores is the fact that different global climate models give wildly different regional projections. I recall when the first U.S. National Climate Assessment came out; it used two major models, the Canadian and the British Hadley. For the North Central region one projected a 160% increase in rainfall, while the other gave a 60% decrease. Swamp or desert! Obviously this junk is no good for policy making.

Here is the Friends of Science condensed summary:

“This review shows how Hayhoe & Stoner misinform, how they did not use all available information, how they cultivate alarm regarding Black Swan events, while ignoring counter trends and evidence of cycles. Their report style demonstrates a false, absolute certainty, of knowledge, where due qualification of assumptions and other influences can alter results as reported. Facts and evidence, not fortune-telling, should guide public policy on climate and energy.”

Here are some more specific and telling FOSS findings:

“Hayhoe & Stoner’s “Alberta’s Climate Future” report fails in a number of ways. The report ignores climate cycles and instead forecasts continuing linear temperature increases based on global climate models, even when local trends may be quite different. The report only addresses trends from 1950, ignoring much warmer conditions in the past in the Province.”

“More concerning, “Alberta’s Climate Future” is based on the use of unreasonably unlikely scenarios, such as Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5. This computer simulation is a very extreme projection of the future where the world goes back to using more than five times the coal than is used today. Most mainstream scientists believe the RCP8.5 scenario to be a critically flawed benchmark for forecasting future climate.”

“Hayhoe & Stoner make bold and unverified statements such as: “extreme high and low temperatures are projected to increase exponentially” without justification. The report creates alarm with discredited references to natural “Black Swan” events, ascribing human caused climate change as the driver of floods and fires.”

There is a great deal more criticism, which is worth looking at. FOSS really does a job on Queen Hayhoe’s so-called research.

The Friends of Science takedown is a model for critical analysis of alarmist pseudoscientific hype. The deeply flawed Hayhoe report is not unusual. On the contrary it is typical of climate alarmism — computer based, on selected data, presenting speculative scary conclusions as facts.

Author

David Wojick

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/ Available for confidential research and consulting.

 

Is the “climate crisis” a cruel hoax or tragic blunder?

By David Wojick | September 18th, 2019 |Climate| 195 Comments

Back when the climate “crisis – emergency – catastrophe – existential threat” stuff emerged, the October 2018 IPCC report was routinely cited as the source, although that seems to have faded. But the standard milestones, like net zero by 2050 and 12 years for decisive action (to 2030), are from that report. The problem is that there is no support in that report for the crisis narrative, none at all. The so-called crisis is a gross misinterpretation.

The reality is that the IPCC was tasked with saying what difference the two Paris Accord targets make, which are 2.0 degrees versus 1.5 degrees of total warming. Predictably (because all warming is bad to these people) they found more damage at 2.0 degrees, but arguably not a lot more. (There is also damage at 1.5 degrees, just as there is today at 1.0 degrees.)

The IPCC also pointed out, correctly, that according to the models it would be a Herculean task to hold to 1.5 degrees. This is where the extreme policy measures are found. The IPCC said that extreme measures would be required to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, if that were desired. They did not say it was desirable to do this........To Read More....

Global warming pressure groups plan to block travel

By David Wojick | September 14th, 2019|Climate, General Information|6 Comments

 

Is paralyzing traffic and stopping trains an act of civil disobedience, which should be tolerated? I would call it “serious disruption” and this is just what the climate alarmists plan for DC, September 20-23.  They call it “civil disobedient disruption” but it is not a march, rally, sit-in, or other localized action. It is a widespread, systematic attempt to do as much damage as possible. And there certainly will be economic damages, especially if the tourists and commuters stay away.

Climate alarm is clearly out of control, or rather it is now controlled by would be disrupters. The danger here is their thinking that the end justifies the means. In their minds they are trying to save humanity, or its future well being, or something absurd like that. But an absurd end justifies absurd, and dangerous, means. Here is how they put it...........To Read More.....

Big Oil goes Big Green

Oil companies give billions to climate alarmists, but hardly a dime to climate realists

David Wojick

Climate alarmists often accuse skeptics, like myself and independent groups like the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Heartland Institute, of being in the pay of Big Oil. This is completely false – the Big Lie repeated so often that people eventually believe it. We do not receive even a dime from Big Oil. It’s part of the green fairy tale that skepticism exists only because the oil companies are funding it.

For the record, none of us skeptics – climate realists – doubt or deny climate change. We all recognize that Earth’s climate is in nearly constant turmoil and fluctuation, locally, regionally or globally.

What we question is assertions that emissions from fossil fuel use have somehow replaced the sun and other powerful natural forces that have driven beneficial, benign, harmful or even hugely destructive climate changes throughout Earth and human history:

Changes such as at least five glacial periods that buried much of North America, Europe and Asia under mile-high rivers of ice, warm periods in between that melted those massive glaciers, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, a Little Ice Age, the century-long Anasazi and Mayan droughts, the Dust Bowl, and countless other major and minor climate and weather changes.

The standard refrain is that ExxonMobil gave a cumulative few million dollars to various skeptical groups prior to 2007. But that was many years ago. They got scared off by alarmist pressure groups and haven’t given climate realists a dime since then. In fact, the situation today is completely the opposite.

Big Oil companies now give at least a billion dollars a year to climate alarmists, projects and lobbying, to drive the Manmade Climate Chaos narrative. Why would they do that? Two reasons come to mind.

First, typical commercial reasons – what some would call corporate greed, or eliminating competition through the laws of the jungle. Feeding climate alarmism helps oil companies kill off “dirty” coal and position natural gas as being more “climate friendly.” After all, Big Oil is also Big Gas.

Second, public relations and “greenwashing” – portraying themselves as being more “green,” more socially and environmentally “responsible,” for supporting environmentalist groups and providing “clean” (or at least “less dirty”) alternatives to “climate destroying” coal.

(The central vehicle for moving these green billions of dollars goes by a perfectly descriptive name: the (Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI). If the false accusers were correct, “oil and gas” would never be connected logically or ethically to “climate initiative.” But there it is, and it is very big. OGCI members include these well-known Big Oil names:

British Petroleum * Chevron * China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) * Eni * Equinor * Exxon Mobil Corporation * Occidental Petroleum * PEMEX (Petróleos Mexicanos) * PETROBRAS (Petroleo Brasileiro) * Repsol * Royal Dutch Shell * Saudi Aramco * Total

Collectively, they claim to produce 30% of the world’s oil and gas. Their OGCI website also features a lineup of Big Oil corporate CEOs, just to show how seriously and responsibly “green” they are. Their latest annual report has a letter from the CEOs, including this little gem:

“As our ambition grows with the scale of the challenge, we look forward to working closely with policy-makers, regulators and all stakeholders to help develop the levers that can economically and sustainably accelerate the pace of the low carbon transition.”

You have to wonder whether their list of “stakeholders” includes families, companies and communities that understand how completely dependent they and all of modern industrialized society are on fossil fuels, especially oil and gas. Just read this list and watch the little embedded video.

More to the point, consider its origins. OGCI was launched in 2014, shortly after the infamous Chesapeake Energy scandal, when its CEO got caught giving the Sierra Club millions of dollars to support the environmentalist and Obama Administration war on coal. Ironically, even Club members opposed taking the money, since they consider all fossil fuels to be their enemy – and after it had bashed coal into submission, the Club took aim at natural gas, Chesapeake’s primary revenue source.

What seems to have happened is that the ever-wily Big Oil companies created their own “green” organization. With its billion bucks in annual funding, Big Oil is now one of the biggest financiers of Big Green, not counting Big Government funding sources.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is also actively engaged with Big Oil, through its EDF+Business arm. In particular, EDF has a huge methane reduction program – the Methane Challenge – which not surprisingly involves OGCI. The program features prominently in “Sustainability Reports” of several major oil companies. EDF is even building and launching its own satellite, cleverly called MethaneSAT.

EDF is clearly getting a lot of money for this. It claims it gets no money “directly” from the companies. Instead, the cash comes from unspecified “philanthropies.” Of course, where these philanthropies get their cash may be a different story; they could easily be laundering Big Oil money. It may be telling that OGCI does not issue a financial report – or provide any transparent online information about its financials.

Space News actually asked EDF about this funding – but got stonewalled. Here’s its report:

“However, EDF has provided few details about how much MethaneSAT will cost or how it will be funded. The project received last year a grant from a new initiative called The Audacious Project, although the size of the award was not disclosed. An EDF spokesman did not respond to an inquiry about the financial status of the project.”

Having EDF on its side is certainly a big plus for Big Oil. But talk about hypocrisy – for both of them.

In any case it is clear that Big Oil is spending at least a billion dollars on green stuff, which is a lot of green. (Cold cash, in the form of American greenbacks, is clearly the new Big Green.) There is no evidence that climate skeptics are getting any of this. But if some are getting any, it is trivial in comparison. Meanwhile OGCI and Big Green get billions, and EDF maybe many millions.

Another big irony is that the supposed alternative to abundant, reliable, affordable, civilization-enabling fossil fuels is supposedly “clean, green, renewable, sustainable, responsible” wind, solar and biofuel energy. (Hardcore environmentalists do not approve of nuclear or hydroelectric power, either.)

Those alleged “alternatives” require inconceivably vast amounts of land – not just for the wind turbines, solar panels, backup batteries and biofuel farms, but to mine and process the billions of tons of iron, copper, rare earth metals, lithium, cadmium, limestone and other materials needed to make the turbines, panels, batteries, transmission lines, tractors, trucks and other “sustainable” infrastructure.

All that mining, processing, manufacturing and transportation requires fossil fuels. And biofuels emit just as much (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide when they are burned as do coal, oil and natural gas.

Even more disturbing, many of those raw materials are produced with widespread slave and child labor, under health, safety and environmental rules and conditions that would make Upton Sinclair and other early Twentieth Century reformers think their oppressed workers were living in paradise.

When it comes to skepticism, the simple fact is that roughly half of Americans do not accept climate alarmism, right up to the President. Yet no one is paying for this widespread skepticism. As for Big Oil, it is pouring big bucks into Big Green and green climate initiatives. Conservative and climate realist groups have think tanks that do manage to find some funding, but it doesn’t come from Big Oil .

That Big Oil is responsible for skepticism is just another part of the alarmist fantasy world.

David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.

David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.

The U.S. government is still the UN’s top climate alarmist

July 24, 2018 by David Wojick, Ph.D., 0 Comments 

President Trump and Energy Secretary Perry are both vocal skeptics of climate change alarmism, but the US Energy Department is still running one of the top drivers of alarmist science for the United Nations. This engine of alarmism is obscurely named the Climate Model Intercomparison Project or CMIP. Climate change alarmism is based entirely on computer modeling and CMIP is where the core modeling comes from.

What CMIP does is provide the computer climate modeling for the infamous UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading proponent of alarmist science. CMIP itself is a UN activity, part of the UN’s World Climate Research Program. The modeling is done by major climate modeling centers around the world, including a number of US federal agencies. So while the Trump Administrations says it does not support the IPCC, it is actually doing a lot of free work for it.

This should stop..........To Read More....

My Take - Jacques Chirac, former President of France said of the Kyoto Accords:  This is the first step in global governance. Make no mistake about this.  Environment issues are nothing more than the spear point of socialist world governance under control of the most corrupt incompetent organization the world has ever know - the United Nations.  

Then of course there's the Law of the Sea Treaty that would turn over the world's oceans to be administered by the United Nations.  Guess who thought that was just a grand idea? George W. Bush and Condolezza Rice.....and that's when they were in office. 

Adherence to the Kyoto Accords was touted as an absolute necessity to save the Earth, so why is Kyoto dying? Why is it the American public as a whole doesn't even have global warming on their radar as a problem?

1. Is it because it's stupid?
2. Was it because it's unscientific? 
3. Was because it's impractical?
4. Would it have accomplished the goals set in the agreement?
5. Was it in reality all politics?

Answers;

 

Yes, yes, yes, no, yes.

Now that real science presented by real scientists is well on the way of putting the Kyoto Accord and Anthropogenic Climate Change  in the dust bin of history maybe it is a good time to look at that other junk science “global problem solver” treaty. The Montreal Protocol, which caused us to lose methyl bromide.

We can only hope!

Then we might take a shot at repealing the ban on DDT. Unless I've missed something that ban was not accomplished by legislation. It was imposed by the first director of EPA, William Doyle Ruckelshaus. If that's so, and I think it is, and we know all the claims about DDT are not only unscientific, they're based on the lies told by Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring, why don't we petition the current director of EPA to revoke the ban?

I've been told by greenies over and over again that Rachel Carson didn't call for the ban on DDT, and they're right. But after reading her book no reasonable person could come to any other conclusion. Convenient wasn't it?

The Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto Accord are both junk science.  The science was never very strong in the beginning and as time goes by it has become even less tenable.

Pest controllers or “exterminators”, which is what we all are, who continue to invalidate 70 years of quality pest control provided by our industry to the public with their compromising attitudes to all this green sponsored balderdash - I say shame on you!

As you follow the events surrounding global warming (Kyoto Accord), Law of the Sea Treaty, Montreal Protocol, the efforts by globalists to take over the internet, presumably to allow for greater flow of information (countries like Libya, North Korea, China, etc. are really concerned about this) and now the Cybercrime Treaty you can’t help but come to the conclusion that Jacques Chirac was right when he said that Kyoto was the first step in global governance.

I know, I know, there's no such thing as a conspiracy.....unless of course it's a vast right wing conspiracy.  .