Day: October 18, 2024

Climate Colonialism’s Stranglehold on Africa’s Energy Starved

European colonialism that methodically extracted wealth from Africa until the system’s collapse in the last century has been replaced by a climate colonialism that stifles the economic development that the Dark Continent desperately needs.

From Watts Up With That?

By Vijay Jayaraj

European colonialism that methodically extracted wealth from Africa until the system’s collapse in the last century has been replaced by a climate colonialism that stifles the economic development that the Dark Continent desperately needs.

A highly political climate industrial complex enables Western governments and international bodies like the United Nations to exert soft power over poorer countries’ energy policies. Advancing a so-called green agenda in the name of saving humanity from a fabricated climate emergency and offering seemingly irresistible handouts of money and technology, the colonists insist on replacing fossil fuels with unreliable and expensive wind and solar energy.

Yet, the relatively high mortality and morbidity of Africans – among the world’s poorest – can only be relieved by the energy of irrationally demonized coal, oil and natural gas. This artificially induced energy gap is the difference between life and death, hope and despair. It’s a pernicious intrusion in energy markets that shortens lifespans, snuffs out newborn cries and erects barriers to progress.

Energy Poverty in Africa

In 2024, it is unconscionable that over 600 million Africans still lack access to electricity. In sub-Saharan Africa, only 28% of healthcare facilities have reliable electricity. More than 900 million people cook with traditional biomass like wood and animal dung, inhaling toxic fumes that claim over 600,000 African lives each year. Clean water remains a luxury for vast swaths of the population.

As has been shown in parts of Asia, these problems can be alleviated over time with robust investment in fossil fuels. Coal and natural gas can provide affordable and reliable electricity, and natural gas can immediately reduce deaths from the pollution of dirty cooking fuels.

Consider that a single electric car charging overnight in Europe consumes as much power as an entire African village uses in a week. Such stark disparities are not mere numbers. They represent battle lines in the daily struggle for survival of Africa’s impoverished.

In this light – or rather, darkness –nations find themselves ensnared in a global madness, their potential extinguished like fire without oxygen, smothered by the very lack of what’s needed to fuel their ascent.

Foreign-funded anti-fossil fuel activism, cloaked in the language of climate alarmism, blocks pathways to development that Western nations themselves traversed in their journey to prosperity.

The Shifting Tides of Development Funding

For decades, international financial institutions and Western donors viewed energy access as a cornerstone of African development. Many of these projects leveraged Africa’s abundant fossil fuel resources. But things have changed.

The African Development Bank announced in 2019 that it would no longer finance coal projects. In 2021, it went further and placed severe restrictions on oil and gas investments. The World Bank followed suit.

Now, even domestic efforts of Africans to rejuvenate their oil and gas sector are being opposed by paid activists from Europe. There was heavy opposition to the Africa Energy Week event in South Africa, with European-funded protesters appearing at the African Energy Chamber’s Johannesburg offices.

“Some of the protesters … from the poorest townships didn’t even know why they were there, having been promised only $5 and a meal for their participation,” said NJ Ayuk, the Chamber’s executive chairman. “Africans deserve better than to be used for foreign agendas.

“Unfortunately, climate panic and fearmongering are alive and well, and the target is Africa. The way we see it, the world’s green agenda ignores Africa—or at least, it dismisses our unique needs, priorities and challenges,” says Ayuk.

Africa’s Growth Should Be Nurtured, Not Disrupted

As they hinder African development to purportedly save the planet, Western activists are increasing the continent’s vulnerability to nature’s elements. It is a well-established fact that wealthier societies are far more resilient to environmental shocks and natural disasters like drought and pestilence.

The challenges facing Africa are immense but not insurmountable. The right policies and investments can achieve universal energy access, drive economic growth, and build prosperous societies.

But all this will remain out of reach as long as “green” policies continue to obstruct sensible energy development. An ill-informed and myopic crusade threatens to entomb African aspirations in the very darkness the crusaders claim to be dispelling.

Echoing across both sunbaked lands and misty forests is the question of whether Africans will be permitted to flick the switch of progress or be confined to the shadows of others’ destructive obsession.

As a leader of the resistance to the new colonialism, Mr. Ayuk says, “Africans must produce every drop of hydrocarbons we can find to better lives of its people and meet global energy security needs.”

He is quite right.

This commentary was first published at The Washington Times on October 17, 2024.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

Climate Alarmist Education – The Climate Realism Show #131

On Episide #131 of The Climate Realism Show, we invite Steve Goreham on to discuss. Steve is the executive director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of four books, including “Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.”

The Heartland Institute

America’s educational system used to cover the “three Rs” — reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic – but that has long been abandoned from elementary school through college and even medical school and replaced with ideological indoctrination. Now the University of California, San Diego is requiring students to take a class in “climate change” to earn a degree. Classes such as “The Astronomy of Climate Change”, “Gender and Climate Justice”, “Indigenous Approaches to Climate Change,” and “Environmentalism in Arts and Media” are on offer. What is driving the push for shoving climate alarmism into every academic subject under the sun?

On Episide #131 of The Climate Realism Show, we invite Steve Goreham on to discuss. Steve is the executive director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of four books, including “Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.”

Heartland’s Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely will also cover some of the Crazy Climate News of the week. Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET so you can leave your questions and comments for the show in the chat.

The Future of Climate Forecasting (Part 1)

John Abbot, has kept going with research into AI and climate forecasting.   One of his most important recent papers can be downloaded from Earth Sciences.

From Jennifer Marohasy

By jennifer 

My husband, John Abbot, has kept going with research into AI and climate forecasting.   One of his most important recent papers can be downloaded from Earth Sciences.

Some of the latest Nobel prizes in science, including in chemistry, have been for developments in artificial intelligence (AI).  Of course, John Abbot and I began working on the application of this technology for forecasting rainfall soon after Brisbane flooded back in 2011.    Back then, we had just started dating.  It would be some years before we got married.

We had a first AI model developed just a couple of months later, this included some hindcasting showing that the flooding of Brisbane could have been forecast given the temperature and pressure setup across the Pacific Ocean through 2010, and natural climate cycles.

John Abbot and I published a series of papers together through until 2017, after that I lost interest in developing the temperature series that were part of the arrays that John inputted into the neural networks.

I gave-up in 2017, in part because of the hatred that was directed at me, and John, including on Twitter with what was the publication of perhaps our most important paper, newly published in the journal GeoResJ on the application of artificial intelligence, for evaluating anthropogenic versus natural climate change (GeoResJ, Vol. 14, Pgs 36-46 published in July 2017).  This research was pilloried on Twitter, and we were defamed by Graham Readfearn in The Guardian.  Meanwhile, the editor of the journal was under intense pressure for the paper to be retracted.   And some time was expended in writing what seemed like endless letters in its defence.    The paper was never retracted, but the journal was closed.

I also gave-up, because I lost confident in the integrity of the actual temperature measurements being recorded by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.   Previously I put a lot of work into ensuring that we inputted unhomogenised data.  Then, when I realised the extent to which the new platinum resistance probes could be calibrated to basically measure up or down relative to a mercury thermometer and in fact, they were being recalibrated to measure hotter – well I gave up, in tears.  My focus then become getting the parallel data to better understand the relationship between the two different types of temperature measuring.

I put a lot of effort into this until last April 2023, that was after the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Hearing, a front-page story in The Australian, and an understanding that not even the Conservative side of politics had any interest in holding the Bureau to account on this fraudulent remodelling.   I understood that we were on our own.

Timing is everything they say, if one is to be successful at forcing change, and so it will need to be a team effort, we will need to be supported, we will need to wait.

Meanwhile, John Abbot, who tends to be less affected by the politics, and the injustices, has continued to run the AI.  Instead of relying on me for long continuous temperature series, he began using much longer, and already published temperature series.  And from both those who believe in the existence of Medieval Warm Period and those who dispute its existence.

He had an important paper published in 2021, further showing the application of AI for distinguishing natural from anthropogenic climate change.  This research concludes:

The presence of oscillatory characteristics within proxy- temperature reconstructions across a range of time-scales, including millennial, centennial and decadal, has been reported in many investigations. The present study examines oscillations from spectral analysis applied to eight published multi-proxy temperature records, including examples representing both hockey stick [catastrophic recent warming] and MWP_LIA* cycles [it was warmer in the past during the medieval warm period].

The analysis shows that each record can be represented by a set of 4-11 sine curves from spectral analysis that include a dominant millennial oscillation and several centennial and decadal oscillations. The apparent divergence into either a hockey stick or MWP_LIA* cycles can be derived from the phase alignment of the centennial and decadal oscillations with respect to the millennial oscillation. The maximum temperature of the dominant oscillation at around 1000 AD is increased by superimposing the centennial/decadal oscillations for MWP-LIA* cycles, whereas it is reduced and the profile flattened for the hockey stick. This may explain why current temperatures may exceed any in past 1,000 years with hockey stick profile.

Forecasting through projection of pre-industrial temperature oscillatory patterns beyond 1880 AD by applying spectral analysis to generate input to train ANNs show that current atmospheric temperatures can be largely explained on basis of continuation of natural oscillations. This is the case irrespective of whether the hockey stick or MWP_LIA* cycles are operative. This process could give rise to temperatures higher that past 1000 years without major contribution from anthropogenic influences.

*Medieval Warm Period – Little Ice Age.

It is surprising that these important findings are not of more interest to those who claim to care about science and especially climate science.

Back in 2011, in fact right up until 2017, John and I were laughed at, including by our colleagues for suggesting the relevance of AI for elucidating natural climate cycles and using these same cycles to forecast monthly rainfall.

But perhaps the time is coming when it will be realised that we were just a bit ahead of the times.

Of course all our work was, and continues, to be funded by the B.Macfie Family Foundation through the Institute of Public Affairs for which we are grateful.

This article is not behind a paywall, it can be downloaded for free at this link.

Relevant and related blog posts

  1. Fake justifications for rubbish temperature series:
Averaging Last Seconds Versus Bureau Peer-Review
Fake Analysis by Greg Ayers and Jane Warne – Because End Justifies Means

2. Holding Bureau to account:

Rainfall Forecasts Should be Benchmarked

3. Confused and misguided colleagues:

Cyclone Jasper & BOM Forecasting – Getting To The Truth

Forbes is Right That Weather Isn’t Getting More Extreme, Wrong About Other Climate Claims

A recent article at Forbes, “Four Kinds Of Killer Weather Extremes: An Achilles Heel Problem For Climate Predictors,” is a mixed bag of correct and incorrect claims about climate change and the issue of warming impacts. Forbes is right that available data doesn’t show extreme weather is getting worse, but incorrect on a number of other assertions, like that coral reefs are in danger.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

A recent article at Forbes, “Four Kinds Of Killer Weather Extremes: An Achilles Heel Problem For Climate Predictors,” is a mixed bag of correct and incorrect claims about climate change and the issue of warming impacts. Forbes is right that available data doesn’t show extreme weather is getting worse, but incorrect on a number of other assertions, like that coral reefs are in danger.

To start, writer Ian Palmer describes the so-called Exxon Knew scandal, citing some of the predictions that models built by ExxonMobil back in the 1980s spat out concerning carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. This narrative about the fuel giant ignores the fact that there were other studies being done internally that showed differently, arguing the opposite. Even within the warming theory presented by certain Exxon scientists, they acknowledged a high degree of uncertainty, concerning their findings. The popular scientific consensus just prior to the 80s was that a mini-ice ace was imminent.

Exxon did not “know” or hide anything, and Palmer makes the point that Exxon’s model outputs “were about global warming, not climate change,” and that predicting the downstream effects of climate change on weather and other systems is “another big step, and is fraught with uncertainties.”

He writes [Emphasis mine] :

If the world were sensitive to 0.2C or 0.5C, or even 1.0C global warming, climate change indicators should show up in long-term data trends.

…

There do exist worldwide consequences of global warming. These direct indicators include Arctic and Antarctic ice melting, glaciers retreating, sea levels rising, corals bleaching, and some biodiversity habitats changing. These have been serious, but not generally associated with human lives lost, destroyed infrastructure, famines, mass migrations, or government collapse.

Each of these direct indicators, on a global basis, have worsened in the last 50 years, and long-term data have proven this. For example, coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef has reached an all-time high.”

While it is true that there has been, as should be expected upon exiting a cold period, changes to certain habitats and melting ice, however this is wildly exaggerated in the media. He is also flat wrong that coral reefs are more in danger of bleaching now than if it were colder and with a lower CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. He’s also wrong about the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) being endangered by recent bleaching occurrences, in fact the GBR is thriving.

Regarding coral reefs, it’s important to first note that coral bleaching is not coral death. At the same time as media and Palmer are pushing the line that the Great Barrier Reef has an all-time high for bleaching, data show that, in the aftermath of the bleachings, the living coral cover of the reef set repeated records for the  highest levels ever since records began in 1985. It is in the best shape it has been in recent decades. Bleaching is caused by a variety of factors, including cold snaps and chemicals in sunscreen, and cannot be exclusively contributed to warm waters (in which corals thrive) or dissolved CO2. Also, as discussed in a number of Climate Realism posts, corals are doing well globally, regularly adapting to bleaching, with new coral being discovered all the time, sometimes in unexpected locations.

Concerning metling ice at the poles, while ice melt may appear to be alarming, the truth is more complicated, and the overall ice mass of those locations has hardly budged. There is a long-term melting trend, but this predates the industrial revolution and will continue so long as we do not slide back to the temperatures of the little ice age.

It is certainly true that average global sea level is rising, but this effect is not distributed evenly across coastlines, is not outside the natural range and rate of rise since the Earth began to come out of the last glacial period, and Palmer correctly admits that this is not associated with loss of life, despite what the media often asserts. Sea levels have already risen more than 400 feet since the last ice age, and tide gauge data does not indicate that there is any alarming acceleration in the rate of rise. This is covered succinctly in Climate at a Glance: Sea Level Rise, here. There is no reason to believe, again, that seas will cease to rise if humans stopped burning fossil fuels.

Palmer goes on to describe four “killer weather extremes of droughts, wildfires, floodings, and hurricanes.”

This is where his analysis is spot on. Palmer writes:

But the four killer weather extremes have not worsened in the past 50 years. Long-term data such as hurricanes show numbers of worldwide events that, although fluctuating, reveal no long-term trend. The events were reliably recorded and carefully counted.

It’s the same for global tally of droughts, wildfires, and floodings. On a global basis, none of these four killer weather extremes have worsened over the past 40-50 years — even though global temperature has risen by 1.0 C degrees in this period.

Palmer’s statement is accurate, going on to muse that if these disastrous weather types, which really do pose immediate threats to human health, are not increasing, “why should the world be worried about future worsening?”

He hangs on to the idea that the “urgency” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is “still significant” based on the earlier direct indicators of climate change, but says it “is not as dire as often presented by climate modelers, the media, and the press.”

Most surprising, Palmer ends the article by admitting that the oil and gas industry thus cannot be blamed for worsening weather extremes, though he does assert that they “may be culpable for direct indicators of global warming.”

The debate over the degree to which human emissions of carbon dioxide influence even those direct indicators of warming, however, is still ongoing, especially since human activity accounts for just 3.4 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today. Many of the alleged solutions to the problem, like ceasing the use of fossil fuels for electricity and transportation, would result in far more dire consequences for civilization, human life, and health than the slow rise of the seas or shifting habitat zones, such as widespread famine, the loss of many modern medicines and medical technologies, and reduced availability of lifesaving electric power.

The Forbes article is a mix of truth and nonsense, meriting kudos for the facts it tells and disapprobation for its misleading portions. Forbes should get some credit for running an article, a large portion of which presents facts that buck the prevailing narrative that humans are causing catastrophic climate change. Had it followed normal recent mainstream media practice, it would have stifled any discussion of data which make it clear that extreme weather is not getting worse, and stuck to the speculation that climate change is going to get us if we don’t stop using fossil fuels.

It’s an emergency! Green plants spreading at alarming rate in Antarctica

File this lesson away in the Decline and Fall of Enlightenment Science. Nature, formerly known as the esteemed science journal, is now achieving everything a captured tabloid industry sales mag could hope for.  They’ve squeezed a disaster out of a tiny change in a short record, and from a good news story. Let’s not forget, for the last 100,000 years most humans would have been happy that a bit of Antarctica was greening.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

Lesson #457 in how to lie with science

File this lesson away in the Decline and Fall of Enlightenment Science. Nature, formerly known as the esteemed science journal, is now achieving everything a captured tabloid industry sales mag could hope for.  They’ve squeezed a disaster out of a tiny change in a short record, and from a good news story. Let’s not forget, for the last 100,000 years most humans would have been happy that a bit of Antarctica was greening.

“Lush”? The only people who call this lush are penguins:

Believe it or not, this lush landscape is Antarctica (nature.com)

To appreciate the Black Belt level of naked exaggeration going on here, consider the opening hyperbole:

A fast-warming region of Antarctica is getting greener with shocking speed. Satellite imagery of the region reveals that the area covered by plants increased by almost 14 times over 35 years — a trend that will spur rapid change of Antarctic ecosystems.

“It’s the beginning of dramatic transformation,” says Olly Bartlett, a remote-sensing specialist at the University of Hertfordshire in Hatfield, UK, and an author of the study1, published today in Nature Geoscience, that reports these results.

All this shock and drama arise from an area of  “less than a square kilometer” expanding all the way up to “nearly 12 square kilometers”. These numbers “shocked us” say the PR team, I mean, the scientists, who continue on in their best Agony-Aunt impression: “It’s simply that rate of change in an extremely isolated, extremely vulnerable area that causes the alarm.” Sob sob, and Boo hoo too. It’s a lonely peninsula. Can we find it a friend?

Everything about this shows the pathetic decay of Western Science. We’re talking about 12 square kilometers of more habitable land on a continent with 14 million square kilometers of ice. The horrible affliction of unexpected tundra now covers 0.00009% of Antarctica.

It could get worse, the mosses might make … soil:

The research is “really important”, says Jasmine Lee, a conservation scientist at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK. Other studies2,3 have found evidence that vegetation on the peninsula is changing in response to climate change, “but this is the first study that’s taken a huge-scale approach to look at the entire region”, she says.

Previous visits to the peninsula led the authors to think that most of the vegetation is moss. As mosses spread to previously ice-covered landscapes, they will build up a layer of soil, offering a habitat for other plant life, Roland says. “There’s a huge potential here to see a further increase in the amount of non-native, potentially invasive species,” he says.

It is, of course, due to climate change:

The researchers point to climate change as the driver of the landscape’s shift from white to green. Temperatures on the peninsula have risen by almost 3 °C since 1950, which is a much bigger increase than observed across most parts of the planet.

Nobody mention the 91 volcanoes they discovered there  seven years ago which line up with the warmest parts of Antarctica. We sit on a ball of lava, and there is an edge of crustal plate under there. But really, it’s more likely the warming is caused by your Ford fiesta and those beef kebabs…

‘Clear Conflict of Interest’: Biden-Harris Environmental Justice Advisors Raked In Nearly $500 Million From Taxpayers

The Biden-Harris administration’s environmental justice advisors are slated to receive or influence the disbursal of nearly half a billion dollars in grant funding from agencies they advise.

From Watts Up With That?

The Daily Caller

Adam Pack
Contributor

The Biden-Harris administration’s environmental justice advisors are slated to receive or influence the disbursal of nearly half a billion dollars in grant funding from agencies they advise.

These advisors sit on the 36-member White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC), an obscure but influential White House body created by executive fiat in January 2021 to provide policy recommendations to federal agency heads as part of President Joe Biden’s “whole-of-government” approach to environmental justice. The vast majority of the grant awards to environmental justice activist groups with representation on the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) fall under the $41.5 billion awarded to the EPA under the Inflation Reduction Act, according to records examined by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Six environmental justice organizations represented on the WHEJAC have been awarded or are slated to receive more than $230 million in EPA grant funding, according to the DCNF review. The EPA has also selected four organizations represented on the WHEJAC to serve as award partners to $200 million in grant awards under the EPA’s $600 million Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking (EJTCG) program.

In December 2023, the EPA named Texas Southern University’s (TSU) Bullard Center for Environmental and Climate Justice, represented by Robert Bullard on the WHEJAC, as a recipient of a $50 million award under the agency’s EJTCG program. In April, the EPA doled out an additional $156 million to TSU’s Bullard Center to finance the development of community solar projects in “low-income and disadvantaged communities” as part of the IRA’s $7 billion Solar for All program.

“It is a very clear conflict of interest, and no one is going to be providing objective advice, or they’re going to be skewing that advice so it makes them more competitive to receive millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer benefits,” Gunasekara told the DCNF.

The EPA under Trump notably filed a directive to bar recipients of EPA grant awards from serving on the agency’s advisory boards in October 2017. The D.C. Circuit of Appeals unanimously struck down the directive after extensive litigation in April 2020. (RELATED: Trump’s EPA Will Get Rid Of Science Advisers Who Get Taxpayer Funding)

In October 2023, the EPA announced smaller awards of half a million or less to several environmental justice organizations represented on the WHEJAC, including Ironbound Community Corporation, Appalachian Voices and the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance. The EPA confirmed these three awards have been obligated to the designated recipients in a statement to the DCNF.

Vice President Kamala Harris has courted the WHEJAC since the beginning of the Biden-Harris administration. (RELATED: Green New Deal’ Coalition Endorses Kamala Harris After Member Org Was Awarded $50 Million From Her Admin)

“We need your insight, your expertise, your lived experience. We need your ideas and your recommendations. Basically, we need you, period,” Vice President Kamala Harris told WHEJAC members during the advisory council’s first meeting in March 2021.

Several months later, the WHEJAC put out recommendations advocating against fossil fuel procurement, nuclear power, highway expansion, road improvements and research and development,” in addition to many other left-wing proposals in a May 2021 document.

Several influential WHEJAC members who lead organizations that have been awarded or are slated to receive major grant awards have endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign for President.

“The environmental justice community will be solidly behind Kamala,” Beverly Wright, WHEJAC member and founder of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice (DSCEJ), told Politico in an article published on Aug. 11.

Both Wright and Peggy Shepard, co-chair of the WHEJAC and executive director of WE ACT for Environmental Justice, respectively, spoke at Democratic National Committee (DNC) Environment and Climate Crisis Council meetings during the DNC convention in Chicago in August.

“Her participation and remarks were not an endorsement of any candidate; but rather her opinion of the environmental record — both good and bad — of the Biden administration,” Chris Dobens, director of communications for WE ACT, told the DCNF in a statement.

Shepard co-signed a letter endorsing Harris’ candidacy prior to the DNC Convention in a statement that characterized the Vice President as an “environmental justice champion.”

The WHEJAC has largely avoided congressional scrutiny by Republican lawmakers despite advancing an abundance of far-left environmental policies that conservative energy experts consider harmful to the pocketbooks of low-income and minority communities.

“It’s probably more accurate to call them the anti-economic growth, the anti-Black progress council,” Donna Jackson, director of membership development at the Project 21 Black Leadership Network, told the DCNF. “The problem is when they push for all of these radical regulations, when they fight against fossil fuels, who gets sacrificed? Which businesses close? The people that have the least amount of capital — minority communities. Every recommendation is a regressive tax on Black businesses and Black homeowners.”

“For the last three and a half years, they have been taking actions that have made it harder for communities to live, specifically lower-income minority communities, because of things like inflation and high cost energy, they’ve made life that much harder,” Mandy Gunasekara, former chief of staff to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler, told the DCNF.

Former President Donald Trump and his advisors have promised to roll back the Biden-Harris administration’s environmental agenda, including the EPA’s stringent rules on new electric vehicle sales and the power sector, if he prevails in November. (RELATED: ‘Gross Overreach’: Energy Groups Urge Congress To Throw Biden-Harris Admin’s ‘EV Mandate’ Overboard)

Gunasekara confirmed to the DCNF that the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council and the EPA’s newly created Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights will likely be on the chopping block as well.

“We would do away with these new offices that were created more as marketing gimmicks and as a process to waste taxpayer dollars by giving funding to nonprofits that have very little to do with improving environmental justice communities and more to do with ensuring Democrats stay in power,” Gunasekara told the DCNF.

“President Trump advanced conservation and environmental stewardship while promoting economic growth for families across the country,” Karoline Leavitt, Trump Campaign National Press Secretary, wrote in a statement to the DCNF. “America’s energy agenda under President Trump produced affordable, reliable energy for consumers along with stable, high-paying jobs for small businesses — all while dropping U.S. carbon emissions to their lowest level in 25 years. Kamala Harris’ radical energy policies such as her EV mandate and the Green New Scam will hurt American workers, help China, and do virtually nothing to help the environment.”

The White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, DSCEJ, TSU’s Bullard Center, Ironbound Community Corporation, Appalachian Voices and the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.