American Elephants


Climate Change is Now a $1.5 Trillion Industry by The Elephant's Child

climate-changeThe Climate Change Business Journal has calculated that Climate Change is now its own $1.5 trillion global “climate change industry” that is growing at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005-2008. Following the recession, growth slowed to between 4 to 6 percent with the exception of a bump in 2011 of 15 percent growth. These results were published in the Insurance Journal, for the climate journal is not available for free online.

The publication includes nine segments and 38 sub-segments including renewables, green building and hybrid cars. It also includes the climate change consulting market which the journal estimates at $1.9 billion worldwide, and $890 million in the U.S. The consulting market is expected to double in the next five years. The report’s authors believe the climate change industry as a whole will grow even faster. The Climate Change Consulting market  had billings of $600 million in 1976 and today generates $27 billion.

One of the most lucrative segments of the industry is consulting, risk management, and of course legal and other professional services. That’s why “green” businesses donate so heavily to politicians who believe in global warming issues. Policy is one of the biggest drivers of growth in the industry. If Obama’s Clean Power Plan survives legal challenges it may be a big driver of further growth.

So if “Big Green” is a $1.5 trillion industry, that will buy a whole lot of scientists around the world. It is a major funder for the Democratic Party along with unions. And it is an industry that can survive only by relying on the coercive powers of government. That’s a lot of crony capitalism.



Still Searching Desperately For a Legacy by The Elephant's Child

Gerecht-Home-Main

Rarely do American Presidents display the raw willfulness that President Obama did Monday in rolling out his plan to reorganize the economy in the name of climate change. Without a vote in Congress or even much public debate, Mr. Obama is using his last 18 months to dictate U.S. energy choices for the next 20 or 30 years. This abuse of power is regulation without representation.

That’s from the Wall Street Journal, in an article suggesting that States should just refuse to comply with Obama’s lawless power rule. The so-called Clean Power Plan commands states to cut carbon emissions by 32% (from 2005 levels) by 2030. The final rule is 9% steeper than the draft the EPA came up with in June 2014. The Journal says “The damage to growth, consumer incomes and U.S. competitiveness will be immense — assuming the rule isn’t tossed by the courts or rescinded by the next Administration.”

Since the beginning of electrification, States have regulated their own power systems. Now the EPA is attempting to nationalize power generation and power consumption. In order to meet the EPA targets, states must pass new laws or regulations to shift their energy mix from fossil fuels, subsidize alternative energy, improve efficiency, impose a cap-and-trade-program, or all of the above. This is not about the climate, for it will have not the slightest effect on the climate, but about power and control.

The climate is always changing. Always has, and nothing Obama can do will make it stop. There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide (CO2) is what we exhale every time we breathe. It is plant food. We are carbon lifeforms. Remove the carbon dioxide from our atmosphere and we have no lifeforms. If Obama’s Climate Action Plan — a 17% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 — were to be implemented immediately, what temperature reduction would that yield by the year 2100? The answer: 15 one-thousandths of one degree. Too small to be measured.

The Obama administration sent out an e-mail to announce his announcement of his Clean Power Plan “a historic step in the Obama Administration’s fight against climate change.” Lo and behold in the first three sentences, the urgent need for such a plan is “in the past three decades, the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled.” The EPA, which cannot produce the science on which they supposedly depend for their regulations, always puts asthma as the top harm to “our children.” Nobody suggests that carbon dioxide is responsible for children’s asthma — a child’s natural exhalation of CO2 is causing their asthma? Please! But doctors don’t know what causes asthma, and the EPA attempts to scare people into line.

Barack Obama is apparently a believer. He expects the seas to start rising by feet, not millimeters as they are doing. He believes that if he can start the climate returning to pre-industrial age clean air, that will be a part of his great legacy. He’s depending on the 21st conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris this December to get all the nations to sign on.

Obama is planning a trip to the Alaskan Arctic to “call attention to the effects of global warming.”Michael Bastasch at the Daily Caller estimates that the flight in Air Force One will emit about 161 metric tonnes just for the trip to Elmendorf Air Force Base, equivalent to what 22 homes emit  from burning electricity every year or the annual emissions from driving 33 cars. He’s also going to visit the Pope who is urging Catholics to sign on to global warming panic.

“Climate Change Business Journal estimates the Climate Change industry is a $1.5 trillion dollar escapade, which means four billion dollars a day is spent on our quest to change the climate. That includes everything from carbon markets to carbon consulting, carbon sequestration renewables, biofuels, green buildings and insipid cars. F or comparison global retail sales online are worth around $1.5 trillion. So all the money wasted on the climate is equivalent to all the goods bought online.”

Renewables: wind and solar, require 24/7 backup from a regular power plant. Wind is intermittent, solar is diffuse, the sun sinks beneath the horizon at night, and there are clouds. These drawbacks cannot be removed by technology, it’s the nature of the source. If you remove taxpayer subsidies, wind and solar shut down, because they can’t operate without subsidy.

The Climate Crisis industry is a war on capitalism, on hydrocarbon energy, on poor, minority, blue-collar and working class families — and on the most powerless, destitute, deprived, diseased families on Earth. The goal is social justice, political power and control. Don’t let them get away with their lies.



The Secret Life of Carbon Dioxide by The Elephant's Child

Here is Patrick Moore again, this time explaining the science of carbon dioxide. According to the EPA, it is a dangerous pollutant, and a greenhouse gas that must be eliminated. Au Contraire! The radical zealots who inhabit the hallowed corridors of the Environmental Protection Agency apparently weren’t paying attention in high school Biology.



Patrick Moore Explains Climate Change by The Elephant's Child

Patrick Moore, when he was young and radical, was a founder of Greenpeace. He found, long ago, that Greenpeace was more interested in being radical than in having a relationship with truth and simple facts. Here he explains why and how the climate is always changing, why we cannot predict the future, and why the label “denier” which the Left tries to stick onto the folks who are interested in the real science of climate change, but don’t believe it is an approaching catastrophe — because we can’t predict the future.



Polar Bears Have Survived for Over a Hundred Thousand Years. They Are Not “Threatened.” by The Elephant's Child

Threats_section_image_(c)_www.JSGrove.com_WWF

The Hill reports that the Fish and Wildlife Service has released a draft proposal for a plan to conserve the polar bear, which (they say erroneously) was declared endangered in 2008. Well, no, they declared the polar bear “threatened” in 2008. There is a difference. And, according to the most noted authority on polar bears, the bears are just fine.

According to Dr. Susan Crockford, last year:

Survival of polar bears over a  hundred thousand years (at least ) of highly variable sea ice coverage indicates that those biologists who portend a doomed  future for the polar bear have grossly underestimated its ability to survive vastly different conditions than those that existed in the late 1970s when Ian Stirling began his polar bear research.

The agency was undoubtedly told to emphasize the horrors of carbon dioxide, with the big climate meeting coming up, and Obama’s push to get all nations to line up in his attempt to eliminate the dangers of CO². The article in The Hill is, naturally, accompanied by a picture of a baby polar bear. “It’s for the children” or in this case — the polar bear cubs.

The top threat to the survival of polar bears is the increase in carbon dioxide emissions, the federal government’s wildlife agency said.

That’s the main finding released Thursday in a draft proposal of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) first ever plan for conserving the polar bear, which was declared endangered in 2008.

“Polar bear conservation requires a global commitment to curb the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,” Geoffrey Haskett, the Alaska regional director for the FWS, said in a statement about the draft plan. …

The agency identified several threats to the polar bear, but said that the loss of sea ice — caused by climate change — is the top threat. It predicts that three out of the four major “ecoregions” of polar bears will be decreased or greatly decreased by 2050, based on two separate greenhouse gas growth scenarios.

We cannot predict the future. Computer programs cannot predict the future either. Carbon dioxide is what we exhale every time we breathe. It is what polar bears exhale as well. Carbon dioxide is a natural plant fertilizer and essential to life on earth. There has been no warming whatsoever for 18 years. The extent of Arctic sea ice is at the highest level in a decade, since 2005, Melt is currently the slowest since at least 2004. Polar bears thrive in Hudson Bay, which is ice free three months a year.

A new paper from Dr, Susan Crockford explains that a fundamental problem with polar bear conservation is the fallacy that under natural conditions sea ice is a stable predictable habitat for polar bears and their prey. The essay in Watts Up With That? has a forward by Dr. Matthew Cronin discussing the problem of Lysenkoism in science, and if you scroll down, Dr. Crockford’s Summary, “The Arctic Fallacy: Sea Ice Stability and the Polar Bear,” and links to the paper and blog posts. Read the whole thing, and never fall for cute pictures of baby polar bears again. Don’t you get tired of being manipulated?



Obama’s Latest Job for Our Military is Measuring the Ice in the Arctic. by The Elephant's Child

You may remember the president’s commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy. He told the graduates “I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.” A lot of people giggled at that one.

The Defense Department, obedient to their commander in chief, calls global warming a true national security threat and has begun instituting a host of environmental measures which range from building clean energy projects at military installations to the use of expensive green fuels in military planes. Military officers who question the president’s strategies seem to face early retirement.

A recent report from the Government Accountability Office, according to the Washington Times, notes another example— the commitment of U.S. Military forces to monitor sea ice levels in the Arctic. The administration argues that decreasing ice could force the Pentagon to “institute a military and homeland security presence in the region.”

Critics charge the president is directing the military from its real mission of protecting America, but that is not high on the president’s list. Last Monday, the White House tried once again to justify its climate change agenda with a new report claiming tens of thousands of lives will be saved through restrictions on carbon.

Difficulty in developing accurate sea ice models, variability in the Arctic’s climate, and the uncertain rate of activity in the region create challenges for DOD to balance the risk of having inadequate capabilities or insufficient capacity when required to operate in the region with the cost of making premature or unnecessary investments. DOD plans to mitigate this risk by monitoring the changing Arctic conditions to determine the appropriate timing for capability investments.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are taking aim at the EPA’s budget and restricting the president’s ill-advised global warming agenda through funding cuts. The Supreme Court decision coming Monday will have a bearing on all this.

On would think with the rise in ISIS terrorist attacks across the world, measuring the ice in the Arctic, since surveys show it to be unusually extensive, could be put off for another day. There has been no warming at all for over 18 years, and things are getting colder — not warmer.



I’m Getting Really Tired of My Government Lying to Me! by The Elephant's Child
June 24, 2015, 6:37 am
Filed under: Global Warming, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: , , ,

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told an audience gathered at a White House conference that “normal people.” not “climate deniers” will win the debate on global warming. This is not the first time she has said that distinguished scientists were  “not normal people.” And of course “deniers” is the usual crude leftist language.

McCarthy’s remarks came as she was talking about the reasons why the EPA put out a report on the negative health impacts global warming will have on public health. She said the agency puts out such reports to educate the public, not answer critiques from global warming skeptics.

Ms. McCarthy is an administrator, not a scientist, and it shows. The agency hasn’t yet been able to come up with the science on which their regulations are based. When questioned at hearings, she doesn’t have simple answers to simple questions. One of my personal irritations is the frequency with which they attempt to sell their power grabs by claiming the number of lives (usually children;s) they will save in the future because of their actions. That’s disgraceful, and pure hogwash.

More hogwash: The EPA has released a report claiming “global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will bring fewer extreme droughts, floods, storms and wildfires. The report claims cutting emissions would result in billions of dollars in benefits for the U.S. and save thousands of lives every year. Floods, storms and wildfires are not caused by climate, future benefits can’t really be predicted unless the computer climate suddenly developed astonishing new powers. Ms. McCarthy, like far too many federal bureaucrats is on a power trip to grab new responsibilities, more funding and a bigger agency. Here she goes again:

Regardless, the EPA says a global effort to cut emissions would result in about 70,000 fewer people dying from extreme heat and poor air quality in the U.S., less damage from flooding and storm surges on coastal properties and other weather events by 2100.

More interestingly, the EPA said global emissions cuts would mean an “estimated 40%-59% fewer severe and extreme droughts” in the U.S. by the year 2100. The report adds that in “the Southwest, the number of severe and extreme droughts is projected to nearly quadruple by the end of the century” if nothing is done. But with emissions reductions, “the incidence of drought is not projected to change substantially from present day.”

She added “We can save tens of thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars annually in the United States…” Hubris and hyperbole, and as I said — hogwash.

Speaking at a fundraiser in San Francisco on Friday, President Obama warned “Well within our children’s lifetimes, on our current pace, the oceans go up maybe two, maybe three, maybe four feet.”




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,326 other followers

%d bloggers like this: