“And yet, the federal government – not to mention the states – has invested shockingly little on such (flood repair) projects in recent years, spending about as much on flood recovery as prevention. Trump has vowed to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure, but it’s unclear if levees and dams will be included. Even in California, the center of “the resistance” (to Trump), we need help and cooperation from the federal government. It’s not about petty politics or about Trump’s twisted vision of loyalty, assuming he even honors it. It’s about saving lives.”

– Erika Smith (editorial writer), “There the Threat of Oroville Dam – Then There’s Trump,” Sacramento Bee, February 12, 2017.

“California passed a $7.545 billion Proposition 1 Water Bond in 2015 that includes $395,000,000 for “flood management.”

Upon the election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States, the UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton 3rd Viscount of Brenchley proposed a plan for fundamental reform of climate science and climate policy.

With climate disengagement becoming a clear Trump priority, Monckton’s guide is more pertinent than ever.

—————-

1. U.S. withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, from the Paris climate agreement and from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The President of the United States should invite the Secretary of State to serve upon the Secretary General of the United Nations, qua Depositary, immediate notification of withdrawal from the Framework Convention on Climate Change and from all protocols or agreements thereunder, including the Paris climate agreement, in terms of Article 25 [withdrawal] of the Convention, which provides for a year’s delay before the withdrawal takes effect.…

President Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change because it is a bad deal for America. He could have made the decision simply because the science is false, but most of the public have been brainwashed into believing it is correct and so wouldn’t understand the reason.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and indeed the leaders of many western democracies, though thankfully not the U.S., support the Agreement and are completely unware of the gross deficiencies in the science. If they did, they wouldn’t be forcing a carbon dioxide (CO₂) tax, on their citizens.

Trudeau and other leaders show how little they know, or how little they assume the public know, by calling it a ‘carbon tax.’ But CO₂ is a gas, while carbon is a solid.…

“Good news indeed! Energy cuts are easy cuts compared to the hard budget choices that lie ahead in the transition from statism and stagnation to a vibrant, coordinated, expanding entrepreneurial economy.”

Rome is not burning, but Joe Romm at Climate Progress is.

“Will Trump go down in history as the man who pulled the plug on a livable climate?” he writes, with the subtitle, “The fate of humanity is in the hands of a denier who pledged to kill domestic and global climate action and all clean energy research.

Really, Joe?

But Romm goes on to (usefully) report:

The Australian journalist Graham Readfearn notes that while you can’t find Trump’s original “100 day action plan” for energy and climate on the campaign website anymore, “it was archived by Wayback Machine”.