This discussion talks about how anti fossil fuel extremists and outside entities are attacking PA natural gas industry and working to methodically shut down PA Natural Gas production.  Anti-fracking groups, climate change advocates and others  want to control your royalty or potential for royalty.

If this doesn't make you angry then check your pulse. The video was made before PA Governor Wolf got involved. You will not find any references to meetings he holds with Bloomberg listed on his website. That's because his staff covers it up so the public doesn't know.

On November 6, 2018, 8 Anti Fossil Fuel candidates were elected to the PA Congress and the left in the Pennsylvania Democrat Party wants to ban all fracking in the state. I

Views: 1796

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

NOT PA BUT HERE WE GO: CEI Sues Virginia Attorney General Seeking Information on Privately-Funded Prosecutor

Attorney General Herring requested an attorney whose salary and benefits would be paid by a non-profit recently created by billionaire climate activist Michael Bloomberg to pursue, out of OAG, specific issues that are the focus of Mr. Bloomberg’s activism.

The Bloomberg “Center for State Impact,” established at New York University (NYU), subsequently approved the OAG request for a privately-funded special prosecutor for climate and renewable energy. The newly-minted position was set to be paid $81,500 per year, as an employee of Mr. Bloomberg’s Center, working on Center priorities out of Virginia’s AG Office.

The 1970s Global Cooling Consensus was not a Myth

[update, reference sheet is now linked at the bottom of post]

By Angus McFarlane,

There was an overwhelming scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headinginto a period of significant cooling. The possibility of anthropogenic warming was relegated to a minority of the papers in the peer-reviewed literature.


Whether or not there was a global cooling consensus in the 1970s is important in climate science because, if there were a cooling consensus (which subsequently proved to be wrong) then it would question the legitimacy of consensus in science. In particular, the validity of the 93% consensus on global warming alleged by Cook et al (2103) would be implausible. That is, if consensus climate scientists were wrong in the 1970s then they could be wrong now.

Purpose of Review

It is not the purpose of this review to question the rights or wrongs of the methodology of the 93% consensus. For-and-against arguments are presented in several peer-reviewed papers and non-peer-reviewed weblogs. The purpose of this review is to establish if there were a consensus in the 1970s and, if so, was this consensus cooling or warming?

In their 2008 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, Peterson, Connolley and Fleck (hereinafter PCF-08) state that, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.” This conclusion intrigued me because, when I was growing up in the early 1970s, it was my perception that global cooling dominated the climate narrative. My interest was further piqued by allegations of “cover-up” and “skulduggery” in 2016 in NoTricksZone and Breitbart.

Therefore, I present a review that examines the accuracy of the PCF-08 claim that 1970s global cooling consensus was a myth. This review concentrates on the results from the data in the peer-reviewed climate science literature published in the 1970s, i.e., using similar sources to those used by PCF-08.

Review of PCF-08 Cooling Myth Paper

The case for the 1970s cooling consensus being a myth relies solely on PCF-08. They state that,”…the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent…A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then.” [Emphasis added].

PCF-08 reached their conclusion by conducting a literature review of the electronic archives of the American Meteorological Society, Nature and the scholarly journal archive Journal Storage (JSTOR). The search period was from 1965 to 1979 and the search terms used were “global warming”, “global cooling” and a variety of “other less directly relevant” search terms. Additionally, PCF-08 evaluated references mentioned in the searched papers and references mentioned in various history-of-science documents.

In total, PCF-08 reviewed 71 papers and their survey found 7 cooling papers, 20 neutral papers and 44 warming papers. Their results are shown in their Figure 1.

A cursory examination of Figure 1 indicates that there is a 62% warming consensus if we use all the data and this consensus increases to 86% pro-warming, if we were to ignore the neutral papers (as was done in the 93% consensus). Therefore, the Figure 1 data seems to prove the contention in PCF-08 that 1970s global cooling was a myth.

However, I find it difficult to believe that the 1970s media “selectively misread” the scientific consensus of the day and promoted a non-existent cooling scare. Therefore, I present an alternative to the PCF-08 analysis below.

Methodology of this Review

In this review, I use an identical methodology to PCF-08, i.e., I examine peer-reviewed scientific journals. Non-peer-reviewed newspaper and magazine articles are not used. A significantly larger number of papers are presented in the current review than were used in PCF-08.

The PCF-08 database of articles is used but this is extended to examine more literature. Note that examining all of the scientific literature would have been beyond my resources. However, my literature survey was facilitated by the work of Kenneth Richard in 2016 (hereinafter, KR-16) at NoTricksZone, in which he has assembled a large database of sceptical peer-reviewed literature.

Some people may wish to ignore the KR-16 database as being from a so-called “climate denier” blog. However, almost all of the papers in KR-16 are from peer-reviewed literature and consequently it is a valid database. It is also worth noting that 16 of the papers used in the KR-16 database are also contained in the PCF-08 database.

The combined PCF-08 and KR-16 databases form the benchmark database for the current review. It was intended to significantly extend the benchmark database but, on searching the relevant journals, only 2 additional papers were found and these were added to form the database for this review.

It should be noted that KR-16 states that there were over 285 cooling papers. However, many of these papers were deleted from the current review as not being relevant. For example, several papers were either outside the 1965-1979 reference period or they emphasise the minor role of CO2 but do not consider climate trends.

I agree with PCF-08 that no literature search can be 100% complete. I also agree that a literature search offers a reasonable test of the hypothesis that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s. I reiterate that the resulting database used in this review is significantly larger than that used by PCF-08 and consequently it should offer a more accurate test of the scientific consensus in the 1970s.

Most of the papers in the review database acknowledge the global cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s (typically 0.3 °C global cooling). Therefore, deciding between cooling, neutral or warming was relatively straightforward in most cases; namely did the paper expect the climate regime during the 1940s-1960s period to either to continue from the date that the paper was published, or did it expect a different climate regime in the medium-to-long-term?

Notwithstanding the straightforward test described above, some of the papers make contradictory statements and are thus more difficult to classify. Consequently, their classification can include an element of subjectivity. Fortunately, there are very few papers in this category and consequently an inappropriate classification does not materially affect the overall results.

The test criteria are summarised in Table 1.

Classification Test of Classification of Papers Typical Examples from Papers
Cooling Cooling expected to either continue or initiate Kukla & Kukla (1972)

“…the prognosis is for a long-lasting global cooling more severe than any experienced hitherto by civilized mankind.”

Neutral Either non-committal on future climate change or expects warming or cooling to be equally possible Sellers (1969)

“The major conclusions that removing the arctic ice cap would have less effect on climate than previously suggested, that a decrease of the solar constant by 2-5% would be sufficient, to initiate another ice age, and that man’s increasing industrial activities may eventually lead to the elimination of the ice caps and to a climate about 14C warmer than today…”

Warming Warming expected to either continue or initiate Manabe & Weatherald (1967)

“According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO, content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C.”

Table 1: Summary of Classification System for Papers

The search terms “global cooling” and “global warming” used by PCF-08 are used in this review but they have been expanded to include “cool”, “warm”, “aerosol” and “ice-age” because these, more general terms, return a larger number of relevant papers. Additional search terms such as “deterioration”, “detrimental” and “severe” have also been included. These would fit into the PCF-08 category of “other less directly relevant” search terms.

Several of the papers in the database are concerned about the effects of aerosol cooling and they state that this effect dominates the effect of the newly emerging CO2-warming science. Indeed, a few papers warn of CO2 cooling.

However, PCF-08 do not include any papers that refer to aerosol cooling by a future fleet of supersonic aircraft (SST’s) but several papers in the 1970s assumed an SST fleet of 500 aircraft. This seems incongruous now but, to show that this number of aircraft is not unrealistic; Emirates Airlines currently have a fleet of 244 (non-supersonic) aircraft and 262 more on order. Therefore, I have included papers that refer to the effects of aerosols from supersonic aircraft and other human activities. Of course, supersonic travel was killed-off by the mid-1970s oil crisis.

Furthermore, a number of PCF-08 and KR-16 papers were re-classified (from cooling, neutral or warming) as summarised Table 2.

Reference Original Amended
Sellers (1969) Warming Neutral
Benton (1970) Warming Neutral
Rasool and Schneider (1972) Neutral Cooling
Machta (1972) Warming Neutral
FCSTICAS (1974) Warming Cooling
National Academy of Sciences (1975) Neutral Cooling
Thompson, 1975 Warming Neutral
Shaw (1976) Neutral Cooling
Bryson and Dittberner (1977) Neutral Cooling
Barrett, 1978 Neutral Cooling
Ohring and Adler (1978) Warming Neutral
Stuiver (1978) Warming Neutral
Sagan et al. (1979) Neutral Cooling
Choudhury and Kukla, 1979 Neutral Cooling
a. Amended Classifications to PCF-08
Reference Original Amended
Budyko, 1969 Cooling Warming
Benton (1970) Cooling Neutral
Mitchell, 1970 Cooling Neutral
Mitchell (1971) Cooling Warming
Richmond, 1972 Cooling Neutral
Denton and Karlén, 1973 Cooling Warming
Schneider and Dickinson, 1974 Cooling Neutral
Moran, 1974 Cooling Neutral
Ellsaesser, 1975 Cooling Neutral
Thompson, 1975 Cooling Neutral
Gates, 1976 Cooling Neutral
Zirin et al., 1976 Cooling Neutral
Bach, 1976 Cooling Warming
Norwine, 1977 Cooling Warming
Paterson, 1977 Cooling Neutral
Schneider, 1978 Cooling Warming
b. Amended Classifications to KR-16

Table 2: Amendments to Classification of Papers in Database

Two examples of the amendments to the classification of the papers in the database are explained below:

1. The Benton (1970) paper is classified as “Cooling” in KR-16 but the paper states that, “In the period from 1880 to 1940, the mean temperature of the earth increased about 0.60C; from 1940 to 1970, it decreased by 0.3-0.4°C…The present rate of increase of 0.7 ppm per year [of CO2] would therefore (if extrapolated to 2000 A.D.) result in a warming of about 0.60C – a very substantial change…The drop in the earth’s temperature since 1940 has been paralleled by a substantial increase in natural volcanism. The effect of such volcanic activity is probably greater than the effect of manmade pollutants… it is essential that scientists understand thoroughly the dynamics of climate.” [Emphasis added]. Consequently, this paper is re-classified as neutral in this review. Not the “Cooling” classification in KR-16 and not the “Warming” the classification in PCF-08).

2. The Sagan et al. (1979) paper is classified as “Neutral” in PCF-08 but the paper states that, “Observations show that since 1940 the global mean temperature has declined by -0.2 K…Extrapolation of present rates of change of land use suggests a further decline of -1 K in the global temperature by the end of the next century, at least partially compensating for the increase in global temperature through the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, anticipated from the continued burning of fossil fuels.” [Emphasis added]. Therefore, this paper is re-classified as cooling in this review (conforming to the KR-16 classification).

Results from Review & Discussion

The review database contains a total 190 relevant papers, which is 2.7 times the size of the PCF-08 database. Of the 190 papers in the review database, 162 full papers/books and 25 abstracts were reviewed (abstracts were used when the full papers were either pay-walled or could not be sourced). Furthermore, 4 warming papers from PCF-08 were not reviewed because they could not be sourced. Therefore, the PCF-08 classification was used for these papers in this review.

The results from the review are summarised in Figure 2.

It is evident from Figure 2 that, for the 1965-1979 reference period used by PCF-08, the number of cooling papers significantly outnumbers the number of warming papers. It is also apparent that there are two distinct sub-periods contained within the reference period, namely:

1. The 1968-1976 period when cooling papers greatly outnumber the warming papers (85% to 15%), if we ignore the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103). The 85% to 15% majority is an overwhelming cooling consensus. Additionally, this is probably the period when the 1970s “global cooling consensus” originated because cooling was clearly an established scientific consensus – not the myth that PCF-08 contend.

2. The 1977-1979 period when warming papers slightly outnumber the cooling papers (52% to 48%) – a warming majority but not a consensus.

The following observations are also worth noting from Figure 2 for the 1965-1979 reference period:

1. Of the 190 papers in the database, the respective number of papers are 86 cooling, 58 neutral and 46 warming. In percentage terms, this equates to 45% cooling papers, 31% neutral papers and 24% warming papers, if we use all of the data.

2. The cooling consensus increases to 65% compared with 35% warming – a considerable cooling consensus, if we ignore the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103).

3. The total number of cooling papers is always greater than or equal to the number of warming papers throughout the entire reference period.

Although not presented in Figure 2, it is worth noting that 30 papers refer to the possibility of a New Ice-Age or the return to the “Little Ace-Age” (although they sometimes they used the term “Climate Catastrophic Cooling”). Timescales for the New Ice Age vary from a few decades, through a century or two, to several millennia. The 30 “New Ice Age” papers are not insignificant when compared with the 46 warming papers.


A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.

It is evident that the conclusion of the PCF-08 paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, is incorrect. The current review shows the opposite conclusion to be more accurate. Namely, the 1970s global cooling consensus was not a myth – the overwhelming scientific consensus was for climate cooling.

It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely, “selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling.

I find it very surprising that PCF-08 only uncovered 7 cooling papers and did not uncover the 86 cooling papers in major scientific journals, such as, Journal of American Meteorological Society, Nature, Science, Quaternary Research and similar scientific papers that they reviewed. For example, PCF-08 only found 1 paper in Quaternary Research, namely the warming paper by Mitchell (1976), however, this review found 19 additional papers in that journal, comprising 15 cooling, 3 neutral and 1 warming.

I can only suggest that the authors of PCF-08 concentrated on finding warming papers instead of conducting the impartial “rigorous literature review” that they profess.

If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.


I reiterate that no literature survey can be 100% complete. Therefore, if you uncover additional references then please send them to me in the comments. It would make this review much better if we could significantly increase the number of relevant references.

Additionally, if you disagree with the classification of some of the references then please let me know why you disagree and I will consider appropriate amendments. Your comments on classification would certainly increase the veracity of the review by providing an independent assessment of my classifications.


The references used in this review and their classification are included in the spreadsheet here:

References-Global Cooling Consensus.xlsx

Yes, there IS "global warming". if not, us here in pa./ohio would still be under a huge ice glacier! look back a few thousand years. It's a mother nature thing, not a fracking thing. GEEZ

Democrats Debating Ocasio-Cortez Plan to Switch to a Climate Change Command Economy

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to E&E News, Democrats are arguing over whether to use their new congressional majority to resurrect the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, or to push forward Ocasio-Cortez’s plan to take Federal control of the economy, to save the world from global warming.

Divides harden in clash over global warming committee

Nick Sobczyk, George Cahlink and Kellie Lunney, E&E News reporters
E&E Daily: Friday, November 16, 2018

Many House Democrats remain skeptical of a push by leadership and progressives to revive the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, underscoring divisions about how to address climate change in the new Congress.

The caucus clashed in closed-door meetings this week about whether the select panel is even necessary and how much power it should have, with incoming committee chairmen looking to stake out territory on the issue.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has proposed bringing back the select panel to spotlight the issue with Democrats in control of the House, but progressives — led by Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) — are aggressively pushing for a stronger version of the climate committee that would craft a “Green New Deal” to combat climate change.

Ocasio-Cortez has a resolution in-hand that would establish a Select Committee for a Green New Deal, with the goal of crafting a comprehensive policy by 2020.

But the incoming leaders of the committees of jurisdiction on climate — namely, the Energy and Commerce; Natural Resources; and Science, Space and Technology panels — are not pleased with potentially creating a committee that could leach away their power.

Read more:

In my opinion it is no exaggeration to call Ocasio-Cortez’s plan a blueprint for a “Climate Change Command Economy”. From Alexandria’s website;


  1. The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall be developed in order to achieve the following goals, in each case in no longer than 10 years from the start of execution of the Plan:
    1. 100% of national power generation from renewable sources;
    2. building a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid;
    3. upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety;
    4. decarbonizing the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries;
    5. decarbonizing, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure;
    6. funding massive investment in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases;
    7. making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely carbon neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.
  2. The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall recognize that a national, industrial, economic mobilization of this scope and scale is a historic opportunity to virtually eliminate poverty in the United States and to make prosperity, wealth and economic security available to everyone participating in the transformation. In furtherance of the foregoing, the Plan (and the draft legislation) shall:
    1. provide all members of our society, across all regions and all communities, the opportunity, training and education to be a full and equal participant in the transition, including through a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one;
    2. take into account and be responsive to the historical and present-day experiences of low-income communities, communities of color, indigenous communities, rural and urban communities and the front-line communities most affected by climate change, pollution and other environmental harm;
    3. mitigate deeply entrenched racial, regional and gender-based inequalities in income and wealth (including, without limitation, ensuring that federal and other investment will be equitably distributed to historically impoverished, low income, deindustrialized or other marginalized communities);
    4. include additional measures such as basic income programs, universal health care programs and any others as the select committee may deem appropriate to promote economic security, labor market flexibility and entrepreneurism; and>
    5. deeply involve national and local labor unions to take a leadership role in the process of job training and worker deployment.
  3. The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall recognize that innovative public and other financing structures are a crucial component in achieving and furthering the goals and guidelines relating to social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership set forth in paragraphs (2)(A)(i) and (6)(B). The Plan (and the draft legislation) shall, accordingly, ensure that the majority of financing of the Plan shall be accomplished by the federal government, using a combination of the Federal Reserve, a new public bank or system of regional and specialized public banks, public venture funds and such other vehicles or structures that the select committee deems appropriate, in order to ensure that interest and other investment returns generated from public investments made in connection with the Plan will be returned to the treasury, reduce taxpayer burden and allow for more investment.

Read more:

To her credit Ocasio-Cortez is not trying to hide what she is attempting to do – she is very open about her intentions. However I do find it rather disturbing that there seems to be serious support for her ideas in the newly elected house.

It Never Mattered: Paris Agreement Just Revealed To Be Total Sham. Trump Was Right.

November 20, 2018
Recall all of the great weeping and gnashing of teeth from leftists and radical environmentalists when President Donald Trump announced in 2017 that he would withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate his predecessor had signed the nation onto.
It was literally the end of the world as we know it, in their view, as unchecked air and water pollution would explode exponentially, humans would die horrible, climate change-related deaths and it was all the fault of an uncaring and climate change-denying Trump.
But a report from Investor’s Business Daily last week suggests that all of the uproar about Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement was really just noise and much ado about nothing, as the international pact to address climate change and carbon emissions has been revealed to be essentially worthless.
That’s right, the much-ballyhooed agreement — praised by former President Barack Obama as “a turning point for our planet” — which saw more than 200 nations make pledges to cut carbon dioxide emissions by unreasonable amounts within a short time frame, ostensibly in order to prevent “catastrophic” climate change, has since been exposed as a massive case of all talk and no action.
An organization known as Climate Transparency just released a comprehensive report that focused on the top G-20 nations and looked closely at the actions the individual nations had taken to “transition to a low-carbon economy.” The process involved studying the latest emissions reports from 2017 along with roughly 80 other indicators, including “decarbonization, climate policies, finance and vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.”
Investor’s Business Daily noted that the study had found that none of the G-20 nations had made pledges that were even close to being in line with the goals set by the Paris Agreement, which itself was based on a United Nations-declared minimum acceptable levels of CO2 emissions that would prevent the “catastrophic” warming of the globe by 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
That means that even if all of the G-20 nations had met the pledged CO2 reductions they had set following the Paris Agreement, it still wouldn’t have been enough of a reduction to meet the far lower level of CO2 as set by the U.N.
On top of that, the study found that most of the G-20 nations weren’t even on track to meet the meager CO2 emissions reductions they had pledged themselves to. The study specifically called out the European Union as “not on track to meet its 2030 target” — as well as Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Mexico and Turkey.
Making matters even worse, more than half of the G-20 nations actually saw their level of CO2 emissions increase over the past two years, despite the pledges to reduce such emissions. Specifically, those nations are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Turkey.
Meanwhile, according to Investor’s Business Daily, Saudi Arabia is on track to actually double its CO2 emissions by 2030. Turkey is pressing forward with more coal-powered energy production in spite of its pledge — as is Japan. Brazil has actually expanded its deforestation operations instead of reducing them, and Russia’s targeted reductions were so ridiculously weak as to not even need a significant reduction to reach them.
And then, of course, there is China, already known as the world’s worst polluter, which fully intends to continue increasing carbon emissions until 2030 before it even begins to think about reducing them to the levels of the Paris Agreement, IBD reported.
All of that to say this: The Paris Agreement was a hoax that was never really about taking substantial steps to protect the environment, and was instead designed to serve as a massive virtue-signaling measure that would kneecap developed national economies to help boost developing and underdeveloped economies, a sickening version of the Marxist desire to redistribute national wealth more equitably.
It never mattered who was part of the agreement. Its goals were below what the environmentalist fanatics wanted, and none of the countries that were so boastful about being a part of the agreement apparently had any intention of ever following through on even their half-hearted commitments.
All of the talk about the glorious achievement of the Paris Agreement was just that, talk, and not at all indicative of any actual achievement, save for the opportunity for nations to appear virtuous and pat themselves on the back as good little environmental Marxists.
Trump was able to see that — as did millions of his supporters — without the aid of the Climate Transparency report on the G-20 nations, which in essence has confirmed that Trump made the right decision in withdrawing the U.S. from the flawed and useless agreement.
Perhaps the most ironic aspect of all of this, though, is that in spite of Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement — and in spite of horrified predictions to the contrary from Democrats and the liberal media — the U.S. nevertheless led the world in actually reducing carbon emissions in 2017, based on data compiled by the American Enterprise Institute.
To be sure, there is nothing wrong with nations making efforts to reduce their carbon emissions and other forms of pollution — indeed, such efforts should be generally applauded.
That said, it should be done on an individual and targeted basis by each nation that takes into account its own unique situation, so as not to overly disrupt and hamper its own economy, and not as a part of some meaningless, virtue-signaling international agreement that binds certain countries while allowing free rein to others.
That would be called a sham.

Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, provides insight into the debate over climate change and the political games played to create policy.

Everyone on the planet should see this:

Please copy and past this post into an email and send it to everyone you know, thank you

Press Releases

Landmark Bipartisan Carbon Fee Legislation Introduced

Reps. Deutch (D), Rooney (R), Delaney (D), Fitzpatrick (R), Crist (D) to introduce landmark bipartisan proposal to price carbon.

f t # e
Washington, November 27, 2018
Today, Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL-22), Congressman Francis Rooney (R-FL-19), Congressman John K. Delaney (D-MD-06), Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-08), and Congressman Charlie Crist (D-FL-13) introduced bipartisan legislation to price carbon and return 100% of the net revenue as a rebate to American families.

The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (EICDA) will help reduce U.S. carbon pollution by 40% in 12 years, with 91% reduction target by 2050 (vs. 2015 levels). This would be achieved by pricing carbon at $15 per metric ton of CO2e and increasing the price by $10 every year. The Treasury Department would return 100% of the net revenue back to the American people, a policy highlighted by a Treasury Department report as helping lower- and middle-income families.

A one-pager on the legislation can be found here, and the text of the legislation can be found here.

A wide range of groups support the legislation, including: Citizens Climate Lobby, Climate Leadership Council, The Nature Conservancy, Alliance for Market Solutions, RepublicEn, Conservation Hawks, National Wildlife Federation, National Audobon Society, Conserve America, World Resources Institute, and Applied Ecology for Tropical Resources Program Inc. - ECOTROPICS.

"This aggressive carbon pricing scheme introduced by members from both parties marks an important opportunity to begin to seriously address the immediate threat of climate change," said Congressman Deutch. "The status quo is unsustainable; the time to act is right now."

To let the free market price out coal we should consider value pricing carbon," Congressman Rooney said. "A revenue-neutral carbon fee is an efficient, market- driven incentive to move toward natural gas and away from coal, and to support emerging alternate sources of energy.

If we’re ever going to really mitigate climate change and prevent this looming catastrophe, it’s going to be with legislation like this – a big solution with bipartisan support. Incentives really matter and a carbon tax creates powerful market incentives in the private sector to reduce emissions in the short term and develop alternative energy sources in the long term. This is why I’ve authored my own carbon tax legislation and am proud to cosponsor this bill. The stakes are too high for us not to act and too high for us to be afraid to implement the solutions we know we need. This legislation is a blueprint for how we can combat climate change and bring people together around innovative policy solutions,” said Congressman Delaney.

Since my first day in Congress, I have committed to finding solutions that mitigate the effects of climate change," Congressman Fitzpatrick said. "We must take a bipartisan, market-driven approach to reduce carbon emissions, which are contributing to atmospheric change, rising sea levels, and more intense natural disasters. I am confident that bipartisan efforts to preserve our environment and protect our way of life for future generations will ultimately succeed.

"Since organizing Florida's first national climate change summit more than 10 years ago, it’s clear that reducing our carbon dependency is the key to winning this fight. The devastating findings released in last week's report show that the clock is ticking and continued inaction would be catastrophic – for our environment, our economy, and peoples’ health," said Congressman Crist. "We are taking an historic step with introduction of this bipartisan legislation; Congress must act with the urgency this crisis demands."

"This policy has the enthusiastic support of Citizens’ Climate Lobby and our more than 100,000 supporters across the country," said Danny Richter, CCL's VP for Government Affairs. "Those supporters are everyday Americans who are concerned about climate change and want to see Congress work together on a bipartisan solution like this one. We will continue working in districts across America to build support for this policy in this Congress and the next."

"The introduction of the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act provides a clear proof of concept that a conservative-inspired carbon dividends framework can attract bipartisan support," Climate Leadership Council Chairman and CEO Ted Halstead said. "It is no coincidence that the first bipartisan climate bill in nearly a decade is based on carbon dividends. A carbon dividends plan that returns all revenues to the American people is uniquely capable of appealing to all sides of the climate debate.

“This is an ambitious, bipartisan proposal that will help kickstart an essential debate over America’s response to climate change – a debate made all the more urgent by the stark findings of the National Climate Assessment,” said C2ES President Bob Perciasepe. “We and many companies we work with believe strongly that a price on carbon is a critical element of any comprehensive effort to decarbonize the U.S. economy. C2ES applauds Reps. Deutch, Crist, Delaney, Fitzpatrick, and Rooney for their leadership on this vital issue.”
An independent report from Columbia University's Carbon Tax Research Initiative at the Center on Global Energy Policy compared carbon fee proposals and found that the EICDA "would lead to larger emissions reductions, carbon tax revenues and impacts on energy markets by the late 2020s compared to the other carbon tax proposals," "would likely cause emissions to fall below the targets the plan lays out through at least 2030," "would rapidly decarbonize the US power sector," and "low- and middle-income households would receive more in rebates than they pay in taxes."

Their plan, from above:

Purpose of This Policy

• To encourage market-driven innovation in clean energy technologies.

• To create efficient markets, encourage competition, and promote our national interests.

• To create a healthier, more stable, more prosperous nation for future generations.

Projected Benefits

• Creates 2.1 million net new jobs by the 10th year.

• Deploys private capital and American innovation to advance clean energy technologies.

• Reduces U.S. carbon emissions by 33% in 10 years, targets 90% reduction by 2050 (vs. 2015).

• Improves health, prevents 13,000 pollution-related U.S. deaths annually.

Major Policy Components

Carbon Fee – A gradually-rising upstream fee on the carbon content of fuels.

● Purpose: Creates market-driven demand for cleaner energy technologies. Corrects market distortions by reflecting externalities of pollution costs

● Details: Assessed once, upstream. Starts at $15 per metric ton of CO2e, increases $10 each year. Exemption for agricultural fuels and non-emissive uses. Rebate for CCS.

● HFCs: Fee also assessed at 10% of GWP of fluorinated gases.

Carbon Dividend – Rebates 100% of net revenues to the American people.

● Purpose: Protects consumers and the economy. Maintains revenue neutrality. Rebate offsets cost increases for most Americans.

● Details: Equal share to adults with SSN or TIN, half share to minors. Administered by Treasury. Admin costs not to exceed 2%. 1-month advance payment.

Gotta love NewSpeak. They say that the dividend “protects consumers” … but since it is “protecting” them from the tax that the authors of the proposed law are imposing, I fear that’s less than comforting …

Let me start by giving this tax its actual name. It is not a “carbon tax” or a “carbon fee” as the legislation claims. Nor is it a carbon dioxide tax. It is a tax on energy.

Curiously, the size of their energy tax is finely tuned. It actually varies directly with the energy content of the various fuels like gasoline, diesel, coal, and jet fuel. This is because for the hydrocarbons that we call “fossil fuels”, the energy content is in part proportional to the carbon content. The energy is released when the carbon is burned and turned into carbon dioxide. More energy from the carbon = more carbon dioxide.

It gets more curious. Their energy tax is based, not on carbon dioxide emissions, but on a measurement called “CO2 equivalents”. From the text of the law:


The term ‘carbon dioxide equivalent’ or ‘CO2-e’ means the number of metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions with the same global warming potential as one metric ton of another greenhouse gas.

So CO2 has a “global warming potential” (GWP) of one because it’s the standard of measure. Methane has a GWP of thirty, meaning they count one molecule of methane as equivalent to thirty CO2 molecules. And one molecule of nitrous oxide is said to be equivalent to 275 CO2 molecules … and this despite the fact that the atmosphere contains nitrogen and oxygen. The result of this is that ANY open-air flame will produce various compounds of nitrogen and oxygen, including nitrous oxide … and they plan to tax nitrous oxide at a rate 275 times the tax on CO2??? Oh, man, given that for the tax rate nitrous oxide the tax rate will be 275 times that on CO2, nitrous oxide emissions will be another center of insane arguments about what is and isn’t taxable. (For those interested, there’s more EPA info on the global warming potential in the endnotes.)

It gets worse …

So they plan to tax CO2e by an amount starting at $15/tonne (metric ton) and increasing by $10/tonne per year. How will the collection of this tax be achieved? In good bureaucratic fashion, it will be done in the most arcane, complicated, vague, and contentious manner imaginable. They will start with:

‘‘(1) the identification of an effective point in the production, distribution, or use of a covered fuel or fluorinated greenhouse gas for collecting such carbon fee or fluorinated greenhouse gas fee, in such a manner so as to minimize administrative burden and maximize the extent to which full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions from covered fuels or fluorinated greenhouse gases have the carbon fee or fluorinated greenhouse gas fee levied upon them,

I’ve underlined the “full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions” part. This is not just the greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the fuel. That would be far too simple to calculate. This is the sum of the actual CO2e of the GHGs in the substance, plus in their words, “that fuel’s upstream greenhouse gas emissions.” This means all greenhouse gases emitted by activities going back through the refining, the transportation, and all the way to the “wellhead” or the mine. In their words:

(t) UPSTREAM GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.— The term ‘upstream greenhouse gas emissions’ means the quantity of greenhouse gases, expressed in metric tons of CO2-e, emitted to the atmosphere resulting from, non exclusively, the extraction, processing, transportation, financing, or other preparation of a covered [fossil] fuel for use.

Note the escape clause “non exclusively”, which means that they can add other things to the “upstream” emissions.

Of course this will lead to further endless arguments about things like whether corporate air travel to inspect pipelines or the cooking gases consumed by the worker’s kitchens or methane leakage from your competitors wells should be included as an “upstream” emission of GHGs or not … this is just more employment for tax accountants and lawyers, and more cost to the economy.

For an absurd example of their madness, they specifically say that you have to include the greenhouse gases emitted by obtaining financing … say what? Greenhouse gas emissions from financing? Here’s a notorious financial CO2 emitter … or perhaps just a source of excess methane mixed with hot air …

Did I happen to ask, just who thinks this is a good idea?

So energy is to be taxed at a rate including all the energy involved in bringing that energy to where you use the energy …

And at this point, we get to the messy and most important question—WHO GETS TAXED? Remember, above they said: “Details: Assessed once, upstream.” So the bureaucrats, having decided the most “effective point” in the production, distribution or use of fossil fuel, then take up the next question, where the rubber meets the road. This is the question of “who pays?”, or in their words:

‘‘(2) the identification of covered entities which shall be liable for the payment of the carbon fee or the fluorinated greenhouse gas fee,

YIKES! And who are these “covered entities” that are gonna get slammed?

(f) COVERED ENTITY.—The term ‘covered entity’ means—

(1) in the case of crude oil— ‘

(A) a refinery operating in the United States, and

(B) any importer of any petroleum or petroleum product into the United States,

(2) in the case of coal—

(A) any coal mining operation in the United States, and

(B) any importer of coal into the United States,

(3) in the case of natural gas—

(A) any entity entering pipeline quality natural gas into the natural gas transmission system, and

(B) any importer of natural gas into the United States,

(4) in the case of fluorinated gases any entity required to report the emission of a fluorinated gas under part 98 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, and

(5) any entity or class of entities which, as determined by the Secretary, is transporting, selling, or otherwise using a covered fuel in a manner which emits a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere and which has not been covered by the carbon fee, the fluorinated greenhouse gas fee, or the carbon border fee adjustment.

Now, as any experienced reader of such documents knows, the last clause is the escape clause. The Secretary can add any industry or even a single entity as he pleases to the list of those unfortunate businesses getting the sparkly new tax.

And there’s another sting in this tale. In addition to all of that, there is a whole set of border rules. When you import or export fuel itself, you either get taxed on imports or you receive (someday) a rebate for exports from your new best friend, the IRS. However, other importing and exporting businesses are taxed as well, for any “carbon-intensive products”. Of course, this really means “energy-intensive products”. As above, just what qualifies as an energy-intensive product is decided by the Secretary … but there’s a default list.

‘‘(2) until such time that the Secretary promulgates rules identifying carbon-intensive products, the following shall be considered carbon-intensive products: iron, steel, steel mill products (including pipe and tube), aluminum, cement, glass (including flat, container, and specialty glass and fiberglass), pulp, paper, chemicals, or industrial ceramics.

So the new energy taxes and potential energy tax rebates will fall on fuel importers and exporters, and also on the importers and exporters of metals, cement, industrial ceramics, glass, pulp, paper, and chemicals. And in every case, to determine the tax they will have to calculate “full fuel cycle greenhouse emissions”, meaning everything from the extraction of the raw materials from nature all the way through any manufacturing processes to their final ex-factory finished state … dear heavens, I’m sure y’all can see why I called this an insanely complicated system. Where do you draw the line as to what is a legit upstream emission? I mean, if financing has to be counted as an “upstream” source of greenhouse gas emissions … what is not counted?

So that is my first objection: the immensely complicated, arbitrary, and predictably contentious method for assessing and collecting the tax. However, thinking about it I finally understood what they meant when they said about their proposed law, that it:

Creates 2.1 million net new jobs by the 10th year.

If this mad law ever comes into effect, it will assuredly provide lifetime employment for easily that many accountants, lawyers, IRS agents, rent-seekers, tax advisers, emissions estimators, import-export analysts, and porkadelic bureaucrats and bureaucrettes of every stripe.

Now, this is a bizarre variant of tax called a “Pigovian Tax”. They are named after their inventor, the English economist Arthur Pigou (1877–1959). The most common example is the gas tax. They are designed to discourage behavior that the society disapproves of for some reason, by making it more expensive.

Here’s the bizarre part. According to this charming plan, they are going to first tax people … and then give the money back to the people paying the tax. Take their money only to give it back to them … it’s circular enough to make Ouroboros weep in envy.

Which brings me to my second objection: I don’t like hidden taxes. If I can see the tax on the price at the pump, then I can think about whether it is worth it. More to the point, I can add it up and see how much I’m paying in a year. But in this case, the consumer will never know how much this cockamamie energy tax is costing them.

My third objection is to the size of the tax. For gasoline, it starts at fourteen cents per gallon … next year it will be twenty-three cents per gallon, which is already larger than the entire current Federal gas tax of eighteen cents per gallon. And from there it rises such that in only ten years, in constant 2018 dollars, it’s already over a dollar a gallon. A dollar per gallon!

And of course, that’s just the start of the climb, it doesn’t stop rising. in twenty years the tax is two dollars a gallon. And it keeps on going. In thirty years it is over three dollars per gallon.

Who the heck thinks that’s a good idea? Paris is aflame from a twenty-five cent “climate change” energy tax, and these rocket scientists are proposing a three dollar tax?

Does it stop there? Nope. In this brilliant plan, the tax doesn’t stop increasing until greenhouse gas emissions for the entire US are down to 10% of the 2015 levels … down to TEN PERCENT of the 2015 value? That’s until the back side of forever, that will never happen! An infinitely increasing energy tax.

Who the heck thinks that’s a brilliant plan?

The same thing is true about the tax on electricity, which is based on the CO2 content of the fuel used to generate the electricity. Given the current US fuel mix, it will start at about a penny per kilowatt-hour (kWhr). The average cost of electricity in the US is about ten cents/kWhr.

But in ten years the tax will be five cents per kWhr In twenty years the tax will equal the cost of the electricity, ten cents per kWhr. In thirty years it will be 15 cents per kWhr, 50% more than the cost of the electricity itself. And just like the gas tax, it will continue increasing in perpetuity …

Finally, these are the minimum tax rates. That doesn’t include the “full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions”. I’ve only run the numbers on the direct CO2 emissions, not all the upstream emissions.

Obviously, this will hit the poorest people the hardest. The folks of the bloatocracy who will be making the law and enforcing the law won’t be bothered by the fuel prices doubling—they have government cars and gas allowances. But for the single mom who has to drive to work in an old car, a car that drinks gas faster than her useless ex-husband drank whiskey, doubling the gas price means her kids will give up something—food, clothing, medicine …

She can’t spend money twice, so something’s got to give. This tax will be EXTREMELY destructive to the poor. Look, if you want to fight CO2, I think you’re nuts … but if so, how about you don’t do it by taxing energy? A tax on energy is a hugely regressive tax that affects the poor more than anyone else. You’re not taxing the rich, you are taxing the poor.

Fourth Objection: Regarding taxes, as I mentioned above, the most important question is, who pays it. But the second most important question is, who gets the money? Cui bono?

In this case, in what appears equal but actually isn’t, they say that they will divide the money evenly (minus a mere 2% fee for their very valuable services) among everyone who has a Social Security Number … I can see the new market in fraudulent SSN cards forming as we speak …

And how much are we talking about? I did a rough calculation, using the tax per tonne times amount consumed annually of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, coal, and natural gas. I came up with about seventy billion dollars per year …

And to round out the story, dividing that by the population means that every person with a social security number will get a check for $200.

Now this will lead to a curious situation. The more kids you have, the bigger your annual check will be. A couple with six children will get $1,000 … the law of unintended consequences …

And here’s the fifth objection. In addition to exporters having to figure out full fuel cycle GHG emissions, they want the importers and exporters of a host of primary materials like steel, aluminum, and glass to calculate the full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions of say a mix of steel sourced from a variety of mills in India … good fun. Or some exporter wants to get a rebate for exporting steel … but the steel comes from a producer who has gone out of business …

So who is going to do the months of research and travel to determine the greenhouse emissions just for that one product? Are you going to leave it up to the importer? Does it get done by the US Department of Useless Estimates? I foresee many more lawyers setting up shop to argue the toss.

Finally, the sixth objection: in order to hide the size of the tax from the consumer by avoiding having to post it on the gas pump,  they are taxing “upstream”. But taxing “upstream” instead of taxing the final customer has a hidden effect.

Businesses want to make a reasonable return on the money that they have to spend to bring a product to market. Typically, that’s about a ten percent profit. So if the all-up cost of a product is, say, ten dollars, they’ll want to sell it for one dollar more, or eleven dollars. However, if the product costs a hundred dollars, they don’t sell it for one dollar more. That would only give them a one percent profit. Instead, they’ll sell it for a hundred and ten dollars to make their ten percent profit.

Now, consider the effect of taxing “upstream” rather than having the final customer paying the tax. If a gallon of gas costs a refiner two dollars, they may sell it for twenty cents more. BUT if in addition there is a two-dollar energy tax that the refiner has to pay, they now have four dollars per gallon in the gas, so they’ll sell it for forty cents more … no bueno.

In other words, taxing the product “upstream” will add about ten percent to the tax that is paid by the final customer … and as they say on TV, “But wait! There’s more!”

There’s another step in the process. The refiner originally sold his $2.00 gallon of gas for $2.20 … but that’s the price to the gas station. They add on their 10%, so now it sells to the customer for $2.42

But if the refiner has to sell $4.00 gallons for $4.40 to the gas station, they add their 10% for their profit, and now it is selling for $4.84. So the final tax cost to the consumer is now the tax, plus ten percent, plus ten percent on that ten percent …


The system for collecting the taxes, including the decision as to who pays it, is insanely complicated, very vaguely defined, will lead to endless fighting about what can and can’t be taxed, and is easily subject to bureaucratic misuse.

It is a hidden tax, where even though the eventual consumer is the one who will pay the tax, the cost is concealed from those consumers.

The tax is far too large, and there is no upper limit on how big it can get. By 2050, the tax alone will be three dollars a gallon. It will screw the poor right to the floor, and cause a huge increase in energy poverty.

In terms of payout, it is biased in favor of people with large numbers of children. So it will represent a money transfer from the single, the elderly, and the childless to those who have lots of kids.

It includes an impossible requirement that businesses importing primary materials pay tax on unknowable activities in distant countries.

Because the tax is applied “upstream”, the eventual consumer will pay at least an additional ten percent above the nominal amount of the tax, and probably more like eleven or twelve percent once all the dogs are hung.


Now, while those are more than enough reasons to reject this horrible energy tax, let me close by discussing my biggest reason for opposing this piece of bad legislation—there is no evidence that it will make any perceptible change in the global temperature. There’s a simple explanation for that. As CO2 emitters, we are being overtaken by the emissions of China, India, Brazil, and the developing world.

In 1965, US emissions were 30% of the global total. We were the big fish. However, by 2017, US emissions were only about 15% of global emissions. At current rates, by 2030 they’ll only be 11% of global emissions, and 7% by 2050. So a change in US emissions in the year 2050 won’t make much difference to the global outcome.

How much difference? Well, by 2050 if the global CO2 keeps growing at the current rate (about 1% per year), the atmospheric concentration will be about 502 ppmv.

And under the extremely unlikely possibility that the Deutch Energy Tax does everything it is claimed to do, if by 2050 it reduces our CO2 emissions all the way down to ten percent of their 2015 values, the atmospheric concentration in 2050 will be lowered by only three measly ppmv, down from 502 ppmv to 499 ppmv.. That’s about a half a percent less atmospheric CO2 than without the Deuch Energy Tax.

And again, under the minuscule possibility that the Deutch Energy Tax actually does everything it is supposed to do, and assuming for the sake of calculation the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity of 3°C per doubling of CO2 (which may be high), the Deutch Energy Tax will only make a temperature difference of … wait for it …

Three-hundredths of one degree Celsius (which used to be called Centigrade, and if you call it that today, scientific grammar Nazis will point and laugh). That’s 0.03°C. That’s what they are calling their “Climate Solution” … riiight.

How small is 0.03°C? Air gets cooler as you go up in elevation. Three-hundredths of a degree is the difference in temperature between the top and the bottom of a flight of stairs. In other words, far, far too small to even be felt, far too small to measure with a weather thermometer. Meaningless.

All of these bureaucrats, all of this taxation, all of the emissions calculations, all the lawyers and hangers-on, all of the people audited and penalized, all of the wasted hours of working time, all the overseas trips to determine overseas emissions, all of the new government employees drawing obscene payments and pensions, all of the kids going without necessities so mom can get to work, all the people thrust into fuel poverty, all of that … to achieve the amount of cooling you get from going from the bottom to the top of a flight of stairs.

And that is the main reason why I oppose this nonsense … because it won’t make any measurable difference in the 2050 temperature. It is a huge investment of time and money and human deprivation and suffering which will make NO PERCEPTIBLE DIFFERENCE to the 2050 temperature.

I am ashamed that our legislators wouldn’t bother to have one of their underpaid serfs actually run the numbers and see just how little their grand gesture would accomplish, compared to the huge amount it would cost.

So many clowns … so few circuses …

My highest regards to everyone, even the careless legislators who dreamed up this demon-spawn of a piece of legislation,


PS: When you comment please quote the exact words that you are discussing, so that we can all understand your subject.

ENDNOTE: EPA discussion of Global Warming Potential

CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time: CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands of years.

Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years (Learn why EPA’s U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks uses a different value.). CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH4 GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that CH4 is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP 265–298 times that of CO2 for a 100-year timescale. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, on average.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are sometimes called high-GWP gases because, for a given amount of mass, they trap substantially more heat than CO2. (The GWPs for these gases can be in the thousands or tens of thousands.)


PA Gov. Wolf Seriously Considers Marcellus-Killing Cap & Trade

On November 27, a variety of Big Green groups including the Clean Air Council, Widener University Environmental Law and Sustainability Center, eco(n)law LLC and 61 others submitted a “rulemaking petition” (407-page plan) to the Pennsylvania Environment Quality Board requesting the Board and PA Gov. Tom Wolf establish a cap-and-trade greenhouse gas emission reduction program to eliminate carbon emissions from major sources by 2052. It’s a bizarre plan, meant to eliminate fossil fuel production and use, including Marcellus Shale production. The kicker is that Wolf is actually thinking about doing it. Hey PA residents–still glad you reelected Wolf?

As quoted in the story below:

The petition proposes to cover 14 different industries that emit 25,000 tons or more of greenhouse gases a year, including cement, iron, lead, petroleum products production, coal mining, electric generating facilities, oil and gas production facilities, suppliers of natural gas and carbon dioxide, and fuel oil and petroleum product distributors. (emphasis added)

Those so-called “greenhouse gas emissions” are carbon dioxide (CO2)–the very stuff you breathe out with every breath you take. It is so asinine to try and regulate something that naturally occurs. Yet that’s what these radicals want to do. All in the name that supposedly an extra abundance of CO2 exists in the atmosphere, put there from burning fossil fuels, and is causing Mom Earth to toast. We’ve been freezing our considerable rear-ends off in the northeast since late October. We’d like a little more global warming, please!

On November 27, Robert B. McKinstry, Jr., the Clean Air Council, Widener University Environmental Law and Sustainability Center, eco(n)law LLC and 61 other individuals, groups, businesses and local governments submitted a rulemaking petition to the Environment Quality Board to establish a market-based cap-and-trade greenhouse gas emission reduction program that eliminates those emissions from major sources by 2052.

The Department of Environmental Protection is now reviewing the petition to see if it meets the requirements for consideration by the EQB. If it is acceptable, it will go to the EQB for a vote on whether the petition should be accepted for study.

Petition Proposal

The 407-page rulemaking petition would require the EQB to adopt a regulation to cap greenhouse gas emissions from major sources at 2016 levels. The emissions cap would then be reduced by 3 percent annually until emissions are zero from covered sources by 2052.

These reductions would put Pennsylvania on track to meet the greenhouse gas reduction goals established by the 2015, achieving the reductions that the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change indicates are necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate disruption.

Emission allowances for each ton of greenhouse gas are then created based on the cap. The regulation proposed by the petition authorizes DEP to auction off most of those allowances or distribute them to the sources covered by the program.

The proposal creates a floor price for the allowances of at least $10 per ton in 2020, with the floor price increasing 10 percent per year plus inflation until it hits the floor established by California, at which point it will move with that floor.

After the auction and distribution of allowances, any person or business may buy or sell an allowance creating a market for allowable greenhouse gas emissions.

Typically in a cap-and-trade market system, industries that can easily reduce emissions below their emissions cap can sell those emission reduction allowances to other sources that may not be able to make reductions as easily or cost effectively.

The petition proposes to cover 14 different industries that emit 25,000 tons or more of greenhouse gases a year, including cement, iron, lead, petroleum products production, coal mining, electric generating facilities, oil and gas production facilities, suppliers of natural gas and carbon dioxide, and fuel oil and petroleum product distributors.

These facilities are already required to report greenhouse gas emissions to EPA. A total of 283 major facilities in Pennsylvania are now reporting their emissions to EPA.

Covered greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, nitrogen trifluoride and other fluorinated greenhouse gases.

The rulemaking petition is based on California’s greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program.

Statutory Authority

The petitioners say Pennsylvania already has statutory authority under the state Air Pollution Control Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions are a pollutant required to be regulated under the federal Clean Air Act.

The EPA obligation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007.

In addition, the petitioners also say Article I, Section 27 of the state’s constitution– the Environmental Rights Amendment guaranteeing Pennsylvanians the right to clean air, pure water and the preservation of the environment– imposes a duty on the Environmental Quality Board and the Commonwealth to act as a public trustee for common natural resources like clean air to reduce pollutants that adversely affect that resource.

In a forthcoming article to be published in the Michigan Journal of Environmental and Administrative Law, petition authors Robert B. McKinstry, Jr. and Professor John C. Dernbach argue–

“Climate disruption already adversely affects Pennsylvania, and these adverse effects will increase over time. The severity of future impacts depends to a great extent on what actions are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and even remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

“Yet under Article I, Section 27, the people of the Commonwealth have a right to a natural climate that is not disrupted by excessive concentrations of GHGs [greenhouse gases] in the atmosphere. In addition, the Commonwealth has a commensurate duty to limit emissions to prevent climate disruption.”

In fact, the 4th National Climate Assessment released November 23 and the 2015 Climate Change Impacts Assessment Update done for DEP document these changes.

Click Here for a copy of the full petition. Click Here for a copy of the draft regulation.

Existing Cap-And-Trade Programs

There have been cap-and-trade programs in place in Pennsylvania since 2000 that regulate and reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide from major sources of air pollution like power plants and industrial boilers.

These market-based programs have been successful in reducing ozone pollution-causing emissions of nitrogen oxide from power plants in Pennsylvania from 375,000 tons in 1990 to 37,150 tons in 2017.

Acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants in Pennsylvania were reduced from 900,000 tons in 1990 to less than 100,000 tons in 2016 because of cap-and-trade and the markets they create.

While a cap-and-trade program for these pollutants is more straightforward and better understood than for greenhouse gas emissions, the basic market principles of the system are familiar to major air pollution emitters.

2nd Petition

This is the second petition the EQB has received asking DEP to set up a greenhouse gas reduction program.

In 2014 the Environmental Quality Board rejected a petition submitted in 2013 by 19-year-old Ashley Funk from Allegheny County asking for a 6 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in Pennsylvania by 2050 using a 2012 baseline.

In rejecting the petition, DEP said a national approach to greenhouse gas emissions is needed like EPA’s now defunct Clean Power Plan because climate change is a national and global issue and should cover all sources of carbon dioxide emissions, not just power plants.

PA Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions from power plants have already been significantly reduced in Pennsylvania as a result of the coal-fired power plant closures and the dramatic increase in the use of natural gas to generate electricity.

In fact, in comments to EPA on a proposed replacement for the former Clean Power Plan, DEP said, “Pennsylvania has already exceeded its 2030 CPP [Clean Power Plan] goal of [reducing power plant emissions to] 89,822,308 tons through a combination of market-driven techniques like fuel switching [to natural gas] and renewable energy standards while maintaining its status as a net energy exporter.”

An updated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory prepared for DEP’s Climate Change Advisory Committee shows power plant emissions of greenhouse gases were reduced from 116.13 million tons in 2000 to 86.37 million tons in 2015, far below the CPP target.

Total greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors in Pennsylvania have been reduced from 324.79 million tons in 2000 to 286.78 million tons in 2015, as reported to EPA. (1)

The AP says Wolf is actually, seriously considering this claptrap proposal:

Gov. Tom Wolf says he’s considering whether to support a petition filed last week that asks a Pennsylvania environmental rule-making board to impose a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Wolf, a Democrat, said Friday he hasn’t come to a conclusion on it, but he agrees climate change is a problem and that a cap-and-trade program may be something Pennsylvania should adopt.

The 407-page petition was filed last week to the 20-member Environmental Quality Board, which includes many Wolf appointees. It was filed by more than 60 parties, including environmental advocacy groups and solar energy firms, and is designed to make Pennsylvania carbon neutral by 2052.

It’s based on California’s cap-and-trade program that requires polluters to buy permits for each ton of carbon they release. (2)

(1) PA Environment Digest (Nov 28, 2018) – Clean Air Council, Widener Law & Sustainability Center, 61 Othe...

(2) Associated Press (Dec 7, 2018) – Pennsylvania governor reviewing plan to cap greenhouse gases

Copy of the 407-page petition/plan sent to the EQB, requesting adoption of a terrible cap-and-trade system in PA:

Root Out This Rot: Special Interests in Attorneys General Offices By Luther Strange December 11, 2018

Several Republican state attorneys general have recently welcomed special assistant attorneys general to work in their offices funded by a conservative group with the explicit agreement to investigate and prosecute organizations that oppose their policy goals.

Give it a minute and a few tweets. Cue the outrage. Ethicists and lawyers fill the airwaves explaining why it is highly unethical and if not illegal, certainly has a serious optics problem.

While the opening line is (thankfully) not true, it is unfortunately exactly what is being done to push a climate-change agenda through the attorneys general offices in the states.

In fact, the effort was announced to great fanfare; The Washington Post reported, “NYU School of Law will launch a new center, financed by Bloomberg Philanthropies, aimed at helping state attorneys general fight any federal moves to roll back renewable energy, environmental protections and climate policies.”

That was in August 2017; a year later, its mission has apparently expanded. In October, the New York AG office announced a lawsuit against Exxon for allegedly misleading its investors. One of the attorneys that signed the case is Special Assistant Attorney General Matthew Eisenson – a lawyer paid by the NYU State Energy and Environmental Impact Center. Mr. Eisenson and his cohorts can be found in at least seven state AG offices.

The issue arises when you follow the money: The SAAGs are funded by the NYU Center which is ultimately funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies – a private foundation established by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg that is “driving strong, measurable and local action on climate change. Bloomberg is an environmental advocate and he contributes to the discussion in many positive ways. However, the Bloomberg Philanthropies-NYU-SAAG relationship is one avenue that should be reconsidered.

A recent report documented the relationship between Bloomberg Philanthropies, NYU and state AG offices that is riddled with conflicts of interest. Here’s how it works: A state AG office applies to the NYU Center to get additional legal support, stating that the office’s climate and environmental work could not be done but for the NYU Center funding. The NYU Center, which is funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, hires lawyers and pays their salaries. The lawyers then work in state AG offices as SAAGs, even though they remain employees of the NYU Center.

Certainly, many state AG offices utilize external resources. They may retain outside counsel and experts from time to time. However, the key is that those resources are paid for and controlled exclusively by those AGs using taxpayer funds.

And, it is perfectly appropriate to ask a state AG office to champion a certain cause or to look into alleged wrongdoing. However, it is another thing entirely to develop an opaque third-party payment scheme to get an AG office to carry out a group’s stated policy agenda. Just as there is no free lunch in life, there’s no free legal support under this NYU scheme. Instead, these lawyers are paid, and are subject to influence by, special interests to pursue specific policy goals.

In fact, under the agreements in question the state AG office must regularly report back to the NYU Center on the activities of the SAAG and must “collaborate” with the Center on public announcements relating to environmental issues the SAAG worked on.  This exposes the heart of the problem. The NYU scheme allows climate activists to carry out their agenda under the authority of state governments, with zero transparency into who is paying for what.

As a former AG for the state of Alabama, I find this kind of arrangement very troubling. And I’m not alone in this discomfort. According to the report, even the attorney general for Oregon – whose office also has a SAAG in its midst – deliberated with colleagues about the scheme, stating in an email: “We need to be sure we are prepared to explain his position to the media, who, no doubt, will be interested. (Because he is being paid by an outside entity—which is quite unusual I think).”

The Office of the Legislative Counsel in Oregon was even more uncomfortable, writing in September 2018 that, “[t]his arrangement does not comply” with Oregon statute.

Some states are beginning to root out this rot. Earlier this year, Alabama’s governor signed an executive order to clearly ban the practice of “loaned executives” who work in state government but are paid by private parties. It is time for other states to consider similar measures to prevent activists from infiltrating government offices to advance their own causes.

The Office of the Legislative Counsel in Oregon closed its letter stating, “We hope this is helpful.” I’d say it is because of the light it shines on the situation. There are many avenues through which to advocate for climate-change policies, but this one should be put to an end because of its ethical and potential legal problems.

If it’s not, then prepare to see a proliferation of foundations supported by special interests to adopt the same strategy for working with state attorneys general. Wherever you stand on the political spectrum, that won’t be good for the administration of justice.


Luther Strange is a former U.S. Senator from Alabama and served as the state’s attorney general from 2011 to 2017. He is a senior adviser for Patomak Global Partners and provides legal counsel through Luther Strange & Associates, LLC.

Fossil fuels continue to comprise about 85% of global primary energy, unchanged in decades despite huge growth in global primary energy and trillions in wasted subsidies for intermittent green energy nonsense.

If fossil fuels were eliminated tomorrow as the greens insist, everyone in the developed world would be dead in a month from starvation and exposure.

This whole Climate Change scenario is something much more than concern for the Climate. It is a movement that began years ago with the intent of bringing Socialism to the entire world by way of the UN and the Climate Change alarm, or more appropriately, CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). 

As seen in France with the ongoing "yellow vest" protests, and now other EU nations, the Progressive Socialist movement is running up against reality, and the CAGW narrative is in deep trouble. People rate CAGW as much less important than their everyday existence, things like buying fuel for their vehicles and obtaining enough heat to survive, along with food.

The Climate Skeptic minority is fighting back, but it will be a long road before the folly of CAGW and the underlying purpose are fully exposed to the masses for the scam that it really is.

Read between the lines of all the Alarmist news in the main stream some research on your own and develop your own opinion regarding the farce that is CAGW.


Local Groups

Blog Posts

Forgotten Men and Women of Canadian Energy Industry Protest

Posted by Thomas J Shepstone on January 4, 2019 at 10:37am 0 Comments

The forgotten men and women of the Canadian energy industry are mad as hell and not taking it anymore. They’re protesting in their trucks and it’s spreading.

Whenever I go to New York City, which is as seldom as…



© 2019   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service