posted March 19, 2015 12:09 PM            

Obama's executive order will also direct the government to ramp up use of renewable energy sources to 30 percent of the federal government's consumption. The White House said U.S. taxpayers could save up to $18 billion in electricity costs by reducing greenhouse gases 40 percent over the next decade, compared to 2008 levels.

"Certainly our hope is that we are laying forth template that other countries could also learn from and look at as well," said Brian Deese, a senior adviser to Obama.

Major companies that sell to the federal government like GE, HP, Northrup Grumman and Honeywell will also announce voluntary commitments to cut their own emissions of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming, the White House said. IBM, for example, said it will cut its energy consumption 35 percent by 2020 and buy at least 20 percent of its power from renewably sources by that year.

All told, the government pollution cuts along with industry contributions will have the effect of keeping 26 million metric tons of greenhouse gases out of the air by 2025, or the equivalent of what about 5.5 million cars would pump out through their tailpipes in an average year, the White House said. Yet it was unclear exactly how either the government or private companies planned to meet those targets.

Aiming to call attention to the government's initiative, Obama on Thursday was to take to the roof of the Energy Department's headquarters, where the president was to tour an installation of solar panels. While at the Energy Department, Obama also planned to discuss the new emissions targets at a roundtable with federal suppliers that do more than $1 billion per year in business with the government.

The U.S. government is responsible for only a small portion of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, but the Obama administration is hoping that taking aggressive steps at home will increase the political pressure on other countries to do the same.

A major global climate treaty, in the works for years, is supposed to be finalized in December at a summit in Paris, but most countries have yet to announce what their national contributions to the pact will be. Earlier this month the European Union unveiled its contribution, vowing to cut greenhouse gas emissions at least 40 percent by 2030, compared to 1990.

The U.S. has yet to announce its contribution to the treaty. But in a bid to build momentum last year, Obama set a U.S. goal to cut emissions up to 28 percent by 2025 — compared to 2005 levels — in a joint announcement with China that boosted hopes that an aggressive climate treaty may come to fruition.

The president hasn't fully explained how he'll meet that goal, but his aides have suggested that unprecedented pollution limits he's imposing on power plants will get the U.S. much of the way there.

Obama's executive order will direct the federal government to:

— Cut energy use in federal buildings 2.5 percent every year between 2015 and 2025.

— Reduce the amount of water used in federal buildings 2 percent every year through 2025.

— Decrease greenhouse gas emissions from federal vehicles by 30 percent per mile by 2025, compared to the levels in 2014.

— Ensure federal agencies are getting 25 percent of their energy — both heat and electricity — from clean sources by 2025.

posted March 21, 2015 08:48 AM            

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.

IPCC Conflict of Interest

By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

Political Powerhouse

Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.

Human Emissions Saved Planet

Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?

Celebrate Carbon Dioxide

The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.