Clexit and the “Parasitical” Climate Change Industry

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically, and burning too much oil.” – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
Sign in Nashville airport 9-28-15 Photo taken by Ileana Johnson in September 2015 in Nashville airport
Viv Forbes, in a media release on August 1, 2016, announced the founding of Clexit, Climate Exit, by “over 60 well-informed science, business and economic leaders from 16 countries.”
Forbes announced in his press release that ratification of the Paris accord will suppress the developed world with “pointless carbon taxes and costly climate and energy policies” that have no rational basis and are based on consensus. Such green and destructive polices are destroying real industries while “enriching the huge and parasitical climate-change industry that thrives on bureaucracy, misdirected government research, law books of costly regulations, never-ending conferences and subsidies for promoters of the failing technologies of renewable energy.”
He continues that if the EU ratified the Paris accord, it will spell the end of low-cost hydrocarbon electricity and transportation and the “end of manufacturing, processing and refining industries.” Developing countries will be denied low-cost energy and be forced to continue their dependency on “international handouts.”
“Perhaps the most insidious feature of the UN climate plan is the ‘Green Climate Fund’. Under this scheme, selected nations (“The rich”) are marked to pour billions of dollars into a green slush fund. The funds will then be used to bribe other countries (“developing and emerging nations”) into adopting silly green energy policies.”
Bloomberg reported that “Environmentalists who once championed biofuels as a way to cut pollution are now turning against a U.S. program that puts renewable fuels in cars, citing higher-than-expected carbon dioxide emission and reduced wildlife habitat.”
Car manufacturers announced that they are not standing behind warranties if car owners use the EPA approved E15 (15% ethanol) fuel in their cars.
Klaus Kaiser, a professional scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry and an extensive resume in research, wrote recently that the 2004 report, “Growing Energy,” claiming that “biofuels can clean up the environment,” is not true.” “Instead,” Kaiser wrote, “the few studies by independent investigators all showed the opposite to be true. Between sowing and reaping the harvest, converting, distilling, and distributing the product(s), no energy was ‘saved,’ the environment was not ‘cleaned up’ but rather destroyed, and the economy did not improve either.” Kaiser calls the biofuel claims a “boondoggle and a Biofuel Curse.”
Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, this administration has made global warming/climate change a priority, seen as a biggest threat facing the nation. The administration wants to “fill U.S. roadways with electric vehicles.” It also ruled that “greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft endanger human health and welfare.” Another goal is to “phase out super-polluting HFCs (hydro-fluorocarbons), chemicals in refrigerants and other industrial substances that warm the climate.”
On August 2, 2016, the White House Council on Environmental Quality released “final guidance on considering climate change in environmental reviews.” The ‘guidance’ is telling federal agencies that they must quantify the impacts of their actions on climate change when they produce greenhouse gas emissions. Their actions must be spelled out in the NEPA reviews.
NEPA is the 1969 law, the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal agencies to take into account and disclose environmental consequences of their activities such as permits to drill on public lands, mining, building roads, bridges, etc. Agencies are asked to look at alternatives in order “to mitigate the impacts of climate change.” The administration stated that in 2015 the federal government penned 563 such NEPA reports.
NEPA was originally intended to “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality” and not to restrict human activities through such severe, often draconian rules and regulations.
In the U.S. Eastern District Court of California, a judge found that John Duarte, a farmer, “plowed wetlands, four to six inches deep, and therefore violated the Clean Water Act. According to the Jefferson Policy Journal, the Court wrote, “In sum, soil is a pollutant. And here, plaintiffs instructed [a contractor] to till and loosen soil on the property. Plowing caused … the material in this case soil, to move horizontally, creating furrows and ridges. This movement of the soil resulted in its being redeposited into waters of the United States at least in areas of the wetlands as delineated.”
According to the Congressional Research Service, President Obama’s major goal is to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). He pledged at a conference in Copenhagen in 2009 that U.S. will reduce emissions of GHGs 17 percent by 2020 below 2005 levels and 80 percent by 2050. In November 2014 he set a new goal, 26-28 percent by 2025, while China announced its emissions to peak by 2030.
According to the Congressional Research Service report, “EPA’s Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants: Frequently Asked Questions,” (R44341, June 15, 2016), “President Obama made the pledge in the context of U.S. commitments under a [1992] international treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro produced three documents:
– The Framework Convention on Climate Change
– The Convention on Biological Diversity
– Agenda 21 (which has now morphed into Agenda 2030)

President George H. W. Bush signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change and Agenda 21 but refused to sign the Convention on Biological Diversity. According to the late Henry Lamb, “The Convention on Biological Diversity was not ratified, but because the Clinton administration believed so strongly in its provisions, the treaty recommendations were implemented administratively.”

Agenda 21 is not a treaty but a “soft law” document which “means that its recommendations are not legally binding, but nations that endorsed the document are morally obligated to implement them,” according to the United Nations. Agenda 21 and its sister on steroids, Agenda 2030, have never been debated or adopted in Congress but its provisions, including its lynchpin, Sustainable Development, have been included in legislation and administratively through “visioning grants” at the state and local levels thanks to non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs) constant brainwashing around the globe.
The Obama administration also released a “Climate Action Plan and directed the EPA to propose standards for ‘carbon pollution’ [carbon dioxide, the gas of plant life] from power plants by June 2014 and to finalize the standards a year later.” The rule, however, is under ongoing litigation initiated by several states and other entities who have challenged the rule. On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed the rule for the duration of the litigation. The EPA claims that it has the authority for such a rule in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
Our Secretary of State, John Kerry, confessed at the COP-21 climate conference in Paris that emissions cuts by U.S. and other developed nations will make no difference in the global climate.
“The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.
If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions—remember what I just said, all the industrial emission went down to zero emissions—it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *