Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is reportedly probing a massive Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program for possible fraud, EPA officials confirmed to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is reportedly probing a massive Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program for possible fraud, EPA officials confirmed to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Specifically, FBI agents reportedly interviewed EPA employees this week as part of an escalating investigation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a $20 billion program that awarded billions of dollars to green groups loaded with Democrat donors and insiders, The Washington Post first reported Friday citing anonymous sources familiar with the situation so that they could speak freely. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has repeatedly expressed concern about the GGRF abusing taxpayer dollars to benefit friends of the Biden EPA, though some career federal prosecutors have shied away from advancing the investigation when called upon to do so.
Zeldin has said that he will attempt to pull back as much of the GGRF cash as possible, and President Donald Trump campaigned aggressively against the Biden administration’s excessive green spending on his way back to the White House. The Trump EPA has cited a December 2024 video from Project Veritas, a conservative activist group, in which a Biden EPA employee tells an undercover Project Veritas employee that the agency’s rush to push funding out in the administration’s final days was “like we’re on the Titanic and we’re throwing, like, gold bars off the edge.”
The Biden EPA parked the $20 billion at Citibank before being replaced by Trump administration personnel, and GGRF recipients say they are unable to make withdrawals from the bank, according to the Post. Meanwhile, the EPA’s acting inspector general, Nicole Murley, testified Wednesday on Capitol Hill that her office is examining the GGRF and that there are concerns the Biden EPA’s late rush to get funding out the door may have impacted the screening process for potential recipients, for example.
The FBI contacted Brent Efron, the EPA official in the Project Veritas video, on Monday, and the EPA inspector general’s office has also made contact, according to the Post. Mark Zaid, Efron’s attorney, told the Post that Efron “doesn’t know what this is about, and that he was never involved in the obligation or disbursement of funds from any EPA assistance program” and that Efron “was not involved in any conversations about EPA and Citibank.”
The EPA and Department of Justice did not respond immediately to 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.
This post presents the main points and exhibits from Professor de Lange’s presentation February 26, 2025. Most images are self explanatory, with some excerpts in italics lightly edited from captions, and some added images as well. H/T Bud Bromley.
Prof. de Lange demonstrates that there is no credible climate crisis, and that there is much more to climate than CO2 alone. First, he addresses the discrepancy between satellite temperature measurements and results from climate models. Second, he shows the effect of even doubling the CO2 concentration has only minor effects, while it is in fact crucial to photosynthesis. Third, he shows that how the significant lack of experimental data on cloud composition now hampers progress in climate science. Fourth, he demonstrates that there is no convincing correlation between CO2 and temperature on a geological time scale. Fifth, he addresses global future energy supply, demonstrating that renewables are “unaffordables”, just as are untested technologies (batteries, hydrogen), and he concludes that the future has to be based on nuclear power.
1. Natural Science and Observations versus Models
2. Atmospheric Physics and Greenhouse Gases
Warm Surface of the earth can be viewed as a radiator in the infrared that radiates Intensity out Into the atmosphere, and again the flow of infrared energy is not interrupted. It is absorbed by the atmosphere and that’s where the clouds turn out to be extremely important. They delay the outgoing energy into the universe. In climate science we balance the yellow incoming solar energy in watts per square meter with the outgoing radiation from the surface and atmosphere. Some is reflected and some is absorbed and emitted as long wave radiation. The imbalance is shown at the bottom as ~1 W/m2, which is a small difference between two much larger energy flows showing hundreds of W/m2. If for any reason, there is a slight change in either the incoming or outgoing flows, the imbalance would change dramatically.
The fact that Greenhouse gases play very important role in absorbing infrared radiation in the atmosphere is already 150 years old. We shall see that dependence of the temperature of the earth due to greenhouse gases is not linear, the effect on temperature is logarithmic. This is seen in the graph on the left side.
On the horizontal scale we see the frequency scale expressed in common unit in physics in wave numbers. And here we see the continuous Blue Trace results from infrared radiation that would leave the warm surface of the planet if there were no atmosphere at all. The total surface under the blue trace depends on temperature to the fourth power, very temperature dependent.
We see the effect of atmosphere greenhouse gases represented by the black line, which is a bit lower than the blue Trace. The green line shows the where the black line would be, were there to be no CO2 in the atmosphere. The red line shows that there would be little difference from doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm.
The role of water vapor is terribly important. Water is the most important Greenhouse gas, but when we Go to clouds, he situation becomes much more complicated than in the absence of clouds. So clouds again are the Achilles heel of of climate Science. As I said an increase in CO2 leads to a little more warming but the increase is logarithmic. meaning less and Less warming at higher CO2 levels. Doubling CO2 leads to extra forcing of about 1 percent or about 3 watts per square meter. Since 1850 when temperature measurements really started since, the planet’s surface has warmed up by about 1°C. That is not very much, and the effect of CO2 can only be very much smaller.
Environmental monitoring plays a critical role in safeguarding the health of our planet by tracking changes in air quality, water resources, soil conditions, and biodiversity. As human activities continue to impact ecosystems, the need for accurate, real-time data has never been more important. By collecting and analyzing environmental information, scientists and policymakers can make informed decisions to protect natural resources and mitigate environmental risks.
Environmental monitoring plays a critical role in safeguarding the health of our planet by tracking changes in air quality, water resources, soil conditions, and biodiversity. As human activities continue to impact ecosystems, the need for accurate, real-time data has never been more important. By collecting and analyzing environmental information, scientists and policymakers can make informed decisions to protect natural resources and mitigate environmental risks.
1. What Is Environmental Monitoring?
Environmental monitoring refers to the systematic collection of data related to environmental conditions. This includes measuring pollutants, tracking climate patterns, and assessing the health of ecosystems. It helps identify emerging environmental threats and provides valuable insights into how human activities affect the planet.
There are several key types of environmental monitoring:
Air Quality Monitoring: Tracks pollutants such as carbon dioxide, methane, and particulate matter.
Water Quality Monitoring: Assesses contamination levels in rivers, lakes, and oceans.
Soil Monitoring: Measures soil health, nutrient levels, and contamination from industrial waste.
Biodiversity Monitoring: Observes species populations and ecosystem changes.
2. Why Environmental Monitoring Is Essential
Early Detection of Environmental Threats
By continuously monitoring environmental conditions, scientists can detect changes before they become serious problems. For example, early warning systems for rising sea levels can help coastal communities prepare for potential flooding. Similarly, tracking deforestation rates can provide insights into habitat destruction and biodiversity loss.
Climate Change Mitigation
Environmental monitoring plays a crucial role in tracking climate change indicators such as global temperatures, greenhouse gas emissions, and extreme weather patterns. This data helps policymakers create strategies to reduce carbon footprints, promote renewable energy, and implement sustainable land use practices.
Protecting Public Health
Air and water pollution have direct impacts on human health. Monitoring systems help detect harmful pollutants and ensure that regulatory standards are met. For instance, air quality data can inform decisions on reducing emissions in urban areas, while water testing can prevent exposure to toxic chemicals.
Conservation of Natural Resources
Monitoring ecosystems helps protect natural resources such as forests, wetlands, and wildlife. By analyzing data on species populations and habitat conditions, conservationists can develop strategies to protect endangered species and restore damaged ecosystems.
Regulatory Compliance and Policy Development
Governments rely on environmental monitoring data to enforce regulations and set pollution limits. Industries are required to comply with environmental standards to minimize their ecological impact. Monitoring also supports international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, aimed at addressing global environmental challenges.
3. The Role of Technology in Environmental Monitoring
Advancements in technology have greatly improved environmental monitoring capabilities. Some key innovations include:
Satellite Imagery: Provides large-scale observations of deforestation, ocean temperatures, and ice cap melting.
Drones: Enable detailed data collection in remote or hazardous areas.
IoT Sensors: Real-time sensors can track pollution levels, water contamination, and weather conditions.
Artificial Intelligence (AI): AI algorithms analyze large datasets to detect trends and predict environmental changes.
These technologies enhance our ability to respond quickly to environmental threats and develop data-driven solutions.
4. How Individuals Can Contribute
While large-scale monitoring efforts are led by governments and research institutions, individuals can also play a role in protecting the environment:
Using Citizen Science Apps: Platforms like iNaturalist and AirVisual allow individuals to contribute environmental data.
Reducing Carbon Footprints: Simple actions such as conserving energy, using public transport, and reducing plastic waste help lessen environmental impact.
Advocating for Policies: Supporting legislation that promotes environmental sustainability can drive systemic change.
Environmental monitoring is a vital tool in protecting our planet from pollution, climate change, and ecological degradation. By providing accurate data, it enables proactive decision-making, supports conservation efforts, and safeguards public health. As technology advances and global awareness grows, continued investment in monitoring programs will be essential in ensuring a healthier, more sustainable future for generations to come.
The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air have published their biennial of China’s coal projects, which finds that coal is still holding strong despite skyrocketing clean energy additions in 2024.
The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air have published their biennial of China’s coal projects, which finds that coal is still holding strong despite skyrocketing clean energy additions in 2024.
They state:
Even as China’s clean energy surged in 2024 and became a key economic driver, solar and wind utilisation dropped sharply in Q4 2024, which was not expected or explained by weather conditions, and coal remains strong, which ultimately goes against President Xi’s 2021 pledge to phase down coal over the following five years.
China approved 66.7 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity in 2024, with approvals picking up in the second half after a slower start to the year. At the same time, 94.5 GW of new coal power projects started construction and 3.3 GW of suspended projects resumed construction in 2024, the highest level since 2015, signalling a substantial number of new plants will come online in the next 2-3 years, further solidifying coal’s role in the power system.
Figure – Progress of new coal power projects and retirements in China
While the clean energy sector has maintained rapid growth in recent years, emerging as a key driver of economic expansion in 2023–2024, the simultaneous large-scale expansion of coal power creates a conflicting dynamic. In 2024, China added 356 GW of wind and solar capacity – 4.5 times the EU’s additions and nearly equivalent to the total installed wind and solar capacity in the U.S. by the end of the year. This record-breaking expansion highlights China’s leadership in renewables, yet instead of replacing coal, clean energy is being layered on top of an entrenched reliance on fossil fuels.
This reality makes it increasingly difficult to achieve the principle of ‘establish before breaking’ which envisions scaling up clean energy before gradually phasing down fossil fuels. Although renewable powers have been deployed at an unprecedented pace, coal power has remained firmly in place, often limiting renewables integration and full utilisation. As a result, China’s energy strategy increasingly resembles ‘energy addition’, rather than a fundamental shift toward clean energy and away from coal. This dual-track expansion raises critical questions about how effectively renewables can reshape the power system while coal power maintains its foothold.
Key findings
Coal power permits and new project activity remain high despite some signs of slowing. In 2024, 66.7 GW of new coal power capacity was permitted – lower than previous years but still well above the levels seen in the first half of the year. Meanwhile, new and revived coal power proposals totalled 68.9 GW, down from 117 GW in 2023 and 146 GW in 2022, suggesting a potential cooling in project initiation.
Coal power construction starts reached their highest level since 2015. 94.5 GW of new coal capacity began construction, the most since 2015, highlighting continued momentum in project development despite President Xi Jinping’s pledge in 2021 to ‘strictly control coal power projects’. However, actual commissioning has slowed, with 30.5 GW coming online so far, down from 49.8 GW last year but in line with 2021 and 2022 levels.
China’s coal power expansion contrasts with global trends. While China continues to add new capacity, the global coal fleet outside China shrank by 9.2 GW in 2024, reinforcing China’s dominant role in shaping the future of coal power. China now accounts for 93% of global construction starts for coal power in 2024.
Long-term coal power contracts are reinforcing coal’s dominance at the expense of renewables. Electricity buyers locked into long-term coal power contracts face penalties if they fail to purchase contracted volumes, discouraging them from prioritising clean energy. With new coal capacity coming online, guaranteed operating hours under pre-signed agreements further limit grid space for renewables, delaying the transition to a cleaner energy mix.
Coal mining companies are playing a dominant role in financing new coal power projects. In 2024, more than 75% of newly approved coal power capacity was backed by coal mining companies or energy groups with coal mining operations, artificially driving up coal demand even when market fundamentals do not justify it. This not only reinforces reliance on coal but also risks undermining central government policy targets for curbing coal consumption and accelerating the energy transition.
Despite policy intentions for coal power to support renewable integration,2024 approvals show a shift away from this role, with many projects justified by local governments based on economic development and local energy security instead. While some policies promote coal power flexibility retrofits, long-term contracts and the inherent limitations of coal plants regarding low-load operation and intra-day cycling discourage coal plants from performing a true regulating function.
Being anti-coal, CREA can’t understand why China is not using renewables more. The answer is surely obvious – Too much intermittent wind and solar power is not good for the grid, especially when much of it is concentrated in certain area – solar farms in the Gobi Desert, for example. When there is too much power, it can overload the grid.
On the other side of the coin, you cannot efficiently switch coal plants on and off to suit the vagaries of the weather or time of day.
Whether the bureaucrats in Beijing know that, I don’t know. But the experts responsible for running the grid most certainly do. If they don’t provide power at all times when needed, it is their heads that will be on the chopping block, not President Xi’s.
Meanwhile AFP are reporting that China is still not meeting its Paris commitments to reduce carbon intensity, which measures emissions of planet-warming carbon dioxide per unit of GDP. They say that it is now virtually impossible for China to meet its 2030 target.
The recently published paper A Topographically Controlled Tipping Point for Complete Greenland Ice Sheet Melt by Petrini et al. is a textbook example of how climate modeling has transformed from a scientific tool into a mechanism for manufacturing hysteria. Rather than producing objective assessments of future possibilities, this paper constructs a doomsday scenario with all the precision of a weather forecast 10,000 years into the future—making sure to terrify the public just enough to ensure continued research funding and political influence.
Icebergs near Ilulissat, Greenland. Climate change is having a profound effect in Greenland with glaciers and the Greenland ice cap retreating. (Photo by Ulrik Pedersen/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
The recently published paper A Topographically Controlled Tipping Point for Complete Greenland Ice Sheet Melt by Petrini et al. is a textbook example of how climate modeling has transformed from a scientific tool into a mechanism for manufacturing hysteria. Rather than producing objective assessments of future possibilities, this paper constructs a doomsday scenario with all the precision of a weather forecast 10,000 years into the future—making sure to terrify the public just enough to ensure continued research funding and political influence.
Abstract
A major impact of anthropogenic climate change is the crossing of tipping points, which may have severe consequences such as the complete mass loss of the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS). At present, the GrIS is losing mass at an accelerated rate, largely due to a steep decrease in its surface mass balance (SMB; the balance between snow accumulation and surface ablation from melt and associated runoff). Previous work on the magnitude and nature of a threshold for GrIS complete melt remains controversial. Here, we explore a potential SMB threshold for complete melt of the GrIS; the impact and interplay of surface melt and glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) in determining this threshold; and whether the GrIS exhibits characteristics commonly associated with tipping points, such as sensitivity to external forcing. To this end, we force the Community Ice Sheet Model v.2 (CISM2) by cycling different SMB climatologies previously calculated at multiple elevation classes with the Community Earth System Model v.2 (CESM2) in a two-way coupled CESM2–CISM2 transient simulation of the global climate and GrIS under high CO2 forcing. The SMB calculation in CESM2 has been evaluated with contemporary observations and high-resolution modelling and includes an advanced representation of surface melt and snow–firn processes.
We find a positive SMB threshold for complete GrIS melt of 230 ± 84 Gt yr−1, corresponding to a 60 % decrease in SMB and to a global mean warming of +3.4 K compared to pre-industrial CESM2–CISM2 simulated values. In our simulations, a small change in the initial SMB forcing (from 255 to 230 Gt yr−1) and global mean warming above pre-industrial levels (from +3.2 to +3.4 K) causes an abrupt change in the GrIS final volume (from 50 % mass to nearly complete deglaciation). This nonlinear behaviour is caused by the SMB–elevation feedback, which responds to changes in surface topography due to surface melt and GIA. The GrIS tips from ∼ 50 % mass towards nearly complete melt when the impact of melt-induced surface lowering outweighs that of GIA-induced bedrock uplift and the (initially positive) SMB becomes and remains negative for at least a few thousand years. We also find that the GrIS tips towards nearly complete melt when the ice margin in the central west unpins from a coastal region with high topography and SMB. We show that if we keep the SMB fixed (i.e. no SMB–elevation feedback) in this relatively confined region, the ice sheet retreat is halted and nearly complete GrIS melt is prevented even though the initial SMB forcing is past the threshold. Based on the minimum GrIS configuration in previous paleo-ice-sheet modelling studies, we suggest that the surface topography in the central west might have played a role in preventing larger GrIS loss during the last interglacial period ∼ 130–115 kyr BP.
At its core, the study uses computer models—specifically, the Community Ice Sheet Model (CISM2) coupled with the Community Earth System Model (CESM2)—to simulate the potential melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) under “high CO₂ forcing” conditions. The authors claim that a small shift in surface mass balance (SMB) can trigger “nearly complete deglaciation” of Greenland, a scenario that supposedly kicks in at a global mean warming of just +3.4°C above pre-industrial levels. They argue that the ice sheet is precariously balanced and susceptible to a so-called “tipping point,” where melt-induced surface lowering and glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) would ensure its near-total collapse.
But here’s the problem: This scenario is entirely model-driven, with little to no real-world validation. And, more importantly, it hinges on assumptions that stretch the limits of scientific credibility.
Let’s first address the elephant in the room: The models. Climate models have long been notorious for over-predicting warming and ice loss. The CESM2 model used in this study is based on a set of emissions scenarios that often bear little resemblance to reality. Many climate fearmongers rely on Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) or its newer equivalent, which assumes an implausible, nearly exponential rise in CO₂ emissions. The authors use the phrase “high CO₂ forcing” without specifying exactly which emissions scenario they are relying on, which is a red flag. If they are using a worst-case emissions scenario (which is common in these kinds of papers), then the entire study is essentially a speculative thought experiment rather than serious scientific inquiry.
Additionally, their model hinges on precise thresholds for ice sheet collapse, where a shift in SMB from 255 to 230 Gt/yr supposedly tips the entire Greenland Ice Sheet into a death spiral. This type of binary “all-or-nothing” thinking is a hallmark of alarmist climate science—where gradual, complex processes are reduced to dramatic tipping points that conveniently align with political talking points.
The timing of this paper is particularly interesting. With growing skepticism toward extreme climate policies, alarmist scientists and policymakers need fresh headlines to keep the public anxious. The message embedded in this study is clear: Act now or face an ice sheet apocalypse.
The funding mechanisms behind this research must also be scrutinized. Scientists who predict moderate, manageable climate outcomes rarely get their work amplified by the media or rewarded with large grants. But those who conjure up worst-case scenarios? They’re invited to speak at global summits, write op-eds in major newspapers, and shape government policy.
It’s a well-known trick: Use models to create a frightening future scenario, generate media buzz, and pressure policymakers into adopting economically disastrous “green” policies, all while ensuring the continued flow of research funding.
While Greenland has experienced ice loss in recent decades, its ice sheet is nowhere near a “tipping point.” Studies based on real-world observations—not just computer simulations—show that Greenland’s ice mass fluctuates naturally, with periods of melt and growth. During the Holocene Thermal Maximum (roughly 8,000 to 5,000 years ago), temperatures in Greenland were significantly warmer than today, yet the ice sheet remained intact.
Moreover, the study acknowledges that certain geographical features have historically prevented large-scale ice loss, such as the high topography in Greenland’s central west region. This means that even under extreme warming scenarios, a total collapse of the ice sheet is unlikely.
This paper is yet another example of how climate science has been hijacked by a political agenda. Instead of providing a balanced analysis of Greenland’s future, it cherry-picks an extreme scenario and markets it as inevitable. Worse still, it provides policymakers and activists with ammunition to justify economically crippling regulations based on speculative, unverifiable computer models.
The bottom line? The Greenland Ice Sheet is not on the brink of collapse, and no amount of fearmongering can change that. But as long as there’s funding and media attention to be gained from doomsday predictions, expect more of the same.
Whales migrating up and down the East Coast are getting at least a temporary reprieve from offshore wind. So are property owners, homeowners, business owners, tourists, and anyone with a stake in beach communities. The people of New Jersey, Virginia, and other states hope the Trump administration can end these expensive boondoggles once and for all.
Whales migrating up and down the East Coast are getting at least a temporary reprieve from offshore wind. So are property owners, homeowners, business owners, tourists, and anyone with a stake in beach communities. The people of New Jersey, Virginia, and other states hope the Trump administration can end these expensive boondoggles once and for all.
Offshore Wind On Its Last Legs
In New Jersey, the Atlantic Shores South offshore wind energy project President Joe Biden’s Interior Department had approved last year has come to a halt. The application of fresh legal pressure in combination with a new executive order from President Donald Trump could prove to be the coup de grace for the project. In Virginia, opponents of Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project are asking the Trump administration to reverse the Biden administration’s approval for the project, which is already under way. The public utility’s executives insist the Virginia project will still move forward.
Both states have gubernatorial races this year where the specter of higher energy costs associated with taxpayer subsidized green energy initiatives will tip the scales in the campaigns. Trump’s executive order calls for the temporary withdrawal of new areas for offshore wind leasing and a halt on new project approvals pending a review of leasing and permitting practices.
Craig Rucker, the president and founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT,told Restoration News in an interview that Trump’s order creates new opportunities to press federal officials over violations of the Endangered Species Act. CFACT joined with the Heartland Institute and the National Legal and Policy Center to file suit against the Biden administration in March 2024. The coalition argues that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), The Interior Department, and the Commerce Department violated the ESA when they approved the Dominion Energy Project. The suit also names Dominion Energy as a defendant.
Rucker would like to see Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears come out forcefully against Dominion’s offshore wind project. Earle-Sears is running this year to succeed fellow Republican Glenn Youngkin as governor.
Test Cases for Team Trump?
In New Jersey, a grassroots citizen activist group known as Save Long Beach Island (LBI) filed a federal lawsuit in January against the Atlantic Shores project—on top of state-level suits the group has filed. The Jersey litigation could serve as “test cases” for how Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Attorney General Pam Bondi “implement the results of their leasing and permitting reviews,” in the words of Bob Stern, an engineer and LBI resident, who heads up the group of citizen activists.
Stern, who previously served in the U.S. Department of Energy, and sees “strong justification” for the new Trump administration to cancel existing leases and rescind project approvals. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a term-limited Democrat who will leave office next January, has been a strong proponent of wind power and the Atlantic Shores project. The state’s Republicans, including the current field of gubernatorial candidates, have been largely united in their opposition to Murphy’s green energy plans including offshore wind.
Youngkin, who is limited to one term under Virginia law, leaves office in January. He has actively opposed his state’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a multistate climate agreement. He has also resisted implementation of Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), a state-level version of the “Green New Deal.”
Rucker views both programs as “costly green energy schemes” that could present Earle-Sears with an electoral opportunity. CFACT’s president recommends that Earle-Sears “pick up the mantle from Youngkin” on energy policy.
Whales as a Migratory Species
Both the New Jersey suit and the Virginia suit cite a “Save the Whales” perspective—bringing in several studies showing how offshore wind power harms marine life. Save LBI has a section of its website devoted entirely to updated research highlighting “unprecedented spikes in whale deaths” that coincide with vessel surveys for the Atlantic Shores project.
CFACT has called attention to statistical evidence showing that offshore wind sonar surveys the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) first authorized in 2016 are responsible for whale deaths. After Joe Biden took control of NOAA, they did a 180, releasing an analysis concluding that there are “no known links between large whale deaths and ongoing offshore wind activities.”
The “biological opinion” the NMFS issues is flawed, Rucker argues, because it only looked at each wind project individually rather than taking “a more comprehensive approach” that accounted for the whales’ migratory pattern.
Rucker expressed dismay that some of the larger environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council have not come out against offshore wind plans that can damage natural habitats.
“There’s no way an environmental group should be in favor of offshore wind,” Rucker said. “They are always opposed to offshore oil drilling which involves only speculative harm. But here we actually see dead whales washing up on beaches in Virginia and other places along the East Coast and this is happening in increased numbers. But all we hear from the environmental groups is crickets.”
CFACT has successfully petitioned the Trump Justice Department to stay the case. This way defendants could adopt a more intensive review of the permits the Biden administration awarded to Dominion. CFACT and Trump’s Interior Department are expected to submit additional filings.
Rucker is particularly concerned about the North Atlantic right whale population, which is listed as endangered. Only 350 remain—with only about 70 females capable of producing new offspring, according to court records in the case.
“Whales are a migratory species meaning they are not just staying off the coast of Virginia,” Rucker explained. “The population will be impacted by projects up and down the East Coast whether it’s in New Jersey, Maryland, Rhode Island, Massachusetts or other states. That’s the problem with how the feds operated under Biden. They needed to look at the cumulative effect on the whale population up and down the coast.”
CFACT’s goal is to have Dominion cease construction of the Virginia Offshore Wind Project, which would consist of 176 wind turbines located 25 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach. Rucker points out that each wind tower will be taller than the Washington Monument with turbine blades longer than a football field.
A solution may be in order compliments of Save LBI. The New Jersey group plans to petition NOAA to designate a migration corridor for the right whale since it involves a critical habitat vital to the survival of the species. If NOAA complies, the order would exclude wind turbines would in this area.
The Atlantic Shores project envisioned 200 wind turbines positioned as close as 8.7 miles off the coast of LBI, Brigantine, and Atlantic City. Save LBI has visual displays showing that the proposed windmills, which could reach up to 1046 feet tall, would be taller than the Washington Monument, the Statute of Liberty, and rival the size of some skyscrapers.
While the litigation is focused on federal environmental laws, SAVE LBI and CFACT have also called attention to the anticipated economic fallout from offshore wind.
Higher Prices, Economic Losses—Who Wins with Wind?
Save LBI posted a study from Tourism Economics, attached to Oxford University, that estimates “reduced visitor spending” at the Jersey Shore would generate $668 million in economic losses throughout Ocean County, N.J. In similar fashion, CFACT has repeatedly warned Virginia residents about the high costs of wind energy.
Among the many action items Save LBI has recommended—a proposal to remove all the investment tax credits in Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) so that green energy companies cannot profit at taxpayer expense.
Gubernatorial candidates in both states could be asked if they support this proposal. The IRA is loaded with multibillionaire grants such as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that have taxpayers on the hook. SAVE LBI’s proposal to remove investment tax credits from the IRA legislation is designed to prevent companies taking advantage of perverse incentives. As New Jersey and Virginia voters become more attuned to their elections, they become more likely to reject unsustainable green energy projects.
A recent paywalled article from the New York Times (NYT) titled “Coffee Prices Are at a 50-Year High. Producers Aren’t Celebrating,” claims that climate change is damaging coffee production in top coffee producing countries. This is not borne out in the data. Coffee production data show that there has been a steady increase over time, despite—and perhaps due in part to—increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and the slight warming of recent decades.
A recent paywalled article from the New York Times (NYT) titled “Coffee Prices Are at a 50-Year High. Producers Aren’t Celebrating,” claims that climate change is damaging coffee production in top coffee producing countries. This is not borne out in the data. Coffee production data show that there has been a steady increase over time, despite—and perhaps due in part to—increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and the slight warming of recent decades.
Honduras, Brazil, and Vietnam are the main regions mentioned in the NYT article. The NYT claims that the costs of producing coffee have increased due to a variety of factors, including increased costs for fertilizer and “ill-timed rains and volatile temperatures,” which make it difficult to make a profit even as coffee prices are higher than usual. The NYT insists that coffee farmers worry about climate change as the main culprit of higher coffee costs, “which has diminished the supply of coffee around the globe via rising temperatures, droughts and excessive rains — most recently in Brazil and Vietnam, the world’s two largest coffee producers.”
If the modest warming of the past century is the real driver behind difficulties facing coffee production, it should show up as a trend in existing coffee production data. Looking at world coffee production, however, it seems that other factors must be weighing more heavily in coffee prices.
World record production and yields occurred as recently as 2020. (See figure below)
Focusing on specific regions covered by the NYT doesn’t show any kind of decline trend either.
In Brazil, FAO data indicate coffee production has increased 132 percent between 1990 and 2023, with 2023 being the third highest production year on record. In Vietnam, coffee production skyrocketed an amazing 2,026 percent over the same timeframe. (See figure below)
The NYT writes that in Honduras climate change has wrought “devastation” on coffee plantations, where “[r]ising temperatures were stressing plants and diminishing yields.”
FAO data show that Honduras has always had large seasonal swings in coffee output, and while the last few years have seen a slight decline in production from previous record highs, yields have in fact increased. Overall, between 1990 and 2023, Honduras has seen an increase in coffee production of 220 percent, and yield increases of 45 percent. The most recent record high production season was in 2018. (See figure below)
False claims about a climate change induced coffee crisis are nothing new; Climate Realism has addressed the attempts by media outlets to stir up fears about coffee production and climate change dozens of times in just the past couple of years. Each time, a news outlet hypes a low yield season in one particular part of the world, while ignoring positive trends in the same country in previous seasons, and especially positive trends elsewhere in the world. This myopic, seasonal alarm makes it clear that many mainstream media outlets are unaware of (or are ignoring) the fact that production of crops has always varied from year to year, with high and low years for production, impacted by seasonal weather conditions, economics, and other factors like trade policies and subsidies often outside the farmers’ control. Looking at long term trends in production and yield tells the real story, not a single season’s production or yield. With coffee, the story the trends tell is increasing production and yields, leading to long-term gains for producers.
The NYT did admit that high fertilizer and transportation costs were contributing to problems faced by coffee growers, which is ironic, since the anti-fossil fuel policies that climate alarmists have pushed are a large part of the reason for the limited supplies and higher prices. Additional restrictions on fossil fuel development and use, policies called for by climate scolds and endorsed by the NYT, would only increase fertilizer, insecticide, fungicide, and transportation fuel costs more. This would make it even harder for coffee growers to make a living. This applies even to non-chemical fertilizers, since oil and gas make up the bulk of the affordable energy needed for transportation and processing technology. Likewise, NYT reports that regulations from Europe “aimed at limiting deforestation” have targeted coffee producers, likely at the behest of the same environmentalists now falsely blaming climate change for increased coffee prices.
The New York Times would do well to take a look at the publicly available data before hyping false claims of a climate change induced coffee crisis. If its reporters had done so, they would have found that while year-to-year variations in production are not unusual, overall, coffee production is doing well, with long-term trends showing no sign of any crash.
For jobs, revenue, national security, defense and medical needs; to end child labor, pollution
For jobs, revenue, national security, defense and medical needs; to end child labor, pollution
Paul Driessen
President Trump’s Executive Orders have ended US participation in the Green New Deal and Paris climate treaty. He’s also terminated mandates, programs and subsidies that would have changed our reliable, affordable energy systems to wind, solar and battery power for all-electric homes, schools, hospitals, businesses, factories, farms, transportation and shipping.
His actions will benefit wild, scenic and agricultural lands in America and worldwide.
* Wind, solar and transmission line installations would have sprawled across tens of millions of acres, impacting habitats, farmlands and scenic vistas, onshore and offshore; interfered with water flow, aviation, shipping and other activities; and killed whales, birds and other wildlife.
* These “clean, green” technologies require far more raw materials than the equipment they replace electric cars need 4-6 times more metals and minerals than gasoline counterparts; onshore wind turbines require 9 times more raw materials than equivalent megawatts from combined-cycle natural gas turbines; offshore wind requires 14 times more materials than gas turbines; solar panels are just as resource-intensive. And we’d still need gas power plants or grid-scale batteries for windless/sunless periods.
* Those raw material needs would require mining at levels unprecedented in human history. Just meeting “green energy” plus “normal” needs for copper would require more than twice as much copper mining as occurred throughout human history up to now. That would mean mine shafts and open-pit mines; ore removal, crushing and processing; and land, air and water pollution – on unprecedented scales.
* Converting those raw materials into finished technologies, and transporting, installing, maintaining and ultimately removing the turbines, panels, transformers, power lines, batteries and other equipment would require unfathomable quantities of materials, equipment and energy.
* All this mining and processing, equipment damaged and destroyed under normal operations and from extreme weather, leaching from non-recyclable components in landfills, and huge infernos when batteries ignite would send massive quantities of toxic chemicals into air, soils and water worldwide.
* US mining, processing, manufacturing and waste disposal would be done under tough environmental, workplace safety and human rights standards. Not so in despotic regimes in the rest of the world.
* A large portion of the cobalt, lithium, rare earth, graphite and other exotic and strategic materials still come from China, which has monopoly control over mining and processing them. That puts US and Western energy, transportation, communication, AI, defense systems and national security at great risk.
Simply put, humanity would have had to destroy the planet with green energy mining and systems, to save it from imaginary GIGO computer-modeled climate cataclysms.
President Trump’s actions have dramatically reduced all these mining needs, ecological impacts and dependence on adversarial nations. However, modern industrialized civilization still requires metals, minerals and energy in enormous quantities. We must still find and produce these materials, to meet today’s needs and tomorrow’s emerging and still unknown needs.
Thankfully, the United States is blessed with mineral wealth. Plate tectonics and other geologic processes have created enormous deposits of metals and minerals throughout Alaska and the Lower 48 States. Most have yet to be found, much less mapped or developed, to serve strategic US needs.
By 1994, when I helped prepare what was likely the last land withdrawal summary, mineral exploration and development had been restricted or banned on federal lands equal to Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming combined. That’s 420 million acres – 19% of the USA; 66% of all federal/public lands. The situation has gotten “progressively” worse since then.
Today, mineral exploration is prohibited (or severely restricted) on almost 80% of all federally managed lands. And those 500,000,000+ acres of no-access lands likely contain many of the best metal and mineral prospects in the USA – again because of their unique geologic history.
Those lands were closed to mineral exploration to protect scenic and ecological values, but with little or no regard for their potential subsurface treasures, without which modern civilization cannot function. Many were deliberately placed off-limits by anti-mining activists, land managers and judges – to prevent access to prospects and even curtail America’s industries and economy.
Indeed, they were closed to exploration despite clear statutory language stating that gathering information about mineral resources via “planned, recurring” mineral exploration is required by law in designated wilderness areas, if the exploration is conducted in a way that preserves “the wilderness environment.” If that work is required in wilderness areas, there is no reason to prohibit it elsewhere – especially since today’s technologies ensure it can be done with minimal impacts.
National parks should be off-limits. In most cases, these other citizen-owned lands should not.
These lands and mineral treasures belong to all Americans, not just to hikers and anti-mining activists. And basic morality demands that we begin meeting US needs right here in the USA – not in foreign countries, where impoverished, powerless people have no say in the matter, and where the impacts are out of sight and mind for virtue-signaling activists, bureaucrats and politicians.
We must remove the roadblocks and start exploring for American mineral deposits immediately.
The process will begin with remote sensing technologies on satellites, airplanes and drones, to collect data on magnetic and other anomalies and trends over large areas, enabling geologists to identify potentially mineralized areas. Artificial intelligence will help evaluate results more quickly and in greater detail than was ever before possible, leading to better decisions about which areas merit closer examination.
Aerial and ground-based work will augment these initial gravitational, magnetic, electromagnetic and other surveys by mapping outcrops and showings of indicator minerals, to identify potential mineralized areas more precisely. This stage also includes rock and soil sampling, plus analyzing data from mining and exploration during previous decades and centuries, to pinpoint locations where core drilling may be warranted, using relatively small equipment brought in by truck or helicopter.
Three-inch-diameter cores extracted from hundreds or thousands of feet below the surface will be examined and assayed in labs to measure mineral content in multiple locations throughout a prospect. If results are positive, additional cores will be drilled, and instruments may be sent down boreholes to gather more data. This will enable geologists and geophysicists to create 3-D computerized profiles of possible ore bodies deep beneath the surface – all with minimal ecological disturbance.
At some point, we will know enough about the subsurface resource potential – for metals and minerals for existing or brand-new technologies – that mining engineers, government specialists, financiers and voters can determine whether companies should spend billions of dollars to extract the ores … under stringent US land, air, water, wildlife habitat, endangered species, reclamation and other requirements.
Relatively few Americans today have worked on farms or in mines, oilfields, refineries or factories. Few understand where their food, clothing, cell phones, cosmetics and other essential products actually come from. Most would be astonished to learn that nearly everything we touch or use ultimately comes from holes in the ground. Always has; always will.
That’s why we must “Mine, baby, mine” right here in the United States, to survive and prosper.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate change and human rights issues.
As discussed in a couple of recent posts here and here, the so-called Endangerment Finding (EF) was an EPA regulatory action early in the Obama Administration (December 2009) that now provides the foundation for all government efforts to restrict and suppress the use of hydrocarbons in our economy.
As discussed in a couple of recent posts here and here, the so-called Endangerment Finding (EF) was an EPA regulatory action early in the Obama Administration (December 2009) that now provides the foundation for all government efforts to restrict and suppress the use of hydrocarbons in our economy. In one of his first day Executive Orders (“Unleashing American Energy”), President Trump directed the incoming EPA Administrator to submit, within 30 days, “recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings.” Lee Zeldin was then confirmed and sworn in as EPA Administrator on January 29; but the 30th day after the EO, February 19, passed without any public news about a recommendation on the EF.
To no one’s surprise, the news is that Zeldin has recommended reconsideration of the EF. Apparently the recommendation was made a few days ago in a private memorandum. Here is the AP/AJC version:
In a potential landmark action, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency has privately urged the Trump administration to reconsider a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action against climate change. In a report to the White House, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin called for a rewrite of the agency’s finding that determined planet-warming greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
If this was a private memorandum, how did the story turn up in The Washington Post and other outlets? The answer is, of course, anonymous leaks. The AP/AJC article says there were “four people who were briefed on the matter but spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.” No surprise there — I would expect that 90% or more of the holdover staff at EPA are hostile to the new administration and happy to do whatever they can to undermine it. But note this from a little further down in the same story:
Trump, at a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, said Zeldin told him he is moving to eliminate about 65% of the EPA’s workforce. “A lot of people that weren’t doing their job, they were just obstructionist,” Trump said.
Trump’s EPA Administrators should have done that in his first four year term. But it’s never too late.
Perhaps most notable about the news stories is the haughty and dismissive reaction of the usual suspects on the left. For example, Politico gets quotes from David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Vickie Patton of the Environmental Defense Fund:
“This decision ignores science and the law,” David Doniger, senior strategist and attorney for climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “Abdicating EPA’s clear legal duty to curb climate-changing pollution only makes sense if you consider who would benefit: the oil, coal, and gas magnates who handed the president millions of dollars in campaign contributions.” . . . Vickie Patton, the Environmental Defense Fund’s general counsel, said any move to undo the finding “would be reckless, unlawful, and ignore EPA’s fundamental responsibility to protect Americans from destructive climate pollution. We will vigorously oppose it.”
Clearly, the environmental groups and Democrat-led states will do everything they can to oppose the roll-back of the EF; and they have essentially infinite funds to litigate. So, will the rescission be a difficult thing to do, and/or likely to fail in court? Much of the discussion in the two linked pieces, and in others I have read, dwells on the heavy lift necessary to undo a regulation that has gone through the “notice and comment” rule-making process. For example, a Bloomberg piece here (behind paywall) presents rescission of the EF as an enormous challenge:
It could take years for the EPA to go through a required rulemaking process to unwind the endangerment finding, and even then, it might not survive inevitable legal challenges.
They’re trying to scare the administration off, but I don’t think they are right, or that it will work. First, the idea that the rule-making process will “take years” is ridiculous. Yes, it is a cumbersome process. But the Obama people took office on January 20, 2009, went through the full rule-making process, and published the EF in final form on December 15, 2009 — less than 11 months later. I don’t know any reason why the Trump people can’t meet the same schedule or even improve on it by a few months.
Second, the scientific papers to use to support the rescission are all easily at hand. A couple of junior people with access to the internet and Google can easily come up with several hundred papers published since 2009 and supporting the no-danger position. As I laid out in my January 26 post, most important are papers showing no increasing trends in severe weather events (hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, wildfires, etc.). There are very many of these.
Lacking any convincing evidence of increases in severe weather, the enviros are left with only a claim that gradual warming over the course of the next century will be some kind of big problem. But EPA can respond that the costs and risks of a forced energy transition to an untested system pose far, far greater dangers to human health and welfare: blackouts in the dead of winter when all heat is mandated to be electric; massive fires at huge grid scale battery installations used to back up wind and solar electricity; toxic gases from such fires imperiling large urban populations; leaks and explosions impacting hydrogen infrastructure; electric cars and buses running out of charge on freezing cold days and stranding the occupants; and so on and on. How about the risk of large numbers of people losing access to electricity or to home heat or to automobile transportation because they can’t afford the cost?
The point of all these things is that they are not a question of the “science” of global warming. They are a question of making a judgment call trading off one set of dangers and risks against another. No amount of appeals to the authority of “scientists” preaching global warming alarm can even address the question of the risks from the forced adoption of the unproven new energy technologies.
So, get to work, EPA! I want to see the EF gone by Thanksgiving. Then we’ll have something to really be thankful for.
You must be logged in to post a comment.