Category Archives: radical environmentalists

If you are trying to decide if you should go to Al Gore’s new documentary,  read this first.


Al Gore’s new documentary titled “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” opened on July 28 with a limited engagement. Beginning in August, the documentary will be opening in many theaters.  I don’t know how many, as it has not been getting great reviews, but it will be in many more than the initial 4 theaters.

The critics being mostly being quite liberal tend to give this kind of movie a big “thumbs up”. Science has little to do with their ratings of a movie like this, because they are sure if Al Gore produced it, it must all be true. However, the liberal website, VOX said, “Even An Inconvenient Sequel seems a little light on facts at times.” Many of the movie reviewers said it was, in effect, boring.  Maybe that was reflected in the boxofficemojo data published on Sunday, 30 July.  That they said ticket sales for the first day were $61,000, the second day were $43,000 and today (the third day) were $26,000 might reflect the boring viewpoint. 

But Gore did receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his first film, didn’t he?  Yes, he did. However, it was the same Nobel Peace Prize Committee that presented the award to the newly elected Barrack Obama before he got into office. They awarded the Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat of the PLO, too.  That Committee has a very transparent political agenda. It has very little to do with peace.

But never fear gentle reader, Al Gore will not let you down.

Bjorn Lomborg’s comments on just a few of Al Gore’s many prediction misses in his posting “Al Gore’s Climate Sequel Misses A Few Inconvenient Facts”:

Continue reading

Congress Needs To Take Ownership Of Regulations


The preceding posting “Federal Regulations And Intervention Cost America Consumers And Businesses $1.9 Trillion In 2016, discussed the scope and effect regulations have on the economy.  This posting will look at some solutions.

From the CEI posting titled “Ten Thousand Commandments 2017comes the following excerpts:

A regulatory liberalization agenda would provide genuine economic stimulus and offer some confidence and certainty for businesses and entrepreneurs.

Steps to Improve Regulatory Disclosure

Certainly, some regulations’ benefits exceed costs, but net benefits or even actual costs are known for very few. Without more complete regulatory accounting, it is difficult to know whether society wins or loses as a result of rules.

An incremental but important step toward greater openness would be for Congress to require— or for the Office of Management and Budget to initiate—publication of a summary of available but scattered data.

Regulations fall into two broad classes: (a) those that are economically significant (costing more than $100 million annually) and (b) those that are not. Agencies typically emphasize reporting of economically significant or major rules, which OMB also tends to emphasize in its annual assessments of the regulatory state. A problem with this approach is that many rules that technically come in below that threshold can still be very significant in the real-world sense of the term.

Ending Regulation without Representation: The Unconstitutionality Index—27 Rules for Every Law

Agencies do not answer to voters. Yet in a sense, regulators and the administration, rather than Congress, do the bulk of U.S. lawmaking. But agencies are not the only culprits. For too long, Congress has shirked its constitutional duty to make the tough calls. Instead, it delegates substantial lawmaking power to agencies and then fails to ensure that they deliver benefits that exceed costs.

Agencies face significant incentives to expand their turf by regulating even without demonstrated need. The primary measure of an agency’s productivity—other than growth in its budget and number of employees—is the body of regulation it produces. One need not deplete too much time and energy blaming agencies for carrying out the very regulating they were set up to do in the first place.

For perspective, consider that in calendar year 2016 regulatory agencies issued 3,853 final rules, whereas the 114th Congress passed and President Obama signed into law a comparatively few 214 bills. Thus, there were 18 rules for every law in 2016 (see Figure 24). The ratio can vary widely, but the average over the decade has been 27 rules for every law. Rules issued by agencies are not usually substantively related to the current year’s laws; typically, agencies administer earlier legislation. Still, this perspective is a useful way of depicting flows and relative workloads.

Regulatory reforms that rely on agencies policing themselves will not rein in the regulatory state or fully address regulation without representation. Rather, making Congress directly answerable to voters for the costs that agencies impose on the public would best promote accountable regulation. Congress should vote on agencies’ final rules before such rules become binding on the public.

Well, why don’t they vote on agency final rules?

Concern about mounting national debt incentivizes Congress to regulate rather than to increase government spending to accomplish policy ends.

By regulating instead of spending, government can expand almost indefinitely without explicitly taxing anybody one extra penny.

This creates unfunded liabilities. Leaving the people regulated to fund the regulation. Congress could pass a law intending to reduce homicides in the US by requiring an increase of police officers per square mile of city area to match New York’s successful program of 119 officers per square mile.. This would require, for example, a doubling of Chicago’s police force according to a posting by Politics & City Life titled “City Size and Police Presence.” This might be a great idea, but either fund it or let the people in Chicago decide if they want to double the police force.

Affirmation of new major regulations would ensure that Congress bears direct responsibility for every dollar of new regulatory costs. The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS) Act (H.R. 26, S. 21), sponsored by Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), offers one such approach. It would require Congress to vote on all economically significant agency regulations—those with estimated annual costs of $100 million or more. It has passed the House in the current and three previous congressional sessions but has not moved forward in the Senate.

Congressional rather than agency approval of regulations and regulatory costs should be the goal of reform. When Congress ensures transparency and disclosure and finally assumes responsibility for the growth of the regulatory state, the resulting system will be one that is fairer and more accountable to voters.

Please read the entire CEI report by clicking here.

cbdakota

President Trump’s Speech On Infrastructure And The Swamp


The “swamp” that President Trump plans to clear is inhabited by hold-over big government partisans and the way over the top regulations.  President Trump’s experience in the building trades has shown him how the swamp works and he wants to change it. 

He gave a speech in early June announcing his overall plan calling for the investment of something in the range of $1 trillion of new and updated infrastructure.  Excerpts from the speech are shown in the following:

“We are here today to focus on solving one of the biggest obstacles to creating this new and desperately needed infrastructure, and that is the painfully slow, costly, and time-consuming process of getting permits and approvals to build.  And I also knew that from the private sector.  It is a long, slow, unnecessarily burdensome process.

My administration is committed to ending these terrible delays once and for all.  The excruciating wait time for permitting has inflicted enormous financial pain to cities and states all throughout our nation and has blocked many important projects from ever getting off the ground.  Many, many projects are long gone because they couldn’t get permits and there was no reason for it.

For too long, America has poured trillions and trillions of dollars into rebuilding foreign countries while allowing our own country — the country that we love — and its infrastructure to fall into a state of total disrepair.  We have structurally deficient bridges, clogged roads, crumbling dams and locks.  Our rivers are in trouble.  Our railways are aging.  And chronic traffic that slows commerce and diminishes our citizens’ quality of life.  Other than that, we’re doing very well.

Instead of rebuilding our country, Washington has spent decades building a dense thicket of rules, regulations and red tape.  It took only four years to build the Golden Gate Bridge and five years to build the Hoover Dam and less than one year to build the Empire State Building.  People don’t believe that.  It took less than one year.  But today, it can take 10 years and far more than that just to get the approvals and permits needed to build a major infrastructure project. 

These charts beside me are actually a simplified version of our highway permitting process.  It includes 16 different approvals involving 10 different federal agencies being governed by 26 different statutes

As one example — and this happened just 30 minutes ago — I was sitting with a great group of people responsible for their state’s economic development and roadways.  All of you are in the room now.  And one gentleman from Maryland was talking about an 18-mile road.  And he brought with him some of the approvals that they’ve gotten and paid for.  They spent $29 million for an environmental report, weighing 70 pounds and costing $24,000 per page.

We will get rid of the redundancy and duplication that wastes your time and your money.  Our goal is to give you one point of contact to deliver one decision — yes or no — for the entire federal government, and to deliver that decision quickly, whether it’s a road, whether it’s a highway, a bridge, a dam.”

Nuclear reactor that generate electricity have been so bedeviled by all the regulations that raise the cost of building so high that investors are reluctant to take a chance.   If you have been around for a while you know that the green environmental machine has made nukes a target even though it essentially makes no CO2 when in operation. That they reject these units that have an excellent safety record, seems counterproductive.

It will take a lot of work to get these unnecessary systems revised. Using metaphors, lots of oxen to gore and sacred cows get rid of—thus a lot of people will be fighting Trump’s agenda.  Huge, wasteful, big government is fighting back. We need to keep supporting Trump’s initiatives. 

The numbers of regulations are staggering.  Next posting will show how big the job of getting rid of these many regulations there are.

Read President Trump’s full speech by clicking here.

h/t Camille Paglia

cbdakota

More virtue signaling-Bloomberg assembles group to take responsibility for the Paris Agreement


More virtue signaling. Bloomberg organizes Governors, mayors, businesses, commit to Paris climate pact goals” according to a posting on the Hill.com. ** The posting says that they are going to abide by the Paris Agreement.  So, they are going to reduce the US CO2 emissions. Do you think the people that they serve will back them up even though it will cost many of them their jobs and increase the cost of living for all?  A big maybe.  Polling has shown that many people like the idea combating “global warming” but most of them do not like the expense of carrying out a big global warming program.

And the kicker will be that they will have to pony up the money that the Paris Agreement needs.  Annually the Green Climate Fund requires $100 billion every year beginning in 2020. I am not sure what the share of the $100 billion this Bloomberg group will be required to put up each year, but I think the share the US government was expected to provide was about 25%.  $25 billion each year for ever.  And it might be more, because some re-evaluations by the Paris Agreement folks are talking estimates like $400 billion per year as the program evolves— that would mean that the Bloomberg group would have to perhaps provide $100 billion per year. 

The Green Climate Fund has been active for a number of years as a means of putting together the program.  The goal was to initially get $10 billion. The pledges had reached $10 billion.  But pledges are just that—pledges.  They really don’t have $10 billion in hard cash. The US had pledged $3 billion but at least $2 billion will not be sent to the Fund now. If these nations are having trouble supplying a $10 billion one time funding, what does that tell you about their willingness to fund a $100 billion per year fund?

 My guess is the Bloomberg group will join the other big talkers and find that their treasuries really don’t have the money to support the $100 billion per year.  

cbdakota

**http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/336403-governors-mayors-businesses-commit-to-paris-climate-pact-goals

ExxonMobil Ripped At Stockholders Meeting


I have come across a posting on JunkScience titled “Milloy rips at ExxonMobil management for supporting climate alarmism” by Steve Milloy.  The content of  his address at the recent ExxonMobil stockholders meeting can read by clicking here.

Here is a part of what Milloy said this at the meeting:

“My fellow shareholders, we can defeat the activists as they:

  • Hype the climate hoax;
  • Lobby governments for anti-oil policies;
  • Force investment funds to divest from Exxon;
  • Campaign to stop oil production; and
  • Pressure regulators to force companies to write down their reserves.

A handful of others and I have been fighting these anti-capitalist activists for decades.

Our efforts helped produce a President who knows climate hysteria is unfounded and who wants the oil industry to thrive. “

Read  Milloy’s address, or listen to it on the YouTube (I found that difficult so that is why I have put the transcript in.)

cbdakota