Relationships fascinate us. Americans are always picking up the latest issue of their favorite magazine or clicking on that random pop-up website that promises five easy secrets to a satisfying[...]
Tagged: natural gas
A new study from the Institute of Sustainable Development and International Relations (its French acronym is IDDRI) goes to amazing lengths to downplay the tremendous positive impact oil and natural[...]
A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science has found air pollution from China is lowering air quality in the western United States. Thankfully, residents in this region may[...]
The Guardian, a London-based daily newspaper, has been a leading advocate of the global warming theory—now called climate change—and its December 20 edition published an article by Susanne Goldenberg, “Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change.”
Solar electricity is growing, promoted, and most importantly, heavily subsidized. The promoters of solar electricity claim that it is close to being competitive with conventional sources of electricity. That is a fantasy.
Last Friday the EPA announced a reduction in 2014 biofuel mandates from 18 billion to 15 billion gallons. This decision was made because gasoline consumption has fallen and fuel mixes made with over 10 percent biofuels can damage car engines. But there is more to the story.
The fight against hydraulic fracturing has recently ratcheted up. On November 5, one town in Ohio and three in Colorado, passed ballot measures designed to ban or temporarily halt hydraulic fracturing—the brief (3-5 day) phase, often referred to as “fracking”—that is essential to the advanced oil-and-gas extraction processes that have given America the lead in global energy production.
The fact that natural gas is only given cursory mention, rather than being an integral part of Obama’s National Climate Action Plan, exposes his true motives—which, I believe, are not really about carbon emission reductions, but rather furthering America’s declining international status. Why else would he emphasize what has proven to not to work and eschew what we know to be effective?