“Carbon pollution conjures up images prior to the 1960s when coal was burned without environmental controls in electric power generation; there was train transportation and city-operated district heating systems; there was home heating and cooking with vast amounts of soot strewn over snow in the winter; and when laundry was dried outside and cars parked outside too. In reality carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels is a positive benefit to society as explained by Princeton University Emeritus Professor William Happer in The Myth of Carbon Pollution.”
British journalist Tim Montgomerie recently wrote in The Times (UK), “Our energy policy is insane: this the inconvenient truth.” I could not have found a better title for the Obama-led, and too often Republican supported, energy policies at home.
Montgomerie described the plight of those in the United Kingdom saddled with energy policies that take money from poor pensioners and give it to wealthy landowners who profit from wind farms. …
The September 24, 2014 New York Times (NYT) had an article by reporter Gail Collins, “Florida Goes Down the Drain—The Politics of Climate Change.” A more inflammatory title for the same article appeared in the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution three days later, “Florida soggier as GOP ignores climate change.”
Reading the articles shows the obvious intent to inject climate change into the November Florida elections—in particular the Governor’s race between incumbent Republican Governor Rick Scott and Democrat candidate Charles Crist. Ms. Collins portrays Governor Scott as uninformed about climate change issues with regard to sea level rise. He is not.
This article’s patent exaggerations should be of concern to all rational citizens, not only voters. Sound science versus Malthusian alarmism is an issue not only for the 2014 elections but also for 2016 and beyond.…
The words “environmental justice“ were coined years ago to help stop low-income living areas from being selected for unwanted property additions such as landfills and industrial plants. Now, this term is used by environmentalists to enlist minority groups such as African-Americans and Latinos to help them in their goals to stop fossil fuel use.
The claim is that minorities suffer more from health effects due to fossil-fuel use because they live closer to power plants or refineries. Thus we need to replace such facilities with renewable energies such as solar and wind. No thought is given to higher priced electricity from these energy sources and how this impacts minority communities. And concerns about sprawl are forgotten since this solution is really a call for energy sprawl.
Based on faulty science, environmental movements have called for banning the following with disproportionate effects on minorities:
1. …