Archive for the ‘Environmentalist Nonsense’ Category

House votes to weaken Obama’s climate rule


By Timothy Cama and Cristina Marcos
The House voted Wednesday to delay the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate rule for power plants and let state governors opt out of complying.

The bill, passed 247-180, is a major blow to the main pillar of President Obama’s effort to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change, although the White House has promised a veto to protect his legacy.

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s power subpanel, sponsored the legislation as House Republicans’ principal response to the EPA’s climate rule. The rule has become the most controversial aspect of the Obama administration’s environmental policy, and one of its most controversial regulations.

Under the bill, state governors could opt out of adopting state plans for the EPA’s regulation if such a plan would harm electricity rates, reliability or important economic sectors in the states.
The regulation’s enforcement would also be delayed until all court challenges are resolved.

The GOP believes that the rule will not withstand judicial review, so the delay is designed to ensure that the regulation never takes effect.

“They’ve picked up a shotgun and pointed it at the heart of the American economy, our power generation,” Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) said of the EPA.

But Democrats warned it would ultimately gut the regulation intended to help mitigate the effects of climate change.

“This ‘just say no’ bill would effectively give governors the power to sabotage EPA’s proposed clean power plan by allowing them to opt out of the federal requirements of the plan based on arbitrary and ambiguous determinations,” said Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.).

The EPA proposed the regulation last June, and plans to make it final this August. It seeks a 30 percent cut in the carbon emissions of the nation’s power plants by 2030, with specific targets assigned to each state.

Regulators will give states 13 months to draft plans to hit their targets. If they don’t, the EPA will write its own plans and impose them — something the GOP is trying to prevent.

“Earlier we heard the gentleman from Illinois say that this was a ‘just say no’ bill,” Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) said in response to Rush. “You bet it is. That’s exactly what it is. It’s a ‘just say no’ bill. No to a weaker electric grid. No to fewer jobs, particularly in manufacturing and also in the coal and energy industries.”

The White House sees the bill as a threat to the centerpiece of Obama’s climate legacy, and it has threatened a veto.

“The bill would give governors unprecedented and broad discretion to avoid compliance with the [CAA, Clean Air Act], thereby delaying the delivery of important public health benefits,” the White House wrote to lawmakers Tuesday.

“The bill’s effects would be felt hardest by those most at risk from the impacts of air pollution and climate change, such as the elderly, the infirm, children, native and tribal groups, and low-income populations,” it said, calling the bill “premature and unnecessary” and saying that Obama’s advisors would urge a veto if it gets to his desk.

The White House added that it “is not aware of any instance when Congress has enacted legislation to stay implementation of a CAA standard during judicial review.”

Senate Republicans have put their efforts into a similar bill that would go even further in its attempts to weaken the rule and impair the EPA’s ability to set carbon rules for power plants.

Their bill, led by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), would give governors even more reasons they could cite in rejecting compliance, including if doing so would hamper economic growth, competitiveness or jobs.

The Senate legislation would also repeal the EPA’s rule and reinterpret the Clean Air Act to make it extremely difficult for the agency to regulate power plants’ carbon.

EPA Tells Lies about Climate Change, Again

by Bob Allen
If the head of the EPA tells lies about global warming, what else is she willing to do for her job?

At the EPA’s web log, Gina McCarthy writes, “We Must Act Now to Protect our Winters.”

2014 was the hottest year on record, and each of the last three decades has been hotter than the last.

In mountain towns that depend on winter tourism, the realities of climate change really hit home. Shorter, warmer winters mean a shorter season to enjoy the winter sports we love—and a financial hit for local economies that depend on winter sports.

Even if you hate winter, climate change affects you – because climate risks are economic risks. Skiing, snowboarding and other types of winter recreation add $67 billion to the economy every year, and they support 900,000 jobs.

This woman has no place running the EPA. Her blog piece starts with a massive lie—last year was NOT the hottest year on record (unless you are comfortable ignoring the devil in the details of how that claim was measured… yeah, I can make a thermometer read higher by placing it in the right environment to achieve a desired warmer reading)—and it continues on down a hill of Gruberisms from there.

Get ready for lie after bold-faced lie, designed to gain a desired outcome of increased government power, and wealth for bureaucratic cronies.

If we fail to act, Aspen’s climate could be a lot like that of Amarillo, TX, by 2100. Amarillo is a great town, but it’s a lousy place to ski.

With all due respect, that’s a load of hysterical crap—none of the real science says Aspen will be like Amarillo in just over 80 years—even using the most wild and unsupported projections of Climate Change devotees.

Using the X-Games as a context for this putrid nonsense is brilliant propaganda targeted at young people that would make Joseph Goebbels smile from the grave.

Thus, Climate Change Depot:

“There are dueling global datasets — surface temperature records and satellite records — and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming standstill and the satellite was set up to be ‘more accurate’ than the surface records,” writes Marc Morano, former staff member of the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.

“Any temperature claim of ‘hottest year’ based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous ‘hottest years.’ This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges. The claim of the ‘hottest year’ is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts. ‘Hottest year’ claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18 plus year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’.” The most reliable statistics—and those most difficult to manipulate into Climate Change lies—show that the alleged warming trend clearly is not occurring as Gina McCarthy wants the gullible and ignorant to believe. Even if it were, there is no proof man has any significant impact on such things, nor that this isn’t just a natural shift in our climate brought on by much bigger factors.”

Remember Jonathan Gruber! People of this ilk know you won’t support their pet projects unless they lie, and lie big. Don’t fall for the Climate lies.


THE HYPOCRITES ABOUND – 1,700 private jets fly to Davos to discuss perils of ‘climate change’

A squadron of 1,700 private jets are rumbling into Davos, Switzerland, this week to discuss global warming and other issues as the annual World Economic Forum gets underway.

The influx of private jets is so great, the Swiss Armed Forces has been forced to open up a military air base for the first time ever to absorb all the super rich flying their private jets into the event, reports Newsweek.

“Decision-makers meeting in Davos must focus on ways to reduce climate risk while building more efficient, cleaner, and lower-carbon economies,” former Mexican president Felipe Calderon told USA Today.

Davos, which has become a playground of sorts for the global elite, is expected to feature at least 40 heads of state and 2,500 top business executives. Former Vice President-turned-carbon billionaire Al Gore and rapper Pharrell Williams will be there as well; each plans to discuss global warming and recycling respectively.

Another big theme of the mega-rich confab will be combating “income inequality” and how the world’s rich can pay their fair share to reduce the gap between top earners and the lower class. Admission price for Davos: roughly $40,000 a ticket.

The World Economic Forum will also feature discussions on gender equality and opportunities for women. According to the World Economic Forum’s own statistics, just 17% of all 2015 participants are women.

The 45th World Economic Forum meeting begins on Wednesday and runs through Saturday.


Hey Michelle, “Trash cans are fuller than our stomachs!”

Many of you can relate with me when I say the words, “school lunch.” I have toured all across America speaking in public high schools and the first thing that brings me back to my childhood is, by far, the smell of the lunchroom.

Have you noticed that government is making itself more and more at home in all our lives? Not only does government tax and spend in areas we never gave them permission, but federal courts relentlessly push faith, values, prayer, and the Bible out of the public square.
And now government wants to tighten its control over your child’s diet by requiring schools to provide certain types of foods, and prohibit others.
This is being done for your own good, of course, and to remain in compliance with National School Lunch Program regulations championed by First Lady Michelle Obama.
For example, in South Carolina’s Fort Mill High School, Powerade has been replaced with water and the miracle sandwich spread we all love, mayonnaise, is banned!
Student Lindsey Russell told the Fort Mill Times, “When lunch ends, I feel that the trash cans are more full than my stomach.”
According to Associated Press reports:
“The 2014-15 school year marks the first sodium target for schools at 1,230 milligrams per lunch for elementary students and 1,420 milligrams for high school students.”
So authorities in North Dakota are recommending that schools make lunches from scratch, instead of buying pre-packaged meals because
Lunch leaders have to justify the contents to the federal government in order to remain in compliance.
Do you find it interesting that the federal government will require our students to eat meals with water and low sodium, but will not authorize a prayer to bless the meal? Really?

All of this further substantiates my decision to home school my children.
You see, God has blessed me with the understanding that they are my children, not the state’s or the federal government’s.
In fact, the state doesn’t have any children.
Think of it this way.
Imagine if you contracted with a security company to monitor your home to protect you from a home invasion. The day after you signed up, they show up with textbooks and start teaching your children philosophy, grammar, and science… Perhaps you would be grateful for this wonderful service and approve. The next day they begin to teach the religion of Atheism, Evolution, and sexual education – all without your consent. Then they invade your kitchen cupboards and remove all the dangerous, salty, bacon-filled, GMO foods. The next day they bring lunch for your children, as well, and demand that you buy foods off their list and dispose of your food immediately. And, of course, at the end of the month, they send you a bill for all their “services.”
I pray and hope for the day when American Moms and Dads will realize that THEY are their children’s only earthly authority when it comes to education and nutrition.

Now why would certain billionaires be aligned with the Communists?

Beyond belief, yet this alliance hopes that many will continue to be manipulated by the Global Warming, er, make that Climate Change narrative.
Now why would certain billionaires be aligned with the Communists? At first blush, this seems to be an oxymoron, but it most definitely is not. Oppression by any other name is still oppression, and what better alliance than this could be so effective, as well as mutually beneficial to both parties?
Truth be damned. They are desperate to enact their agenda, and will do whatever it takes.
From The New American With United Nations bosses gathering dictators and government representatives in New York next week for a “climate” summit amid the ongoing implosion of their man-made “global warming” theories, a coalition ranging from billionaire front groups to the Communist Party is planning what it calls “the People’s Climate March.” What critics refer to as the “global rent-a-mob,” organized in part by theRockefeller-funded alarmist organization, claims the worldwide demonstrations demanding a UN global-warming regime will be “the largest climate rally in history.” They may well be, but that hardly changes the fact that most Americans reject failed anthropogenic global-warming (AGW) theories and that virtually every falsifiable “climate” prediction has been dead wrong.
The “People’s” Climate March, not to be confused with the open-air gulag UN member-state known as the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, is set to take place on September 21, the day before UN “climate dignitaries” converge in New York to plot a new anti-carbon regime for humanity. As with many other pseudo-popular movements, the establishment-backed march is there to provide some semblance of public support for deeply unpopular policy machinations. In this case, the goals include carbon taxes, energy rationing, mass wealth redistribution from Western taxpayers to Third World dictators, further empowering the UN, and imposing adraconian planetary regime supposedly aimed at curbing “global warming” that will devastate the poor.
It would be easy to assume that nobody bothered informing the organizers and their dupes that there has been no warming for 18 years and counting even as polar ice continues to hit new record-highs — defying every prediction and climate model advanced by the UN and its fellow warming alarmists over the last few decades. More likely, though, is that the establishment figures behind the “climate” coalition have ambitions that go far beyond stopping warming that, based on the undisputed temperature record, stopped almost two decades ago. “This is an invitation to change everything,” the People’s Climate March says on its website promoting the rallies. Everything? Well, almost. “With our future on the line and the whole world watching, we’ll take a stand to bend the course of history,” the promo for the march continues. “We’ll take to the streets to demand the world we know is within our reach: a world with an economy that works for people and the planet; a world safe from the ravages of climate change; a world with good jobs, clean air and water, and healthy communities.” Beyond New York City, the coalition is also planning “climate” demonstrations to “change everything” in London, Berlin, and other major cities. It remains unclear how many actual “people” will be turning out, but organizers claim it will be huge.

Among the groups partnering with the march are the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Party USA, numerous self-described socialist groups, Big Labor, the billionaire George “New World Order” Soros-funded, myriad Islamic groups, crony capitalists, pseudo-environmentalist establishment front groups, and many more. As U.S. Communist Party boss John Bachtell wrote in the CPUSA mouthpiece People’s World in a recent propaganda piece promoting its “People’s Climate March”: “Solutions to the climate crisis inevitably collide with the capitalist system.” In other words, to solve the fake “crisis,” prepare to lose your prosperity and your God-given rights.

Another one of the outfits partnering with the march, Socialist Alternative, also recently outlined the real agenda being advanced by socialists purporting to be concerned about non-existent warming: “solving climate change” with global socialism. According to the outfit’s Pete Ikeler, capitalism combined with fossil fuels now threatens “all advances” made by humanity over its history. The problems are allegedly so bad that perhaps “industrialization” was not such a good idea after all, he suggested. “The solution, therefore, … is the replacement of capitalism with a rational, planned, and democratic economy — otherwise known as socialism,” it says. “Humanity is indeed at a crossroads — and capitalism is in the way. We urge all members of the 99% to join in the struggle for system change to stop climate change.”

Amplified by Russian state-owned propaganda outlets and Western propagandists styling themselves “journalists,” People’s March organizers, echoing UN talking points, claim to be creating the necessary momentum to provide enough cover for globalists to foist their climate regime on humanity. “The People’s Climate March can be — and in many ways already is — creating a tipping point moment for the world,” reads a statement from event organizers quoted by Russia’s RIA Novosti. “There’s real power in this kind of human energy.”

The Rockefeller oil dynasty-funded outfit, which seeks to impose a draconian UN-run regime to reduce concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, has previously organized major global-warming protests around the world. Unsurprisingly, the “green” AstroTurf (phony grassroots) machinations, which a recent Senate report once again confirmed are being bankrolled and used by what it called “the Billionaires’ Club,” always get plenty of establishment-media attention, too. However, the increasingly discredited “mainstream” press has consistently failed to tell the whole story.

For instance, take the basic premise behind the whole AGW edifice supposedly requiring global socialism: The notion that carbon dioxide — exhaled by humans and essential for plant life — is “pollution” that will supposedly lead to catastrophic warming. With no temperature increases for 18 years and counting even as CO2 levels grew, countless scientists who rely on the scientific method and observable evidence to reach conclusions concede that the theory must be incorrect. Dozens of excuses have been concocted to explain what alarmists refer to as the “pause” in global warming, including Obama’s favorite, the “Theory of the Ocean Ate My Global Warming.” The simplest explanation — the theory is wrong — remains off the table for the UN and most of its member regimes.

Beyond the obvious problems with AGW theories, the notion that CO2 is harmful is considered ludicrous by respected scientists who study the issue. “CO2 is ‘the gas of life,’” explained Dr. Tom Segalstad, associate professor of resource and environmental geology and geochemistry at the University of Oslo. “The more CO2, the more life. More CO2 means we can feed more people on Earth. CO2 is contributing very little to the ‘greenhouse effect’. Clouds have much more influence on temperature.”

Dr. Segalstad is a contributing author with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, which produced a landmark survey of climate science and came to very different conclusions than the UN’s discredited “climate” fear-mongering reports. NIPCC lead author and meteorologist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, who also worked with the UN climate body until becoming outraged by its lack of interest in proper scientific review, also pointed out that human-added CO2 is not destabilizing the climate.

Even if CO2 were harmful “pollution,” rather than a beneficial and natural gas that is crucial to life on this planet, efforts to limit human emissions of the gas to control “climate” would still be beyond laughable. Water vapor, of course, is the primary “greenhouse gas” in the atmosphere, accounting for around 95 percent of the crucial-to-life so-called “greenhouse effect.” That gas is entirely beyond human control, and there is no dispute on any of those facts — even among the most devoted alarmists, whom critics ridicule as a “cult” for refusing to change their beliefs despite the undeniable evidence.

Carbon dioxide, meanwhile, accounts for about 0.04 percent of the gases present in Earth’s atmosphere. Of that, according to scientific estimates, less than 3.3 percent comes from human emissions such as the burning of fossil fuels. The vast majority comes from the oceans at around 42 percent, or the biosphere at about 55 percent — volcanoes, wild fires, decomposition, and more. In other words, around three percent of the “greenhouse gases” can be attributed to human activities. Of that tiny sliver attributed to humans, Americans are responsible for less than 20 percent.

None of that matters to the establishment forces whipping up “climate” hysteria to advance their own sinister objectives. Indeed, the “People’s Climate March” will hardly be the only global-warming alarmism event in New York City next week demanding UN “action.” Among other happenings, a pseudo-religious “climate” festival dubbed the “Religions For The Earth Conference” will be asking the gods to forgive humanity for its carbon sins. Separately, a coalition that includes top international mega-corporations, dubbed “The Climate Group,” will be organizing global-warming “awareness activities” all week as part of “Climate Week NYC.”

As what top establishment figures refer to as “useful idiots” converge on New York to demand their own enslavement under the guise of stopping a demonstrably manufactured crisis, the Obama administration has already indicated that it plans to foist the UN climate regime on America by decree. Instead of obtaining Senate approval as required under the U.S. Constitution, the White House intends to use “executive action” to further devastate the U.S. economy and what remains of the market amid its absurd war on “the gas of life.” Americans, a solid majority of whom consistently reject discredited AGW theories, must ensure that their elected representatives take action to protect the public, the economy, and the Constitution from the lawless machinations.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

School District Quits Michelle Obama Lunch Program

This is not the first time a school district has quit what has been promoted as the Michelle Obama lunch program, but the fact that an Illinois school district is opting out of the system tells you it is truly an intolerable food arrangement. School lunches

The state’s second largest school district has started the school year with a new look for its lunch menu, after opting out of the National School Lunch Program and forfeiting nearly $1 million in federal funding, to gain more freedom in the food it serves students.

In May, the board for Township High School District 214 voted to drop out of the federal program, after deciding its guidelines were too restrictive. For instance, kids would not have been able to buy hard-boiled eggs or certain types of yogurt. School officials also have noted new guidelines consider hummus to be too high in fat, and pretzels to be too high in salt; non-fat milk containers larger than 12 ounces could not be sold either.

I know it is slightly off topic but I have to wonder: is current nutritional science really this hateful and hurtful? Is it really impossible to eat good food that is healthy for you and that satisfies you? Reading about these guidelines gives one the impression they are designed to produce malnourished teens that are constantly distracted by hunger. (But what do I know? I drink my coffee with butter and coconut oil.)

In any case, the school district is “rebelling.” That is how I have described other schools doing the same thing, as have many other conservatives. But some of the details in this story make me realize it is not so much about them rebelling as that they are financially forced to opt out of the Federal program. While the story claims that the school district “forfeit[ed] nearly $1 million in federal funding to gain more freedom,” it later becomes clear that they did not forfeit anything. The program effectively ended the reimbursement program.

Here’s how it worked.

Schools that serve the lunches can get a certain amount reimbursed. But in order to get reimbursed, the students must actually purchase the food. But the students stopped buying the food. So rather than get money the school district was losing money. It was spending money to acquire and prepare food that no one would buy. So the school was stuck with food and no way to cover their costs.

Johnson said, the concern was, in addition to the federal guidelines being too restrictive on menu choices, sales of the food they could offer wouldn’t be high enough to receive federal aid.

“What would happen is the sales simply wouldn’t be there, and the offerings that we would currently have wouldn’t be available,” Johnson said.

The bottom line, according to Johnson, is if schools can’t sell the healthy meals allowed under the federal program, they also wouldn’t receive any federal funding, so District 214 opted for healthy options kids would eat.

So the real story here is not heroic schools (though I am happy with their decision). The real story is that the best and brightest who came up with this plan and got Michelle Obama to push it seemed to have assumed that the students would compliantly put into their mouths whatever the Federal government dictated to them. What does it tell us about the regime that they have so completely misunderstood how the public would respond?


Pork-barrel politics at the EPA

By Jonathan R. Nash

power plant

In its proposed new regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that many of the benefits of its mandate will arise not from the direct benefits of lower levels of carbon emissions, but from so-called health “co-benefits” — benefits of reductions in the emission of other pollutants (particulate matter and ozone) that come about as a byproduct of carbon emission reductions. It is certainly the case that the EPA — and government in general — should consider ancillary benefits that result from regulation. However, when the lion’s share of a regulation’s benefits arises from co-benefits, it looks as though the tail is wagging the dog. This lack of regulatory transparency is problematic for two reasons. First, by eschewing direct regulation of the co-pollutants under the Clean Air Act, the EPA leaves itself open to the charge that it is playing politics rather than engaging in reasoned decision-making. Indeed, opponents have assailed the EPA for waging war on coal with the proposed rule. Second, by promulgating a rule that generates more co-benefits than direct benefits — and by emphasizing that fact in promoting the rule — the EPA effectively marginalizes the problem of climate change.

Congress generally designed the Clean Air Act so that the EPA would regulate pollutants on an individual basis; at least one reason for this choice was to foster transparent debate over whether, and how best, to regulate particular pollutants. With its proposed rule, the EPA seems to be more concerned with addressing pollution from coal but under the rubric of climate change regulation. To be sure, there are strong arguments in favor of more stringent environmental regulation of coal: Coal combustion does impose substantial health costs, and many heavily polluting coal-fired power plants today remain in service far beyond the predicted end of their lives. That there is merit in the idea, however, does not mean that the idea should be floated openly.
The EPA’s attempt to garner political support for its proposed carbon regulation actually casts climate change as a less-important problem than the administration has repeatedly asserted that it is. The absence of adequate regulation over co-pollutants makes carbon regulation appear more necessary. In some of the EPA’s models, the co-benefits of carbon regulation dwarf the direct climate change benefits. Indeed, the difference in magnitude could be said to be even larger than it appears, insofar as the EPA models (1) consider the global direct benefits of carbon reduction but only the domestic co-benefits, and (2) generally discount the co-benefits more heavily than the direct benefits. The EPA thus is justifying — or at least selling — carbon regulation through indirect benefits. This strategy may bring on board as supporters people who doubt the reality of anthropogenic climate change, but it begs the question: If climate change is truly insurmountable and raises the possibility of truly catastrophic harm, why are the direct benefits of climate change regulation much smaller than the co-benefits? In an effort to gain political support, the EPA and the administration risk undermining the perception that climate change is the pressing environmental challenge that demands our immediate action and attention.

Nash is a professor at Emory University School of Law. He specializes in the study of environmental law, legislation and regulation, and the federal courts and judiciary. Follow him @JonathanRNash.

Read more:
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Misdirected Evil Tom Steyer targets Rubio, 2016 hopefuls on climate

Trying all the tricks.
Check it out:

Billionaire Tom Steyer’s environmental group is using its social media prowess to hit Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on his recent climate change comments.

NextGen Climate, which Steyer founded in 2013, released a Web video on Wednesday chiding Rubio for getting caught “on the wrong side of the numbers.”

“If you’re thinking about running for president, you don’t want to be caught on the wrong side of the numbers,” the video’s narrator states.
By Laura Barron Lopez
Billionaire Tom Steyer’s environmental group is using its social media prowess to hit Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on his recent climate change comments.

NextGen Climate, which Steyer founded in 2013, released a Web video on Wednesday chiding Rubio for getting caught “on the wrong side of the numbers.”
“If you’re thinking about running for president, you don’t want to be caught on the wrong side of the numbers,” the video’s narrator states.

During a Sunday interview on ABC’s “This Week,” Rubio, a Republican presidential hopeful, said that while he believes in climate change, he doesn’t believe human activity is causing it.

On Tuesday, Rubio sought to clarify his comments on climate change during an appearance at the National Press Club, focusing on the legislative policy proposals put forward by the administration and a number of Democrats in Congress. He didn’t repeat his statement on human activity not contributing to climate change from the earlier interview.

That did it for NextGen Climate.

The video challenges all potential 2016 presidential hopefuls, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) and others to answer where they stand on climate change.

“If you are thinking about running for president, answer this: Do you stand with the facts, or do you stand with Sen. Rubio? The pressure’s on,” the video states, ending with footage of Rubio’s infamous GOP rebuttal to President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union address where he awkwardly reaches for a drink of water.

On top of the Web video, NextGen created a Tumblr, dubbed #PlanetRubio, dedicated to mocking Rubio for his climate change comments, and a Twitter account, @PlanetRubio.

The Tumblr and Twitter account consist of memes and tweets of outlandish comments that would be true on a planet run by Rubio.

“On #Planet Rubio Miami’s $3.5 trillion in assets aren’t in any way threatened by climate change,” the Tumblir states.

“On #PlanetRubio climate change is not man-made. Kanye West also lets Taylor Swift finish,” a tweet posted on the account states.

This isn’t the first time Rubio has been the sole target of Steyer’s action group. Last month, NextGen Climate launched an ad buy in Florida that targeted Rubio for backing the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Steyer’s rise to the forefront of politics in the last year has drawn much scrutiny from GOP lawmakers, who have accused Democrats of pushing drastic climate policies for the sole purpose of attracting donations from Steyer.

Read more:
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Another Study Proves Fracking Doesn’t Hurt Ground Water

One more study has proved what all the others have shown, fracking doesn’t pollute the ground water.
The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources published a 265-page document on the ecological and environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing in the state.

Part of the lucrative Marcellus shale natural gas reserve basin lies under Pennsylvania. The basin is one of the top natural gas producers in the country.

The DCNR’s report said water quality is often cited as the area were most people have expressed concern about hydraulic fracturing, a drilling practice known also as fracking.

“Although incidents have occurred, the monitoring data show that water quality has not been affected due to this activity,” the report said.

Some of the chemicals used in the practice are seen by fracking opponents as a threat to groundwater supplies.

The DCNR said invasive plant species and pests have been able to take advantage of the ecological and environmental disturbances caused by drilling. This “clearly shows” energy companies need to carefully manage their activity to control the spread of invasive species.

The report added more than 1,400 acres of forest were exploited for natural gas development through 2012, though that number is lower than it could’ve been because of management decisions.
It is estimated that Marcellus holds 1,300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough gas to supply the US for 65 years.

One of the states that could most benefit from Marcellus is NY, however the state government keeps on avoiding the issue with new health studies.

Another issue slowing down the development of energy production are the environmentalists. Energy, especially fracking is a double-devil. There are the local environmentalists who ignore the science and claim fracking causes everything from earthquakes to contaminated ground water. Then there are the national environmentalist who fight any carbon-based energy product, ignoring the 1,350+ peer-reviewed studies that refute the global warming theory.

The US has been mired in a weak economy for six years, it’s time for the United States federal and state governments to jump with both feet into the energy production pool, it will not only help those in the energy related industries but their jobs and salaries will act as free-market, easy-on-the-federal budget stimulus to the economy (are you listening Governor Cuomo?).

House moves to block Obama coal rule

War on coal.
Check it out:coalinternal191

House Republicans on Tuesday approved a bill that would prevent the Obama administration from imposing a stream-protection rule for coal mining that government experts say would eliminate thousands of jobs.

The administration rule is intended to replace Bush-era regulations that set up buffer zones around waterways and were aimed chiefly at mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia. The House bill would reinstate the 2008 rule, which was thrown out earlier this year by a federal court.

The House approved the measure, 229-192. Ten Democrats joined 219 Republicans in favor of the bill.

The White House has threatened to veto the bill, saying it limits states’ ability to tailor safeguards to their own needs and wastes millions of dollars adopting a rule that has been vacated by a federal court.

The House bill mirrors a measure approved in 2012 and is unlikely to be taken up in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Even so, debate on the bill was vigorous. Republicans complained that a rule proposed by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement is part of what they call President Barack Obama’s “war on coal.” Lawmakers cited a draft report by the agency indicating that the proposed rule would cost an estimated 7,000 jobs while slashing production across the country.

The rule is intended protect streams from adverse effects of surface mining in states such as West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and Pennsylvania, but it would affect coal mines nationwide.

“President Obama talks a big game about being for all-of-the-above” energy sources, said the bill’s author, Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio. “But at every turn, he tries to shut down fossil fuels” such as coal.

The Obama administration has spent more than $9 million to develop the new rule, “without a single result,” Johnson said. His bill would boost efforts to “stop the war on coal and put in place regulations that are more realistic and effective for both businesses and the environment,” Johnson said.

But Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., said the bill “ignored the real impacts of mountaintop removal mining” to focus on “the imaginary impacts of a rule.”

Holt and other Democrats said the real misconduct was by the Bush administration, which proposed an ineffective rule that did not survive legal scrutiny. Holt denounced a “midnight rule” imposed by the Bush administration in December 2008, a month before President George W. Bush left office.

The rule undermined existing protections put in place by President Ronald Reagan and encouraged mountaintop removal mining, a practice that “destroys wildlife habitat, contaminates surface and drinking water, leads to flooding and … increases the incidence of cancer, birth defects, lung disease and heart disease in people who live nearby,” Holt and eight other Democrats said in a statement opposing the bill.

The House vote came as two other federal agencies proposed a separate rule intended to clarify which streams and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act, an issue that remains in dispute even after two U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers announced the regulation Tuesday. Under the proposed rule, protection would be extended to most seasonal streams and wetlands near rivers. Others would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the rule responds to pleas for clarity from state and local officials as well as industry, environmentalists and farmers.

The Clean Water Act gives the government jurisdiction over U.S. waters, but there’s disagreement over which are covered. Developers have fought in court against regulation of wetlands and streams that they say should be exempt.