Latest posts by James H. Rust (see all)
- Drain the Swamp of the Biofuels Waste of Tax Dollars - May 7, 2017
- Concerned About Water Shortages? Then You Need to Oppose Ethanol - April 21, 2017
- The Golden Isles at War - March 15, 2017
On October 5, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order, FEDERAL LEADERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY, AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE, that showed his policies toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the rest of his term in office.
The executive order is 15 pages, divided into 20 sections that provide strict guidance for all agencies in the executive branch and their interactions with outside organizations. Portions of the executive order follows (numerous words run together in the document are left in place):
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release October 5, 2009
FEDERAL LEADERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY,AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, andto establish an integrated strategy towards sustainability inthe Federal Government and to make reduction of greenhouse gasemissions a priority for Federal agencies, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Sec. 13. Recommendations for Vendor and Contractor Emissions. Within 180 days of the date of this order, theGeneral Services Administration, in coordination with theDepartment of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency,and other agencies as appropriate, shall review and providerecommendations to the CEQ Chair and the Administrator of OMB’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy regarding the feasibility of working with the Federal vendor and contractor community toprovide information that will assist Federal agencies in trackingand reducing scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions related to thesupply of products and services to the Government. These recommendations should consider the potential impacts on theprocurement process, and the Federal vendor and contract or community including small businesses and other socioeconomic procurement programs. Recommendations should also explore the feasibility of:
(a) requiring vendors and contractors to register with avoluntary registry or organization for reporting greenhouse gasemissions; (b) requiring contractors, as part of a new or revisedregistration .
The definition of scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions follows:
(iii) scope 3: greenhouse gas emissions from sources not owned or directly controlled by a Federal agency but related to agency activities such as vendor supply chains, delivery services, and employee travel and commuting;
FEDERAL AGENCY COMPLIANCE
The first paragraph of the order commands federal organizations to comply with strict programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This in turn shows it necessary to support reasons for greenhouse gas reduction being they cause catastrophic climate change (global warming).
I am on the e-mail list for News Releases from the Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Academies of Science. These releases dating back to September 2012 average over 500 per year and the vast majority describe programs to satisfy this Executive Order. Tabulating these News Releases would require thousands of pages. It appears each agency is trying to outperform other agencies in pleasing President Obama’s commands. Many projects are so wasteful in spending tax dollars it appears inconceivable Congress approves funds for these activities.
Unable to have Congress pass laws achieving his goals, President Obama found ways using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate rulings to achieve his aims. The last four years, EPA posted four rulings that severely restrict use of coal, oil, and natural gas for power plants. In 2011 there is the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS) and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). On March 27, 2012 there is the First Carbon Pollution Standards for Future Power Plants. On June 2, 2014, EPA issued proposed Carbon Pollution Standards or Clean Power Plan (CPP) for existing power plants that by 2030 reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent below 2005 level.
The first three EPA rulings were implemented with billions spent adding more pollution controls or shutting down coal plants. The fourth proposed ruling was finalized August 3, 2015 reducing carbon dioxide levels by 32 percent below 2005 level. A National Economic Research Associates report gave potential economic consequences of CCP of retirements of 169,000 Megawatts of coal plants, 29 % increase in natural gas prices, and an average 17 % increase in delivered electricity prices. A Bloomberg News report “Clean air’s cost: utility bill surge projected” stated loss of cheaper coal units will boost power prices by as much as 25 % on grids serving about a third of the nation.
The Executive Order explains numerous press releases in the media from NOAA and NASA of temperature data, weather events supporting catastrophic climate change, or computer modeling. Examples are writings by Associated Press columnist Seth Borenstein and New York Timescolumnist Justin Gillis who publish papers before research is published in journals. NOAA’s USHCN and NASA’s GISS have tampered with temperature data to show cooler regions prior to the 1950s and warmer times until present. Another paper “USHCN Monthly Temperature Adjustments” shows monthly temperature adjustments from 1970 to 2013. The paper by Dr. James H. Rust “NOAA and NASA-GISS: You Have Done Enough” describes in detail temperature tampering by these agencies. NOAA claims to have eliminated the pause in global temperatures since 1998 shown by NASA’s satellite temperature data. The House science committee demanded internal communications related to this study which NOAA refuses to comply.
The National Academies of Science publish many reports supporting catastrophic climate change. No press release providing contrary information would be allowed. Although not publicized, I give credit to NOAA that its tidal gage data still shows no acceleration in sea level rise the past 50 years. In addition, NASA’s satellite temperature data still shows no increase in global temperature the past 17 years. The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration still publishes factual data on energy statistics.
The number of employees in these agencies exceeds one million and the amount of money spent the past 6 years is in the trillions of dollars.
EDUCATION SYSTEM COMPLIANCE
Almost without exception, higher education has provided support for President Obama’s climate policies. Many federal agencies provide billions of dollars annually for research projects on campuses. No amount of money would be allocated to disprove carbon dioxide’s role in climate change and jeopardize other sources of funds. Recent support is shown by a letter originating from George Mason University signed by 20 scientists sent to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and Obama science advisor John Holdren asking individuals and organizations questioning President Obama’s climate policies by prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Further support is the College Divestment Movement reported by the National Association of Scholars of 1000 campus located movements urging universities to sell all investments in coal, oil, and natural gas. Nearly 4000 professors have signed petitions or written letters urging divestment. This movement is poisoning the minds of thousands of young people who will be future leaders in our country.
An example of support is given by the October 21, 2015 letter by M. I. T. President L. Rafael Reif sent to their alumni:
Dear MIT alumni,
This morning I wrote to the campus community to share MIT’s Plan for Action on Climate Change.
I urge you to read the plan – and I hope you will find, whether in its pages or elsewhere, your own opportunities to take action on climate change.
As a start – and as you will see in the plan – we would like your input on the best ways that our global alumni community can help our plan succeed. We are asking for that input through a contest that will be run by MIT’s Climate CoLab and judged by leading MIT alumni.
I encourage you to participate in the contest and to join us in rising to this vital challenge.
L. Rafael Reif
I immediately sent the following letter to M. I. T. without response:
For thousands of years the earth has experienced approximate 500 year cycles of warming and cooling. The pre-industrial period described as colder than today is called The Little Ice Age which has an approximate time period of 1350-1850. The period 1850-present is called the Current Warming Period. From approximately 900-1350 is a warm period called the Medieval Warm Period in which a lot of proxy data indicates places on earth warmer than today.
From the time of Christ to 1800, atmospheric carbon dioxide is thought to have remained constant at 280 parts per million. How did these temperature changes occur without increases and decreases in atmospheric carbon dioxide?
Greenland ice core data by Richard Alley indicate higher temperatures in Greenland thousands of years ago when atmospheric carbon dioxide was constant at 280 parts per million. How is this possible without changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide?
M. I. T. is taking a big risk signing onto burning fossil fuels causing catastrophic global warming due to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Satellite data the past 17 years indicate no global warming in spite of this being a time with the greatest increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. If this trend continues, the alarmists will be humiliated and blamed for the loss of trillions of dollars pursing a fantasy that reversed wiping poverty off the planet.
James H. Rust, professor of nuclear engineering
On K-12 education, the science portion of Common Core is written by the National Academies Press which pushes climate change caused by carbon dioxide. For years teachers at the k-12 level have told students we must curtail fossil fuel use in order to save the planet. It is easy for teachers to be caught up in promoting teachings of the catastrophic climate change movement because of “warm feelings” from working to save the planet. Over-zealous teachers, perhaps in concert with environmental groups, may wish to develop slogans, songs, T-shirts, and even arm bands for students to use to help spread the gospel of human-caused global warming. Possibly start of a Climate Youth movement similar to past youth movements in Germany.
Even greater dangers from science portions of Common Core are teaching people to accept the political use of science and not follow fundamental principles of scientific inquiry–-propose a theory about the behavior of Nature and continually test that theory by experiment. Never accept propositions of “science is settled”. Additional problems are painting the planet’s future in a dismal fashion with reduced living standards and poverty for many parts of the planet. This may lead to psychological damage to students.
As shown by Section 13 of the Executive Order, private sector recipients of federal funds must provide information about their greenhouse gas emissions and attempts to make reductions. Only a fool wouldn’t see that agreement with federal policies is necessary to insure future federal contracts.
On June 16, 2015, the White House announced:
FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Announces More Than $4 Billion in Private Sector Commitments and Executive Actions to Scale up Investment in Clean Energy Innovation.” These commitments—from hundreds of organizations as diverse as the University of California, Goldman Sachs, and the Sierra Club Foundation.
Bloomberg Business wrote, “In July executives from 13 major corporations, including Apple Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., announced $140 billion in new investments designed to decrease their carbon footprints.” On October 19, President Obama brought executives from five Fortune 500 companies Johnson & Johnson, Intel Corp., Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co., Hershey Co., and PG&E Corp., as well as five other companies that act as suppliers to those corporations to the White House to shore up business support for combating climate change.
An article published on THE HILL “Corporate America: Lead, follow or get out of the way on climate change” by DSM President Hugh Welch illustrates corporate acquiescence to President Obama’s climate policy. Mr. Hill wrote:
We are proud to be part of a group of companies meeting at the White House this week with President Obama, joining thirteen companies including Apple, Coca-Cola, Google and Microsoft, to underscore our combined dedication to a low-carbon, renewable energy, sustainable future. We are pleased to join this group of iconic American companies in a collective effort to advocate for even more action on climate change. We all understand that business cannot be successful in a society that fails. Large multinational companies can be a powerful voice for change themselves; collectively they can change the world. Together we are divesting in fossil fuel, investing in renewable energy and materials, committing to using less water in our processes, recycling more and improving supply chains that will result in real carbon gains. Perhaps more importantly, we are demanding that our suppliers do the same, and are strongly enouraging greater action by government, consumers and other corporations.
On October 19, 2015 the White House released:
FACT SHEET: White House Announces Commitments to the American Business Act on Climate Pledge” which listed 81 companies signed the climate pledge. The pledge includes support for the COP-21 meeting in Paris November 2015 and the Executive Order. These companies included Bank of America, Coca Cola, Facebook, GE, GM, Goggle, and numerous renewable energy companies. Renewable energy company Abengoa Bioenergy stated they “produced more than 2.5 billion gallons of renewable ethanol fuel in the US, displacing 2.5 billion gallons of petroleum based transportation fuel and reducing GHG emissions from those gallons by an average of 34%.” Ethanol has 70 percent the energy content of gasoline and does not replace gasoline on an equal basis.
Many of these corporations have invested billions in solar energy facilities to generate their electricity. They are able to take advantage of the 30 percent federal tax credit for solar energy construction, the rapid 5-year depreciation of renewable energy systems, and state incentives like those inCalifornia (30 percent tax credit) and North Carolina (35 percent tax credit) that make solar facilities practically cost free. The losers are all federal tax payers and tax payers in solar friendly states. No doubt these corporations highlight their renewable energy bona fides when responding to requests for proposal for federal government services or products.
Thus, this little known Executive Order has produced policies adding possibly a trillion dollars to tax burdens of U. S. citizens the past six years. All accomplished bypassing Congress. With annual federal deficits ranging from $400 billion to over $1 trillion, the citizens should alert their representatives of these wasteful activities and demand they cease. Otherwise find more responsible representatives.