Editor’s Note: I’m going to devote this page to news and views regarding Climate Change and the excuse it gives government agencies to regulate the population.
It’s incredible. There has been a 20-year PR campaign to convince the government and the public that we are all bad, killing the planet, and need to be severely regulated. This is costing our industry millions and it just could be bullshit.
What if we could prove that global warming is a hoax, the climate is changing as it has for millions of years, but the man-made aspect is not even close to harmful. What if we could prove Oil isn’t the Bad Guy. What if a few grubby bikers, an old attorney and some young environmentalists could blow a hole in the EPA, control freak, and anti-freedom mentality. What if they could improve the planet in the process, and we restore freedom where it belongs?
More and more our findings prove this contention in a massive way. But you decide:
Click or order a copy, quick.
The film that changes the climate of debate on global warming
Concerns about man-made global warming have consumed nearly all other environmental issues as proponents claim increasing carbon dioxide will result in a global catastrophe unless nations drastically reduces emissions.
Global warming has evolved to be blamed for a range of issues beyond just rising temperatures or sea levels. Now rising CO2 emission are said to cause floods, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes and even maladies like prostitution, bar room brawls, airline turbulence and less snow or more snow, depending on the season.
More than a year in the making, Climate Hustle is now smashing onto the scene to rock the climate debate and set the record straight. Produced by “CFACT Presents” and hosted by Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano, the film features prominent scientists from around the world, who used to warn about the dangers of man-made global warming but have reexamined the evidence and have now grown more skeptical or become outright skeptics of man-made climate change fears.
The film is not a one-sided documentary with only one narrative presented. Instead, Climate Hustle comes alive to the viewer with archival video clips and news footage spanning over 40 years.
The film presents both sides of the climate debate in an engaging and pop
culture-friendly way that walks viewers through the dire climate claims being made and examines them one by one.
Viewers of Climate Hustle will get an informative, humorous and entertaining journey through seven key sections that lay waste to the media-promoted climate claims.
For example: One powerful segment, called “Stacking the Deck,” shows how the notion of a “scientific consensus” on climate change is pure fabrication and is simply a political tool used to stifle debate.
Another segment, entitled “Sleight of Hand,” examines whether CO2 is really the villain it’s made out to be and shows viewers some of the crucial facts that Al Gore omitted from his famous propaganda documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
Viewers are taken on a journey back in time to reveal centuries – yes centuries – of climate panic and fear. The film shows rarely seen clips of 1970s global cooling newscasts and how “stagecraft” was employed to juice the narrative of man-made global warming fears in the1980s.
Sea level rise scares? Polar bears? Polar ice melts? Climate Hustle offers viewers a virtual A-Z examination of the evidence for man-made climate fears. The film features expert opinions and data to reveal that on virtually every claim in the climate debate, climate activists have either greatly exaggerated the issue or are flat out wrong.
Climate Hustle viewers will also get a look at the increasingly outlandish claims of activists
who, in a form of “climate astrology,” want to blame every bad weather event – and societal evil – on man-made global warming.
The film has its moments of hilarity as comical climate change “tipping points” are exposed as utter nonsense and more suited to a stand-up comedy act. Viewers are walked through previous doomsday predictions on topics ranging from Y2K to the Mayan Calendar.
Perhaps the most poignant moment of the film comes when viewers are told there is literally no difference between holocaust deniers and climate “deniers.”
Exclusive interviews reveal activists who call for skeptics to be thrown in jail. By contrast, scientists are profiled who have reversed themselves on global warming fears, and far from profiting from their dissent, they
explain how their careers have been negatively impacted just for daring to challenge the so-called consensus.
Politically Left scientists are interviewed who reveal how “lonely” it is for them to dissent on man-made global warming. Climate Hustle is premiering in Paris during the UN’s COP21 climate summit, and will be scheduled for theatrical and home video release in 2016.
To view a link to the film’s trailer visit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXBzjBE9l5Q
To view a clip from the movie visit: https://app.box.com/s/tbzjfq0r5a7dicl6nn6g18bqo453bb73
ACTION FROM THE CLIMATE CALAMITY FRONT--
I did communicate with Hardtail, president of the MRF, and he wanted to talk by phone last week but we didn’t hook up. He’s in Europe most of December on business (he’s an engineer for Ocean Spray Cranberries).
He stated that the MRF is all over the EPA issue and they have released many press releases on the subject. My opinion is they have voiced concerns, and report occasionally on the ethanol standards, production increases and dispute over production waivers pursuant to the Clean Air Act and congress’ promulgations, but I haven’t seen any strategy or direction on how to combat any of this to date other than their plea to write to your congressman to express concerns over blended fuels and increase in E-15 reserves.
The quandary, as I see it, is we as a people are caught between the battle of the experts once again. The standards, CO2 emissions concerns, greenhouse gases, 2017 volume requirements for Ethanol, climate warming and more are so technical that a layperson cannot understand it all.
When you have scientists and other so-called experts disagreeing on climate change, what is causing it if it’s actually happening, what is the greater danger contributing to CO2 emissions and so on, what chance do we have of knowing what is real and what is fantasy?
It’s like belief in God. Some have an unyielding devotion to believe in the existence of God, without tangible proof that he exists. Other’s call it an illusion or belief in a superstition. Those sides can argue to eternity, with neither having real proof to verify the argument.
With regards to our situation, we are stuck in the middle with each side arguing more on belief than “real evidence.” I don’t want to believe the planet is warming like some claim, and I don’t want to believe that man is the major contributor to this claim. But not being an expert, I can only cling to belief and faith that it isn’t so.
The one thing I do know as fact, is the EPA working in concert with European nations on Global Harmonization, is regulating business into submission through increased standards (some of which cannot be reached because technology doesn’t exist yet to meet those standards), punishing fines that cripple small manufacturers, Swat-team raids that violate constitutional protections and destroy business, families and bank accounts, and total refusal to co-ordinate planning on initiatives to meet these problems with local, non-governmental committees or agencies, as was mandated in the original clean air acts decades ago.
Without someone in congress to champion the cause of reining in the EPA, we are spinning in circles without an end in sight. Looking at the open comments document the EPA posted concerning the 2017 Ethanol volume requirements, it was clear that most comments were in favor of increasing the volumes and opposed waivers that allowed for lower volumes or retaining current levels.
Most of the comments came from interested parties, as expected, like corn growers and ethanol manufacturers. I could only find three submissions from our friends in the motorcycle community: ABATE of Michigan, ABATE of Illinois and ABATE of Pennsylvania.
There were a few other organizations that opposed the increased Ethanol production, most notably some antique car organizations, but most comments were in favor of increased production levels of E15.
The arguments for the most part were of a technical nature and included comments by manufacturers and gas station/service plaza owners and organizations, that were beyond my understanding, since they alluded to business practices and manufacturing technology. These are stakeholders representing huge companies. My other concern is how big of an impact is the motorcycle after-market industry and motorcycle riders in general going to have on this global stage?
--Tony Pan Sanfelipo
Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
My Response to Tony’s Report:
I agree regarding the highly technical aspects of this argument and I get a kick out of your equating it to the God debate. Regarding the God debate, don’t we have something in the constitution about this? You can debate and believe all you want for or against, but don’t pass laws. The question remains. Can we give up or give in? And what we hope to fight for goes way beyond the performance motorcycle industry to cars and trucks, anything performance.
I would rather equate the global science discussion and over regulation to the McCarthy Era. Can we allow the government to control everything with an exhaust pipe and put half of these industries out of business, only to discover tomorrow or a year from now that the transportation sector has a very small climate change footprint.
Plus, there is science and scientist who don’t agree with the regulators’ contentions. In fact, Australia, through scientific conclusions threw out recent regulations. Watch the documentary “Climate Hustle.” Plus, over the 40 some years we’ve been in this game, every time the government threw another law at the Biker’s Rights community, our band of grubby bikers stepped up, found the data, researched the facts and came back fighting with Freedom on our side.
Chiming in to offer up my two cents on all of this rhetoric.
Firstly, lets make it explicitly clear that the MRF is actively engaged on two fronts with the EPA:
1. The first is combatting the EPA’s instance that they have the authority to regulate the car and motorcycle racing industry, specifically the “tampering” of motorcycles which is what they call it when you add high performance parts to your bike that affects the amount of CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere. Our strategy in combatting this is to address the agency’s overreach through legislation. This is the RPM Act, which we have made great progress on this year and I do expect to advance at some point though the chances of passage this year are looking increasingly slim.
2. The second area that we are engaging with the EPA is in regards to the RFS Standard – this is a law passed by Congress in 2007 that REQUIRES the EPA to issue mandates of how much biofuel (like ethanol) is used in the nation’s fuel supply. Like the RPM Act, our strategy here is with Congress. The EPA is simply fulfilling their congressionally mandated obligation – no amount of public comment is going to change that. The problem must be dealt with at the Congressional level via legislation. The MRF is involved with a larger coalition “Smarter Fuel Future” to push for larger RFS reform but is also working within a smaller spinoff group that is trying to make specific and targeted changes to the RFS standard that will satisfy BIKERS (but likely not the oil and gas industry – their lobbyists can fight that fight).
In both of these areas our strategy is to force the hand of Congress to reign in the EPA. I will tell you from experience, that going to the head of the EPA and pressuring her to “pull back” is an absolutely worthless exercise. Congress controls the purse strings of the agency and the authority of the agency. This is why we need the motorcycle community (10 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE U.S.) to tell their Congressperson about what changes they want made. This is called grassroots, folks.
Under the Obama Administration the EPA was advised to “push boundaries” and they did exactly that. Things will most certainly be different under a Trump Administration and will present an opportunity to help limit the agency’s jurisdiction. Again – this will have to be achieved via legislation and “regulatory reform” – the MRF has and will be present in these discussions. Though please be advised that a Trump Administration will not solve all of our problems. As a reaction to the Trump Administration, we will see more progressive states like California in particular, really push the envelope on state and local environmental regulations. This is where we need to be most diligent over the next 4 years.
Lastly, I would encourage us to not get lost or caught up in the bigger questions like the authenticity of climate change. There are far too many players with voices larger than ours. Instead, my advice is to decide specifically what we want to achieve and then formulate a plan to do that. Maybe it’s pass the RPM Act, maybe it’s to promulgate a new law mandating that E10 is legally required to be sold at all gas stations, maybe it’s that EPA emissions regulations supersede those of a state (i.e. California). Whatever it is that you want, now is the time to have that conversation.
But be forewarned – whatever it is we decide to try and get achieved will involve grassroots (that would be the “plea to write your Congressmen”) and $$$$$$. And unless I am mistaken, our MRF funding comes from RIDERS. Not from high performance parts manufacturers and not the aftermarket industry but the people who ride their bikes – and that’s who I’m working for.
Response from the Investigator:
Pretty much to the point, and I’m not in disagreement with a lot of what she says; I know the EPA is working under mandate, and we cannot, nor do we have the power or ability to force EPA to do anything. I think we all knew that already, so I feel a little “talked down to” from her comments.
Despite Trump making statements during his campaign that he would eliminate the EPA, I also know he doesn’t have the power to do that either, only Congress, as Megan assuredly scolded us, has the power to reign in the EPA.
My concern was some of the issues with the Tenth Amendment, which on first glance, would tend to reinforce our and the MRF’s position that the powers not given to the federal government should remain with the states on issues like this. The problem is some years ago, while sovereignty of the states was recognized and they were recognized as having the power to enforce regulations dealing with things like emissions, the actually policy making authority where these regulations originate was reserved for the federal government.
Thus, Congress can and hopefully will recognize that the over-regulation on companies and business is killing jobs and the economy. Megan realizes, as I did, that fighting the climate change theory is extremely difficult. Where we differ is she wants to totally abandon that argument, whereas I think it must be addressed as a driving force behind current and expanded regulation, based on questionable science.
You can’t effectively argue against something without some qualifying argument. It’s how I describe the disagreement I have over the helmet issue. Some, like the MRF, say we don’t have anything against helmets; we just want the choice to wear one. It’s become the mantra of the current rights leadership, and sounds good and makes the members smile. After all, we’re not the anti-helmet people. We’re the pro-choice people.
Well to me, that reminds me of my mother telling me to eat my greens, they’re good for me. But in defiance, I say, I don’t have anything against greens, I just don’t want to eat them. We all know who won that argument. Because just saying we want the choice to wear or not wear a helmet isn’t the same as saying we don’t want to wear a helmet because we don’t see positive proof that they’re effective or reduce fatality rates.
The government has tried to be our mother and say, “Shut up and just eat your greens,” but we’ve been successful in at least half the states in telling them we don’t want to wear them. But that could change in a heartbeat, and if we had to fight helmet laws nationally again, how do you tell congress you don’t want to wear a helmet without giving a reason? Fat chance now, since most of the states have said repeatedly we don’t have anything against helmets. Get my point?
Same holds true for the emissions problem, and the Ethanol reserves, etc. We can argue to Congress that we want the EPA to be pulled back, and certainly job loss and killing off some small businesses in the mix is a good argument, but it won’t outweigh the climate change greenies, who have a huge lobby, a lots of money (Ethanol plants, corn growers, and a host of supporting industry all making money off the production of Ethanol).
I’m not completely sure Trump will be compliant with hurting Ethanol and others, and I know he had some interests in some of the oil pipelines and cronies in the oil business, so I’m reserved on what, if any help we can count on from him.
Finally, Megan claiming that the MRF needs grass-roots activism (lobbying Congress) and $$$$ is interesting. She claims the SMRO’s are where the MRF gets its money, and that’s mostly true, and that’s who she works for.
Well, the amounts of money they get can’t be all that much, since they’re always working at fund raising, especially at conferences, and I can understand that. But the amount they raise is a pittance compared to the money that will be used to forward the other sides’ arguments. I may be misreading her intent, but to me it appeared she was disrespectful to the many motorcycle accessory companies, racers and builders out there. Those high performance parts manufacturers and aftermarket accessory makers are who their membership relies on, and if they go away, so will the bikes MRF riders enjoy.
I thought that a surprising way to end her letter. Just my two cents worth.
--Tony Pan Sanfelipo
Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
The Sustainability Secret is a groundbreaking feature-length environmental documentary following intrepid filmmaker Kip Andersen as he uncovers the most destructive industry facing the planet today – and investigates why the world’s leading environmental organizations are too afraid to talk about it.
Animal agriculture is the leading cause of deforestation, water consumption and pollution, is responsible for more greenhouse gases than the transportation industry, and is a primary driver of rainforest destruction, species extinction, habitat loss, topsoil erosion, ocean “dead zones,” and virtually every other environmental ill. Yet it goes on, almost entirely unchallenged.
As Andersen approaches leaders in the environmental movement, he increasingly uncovers what appears to be an intentional refusal to discuss the issue of animal agriculture, while industry whistleblowers and watchdogs warn him of the risks to his freedom and even his life if he dares to persist.
As eye-opening as Blackfish and as inspiring as An Inconvenient Truth, this shocking yet humorous documentary reveals the absolutely devastating environmental impact large-scale factory farming has on our planet, and offers a path to global sustainability for a growing population.
ABOUT THE FILMMAKERS
Kip Andersen’s environmental awakening came as a result of An Inconvenient Truth. After seeing the film, he began to recycle religiously, turn off lights constantly, shower infrequently, and ride a bike instead of driving. Andersen believed he was doing everything he could to help the planet by following the guidelines of national and international environmental organizations, but his life took a different direction when he found out animal agriculture is the leading cause of environmental destruction.
He is the founder of AUM Films and Media, a 501c3 non-profit focused on creating films and media that promote thrivability, compassion, and harmony for all life. He is also an entrepreneur, as well as a certified Jivamukti and Kundalini yoga teacher. He is a graduate of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo school of business and has called San Francisco home for more than a decade.
Keegan Kuhn is a videographer, award-winning documentary filmmaker, and professional musician living in the east bay of San Francisco. He has worked with nonprofit organizations and been involved in social justice movements for virtually his entire life. As a filmmaker, he helps organizations reach an ever-greater community of supporters with the highest possible quality films and videos. His film career has taken him as far as the remote interior of Alaska to document modern homesteaders, to the high deserts of the American west filming the nation’s remaining wild horses, to rural agricultural communities and dirty urban streets. He is motivated by a deep desire to shed light on untold stories of the most downtrodden in our society, and to raise to awareness through greater visibility of social justice issues.
The science and research done on the true impacts of animal agriculture is always growing. The statistics used in the film were based on the best information we had available while producing the film. We will continually update this list with further resources as they become available
- GREENHOUSE GASES -
Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation. [i]
Fao.org. Spotlight: Livestock impacts on the environment.
Transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions. [.i]
Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector primarily involve fossil fuels burned for road, rail, air, and marine transportation.
Fao.org. Spotlight: Livestock impacts on the environment.
Environmental Protection Agency. “Global Emissions.”
Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”
WorldWatch, November/December 2009. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA. Pp. 10–19.
Animal Feed Science and Technology “comment to editor” Goodland, Anhang.
The Independent, article Nov. 2009.
Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20 year time frame.
“Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions.” Science Magazine.
Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2 on a 20 year time frame.
“Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions.” Science Magazine.
Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years.
“Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2006.
Emissions for agriculture projected to increase 80% by 2050.
Energy related emissions expected to increase 20% by 2040.
Energy Global Hydrocarbon Engineering
IEA, World Energy Outlook 2014
US Methane emissions from livestock and natural gas are nearly equal.
EPA. "Overview of Greenhouse Gases."
Cows produce 150 billion gallons of methane per day. [xi]
Ross, Philip. “Cow farts have ‘larger greenhouse gas impact’ than previously thought; methane pushes climate change.” International Business Times. 2013.
250-500 liters per cow per day, x 1.5 billion cows globally is 99 - 198.1 billion gallons. Rough average of 150 billion gallons CH4 globally per day.
Converting to wind and solar power will take 20+ years and roughly 43 trillion dollars.
The Cost Of Going Green Globally
Even without fossil fuels, we will exceed our 565 gigatonnes CO2e limit by 2030, all from raising animals.
Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.
Source: calculation is based on http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294
analyses that 51% of GHG are attributed to animal ag.
Reducing methane emissions would create tangible benefits almost immediately.
U.N. Press Release, Climate Summit 2014.
A RESPONSE FROM THE INVESTIGATOR
As for giving up or giving in, I think you know me better than to think I would Never throw the towel in when matters of rights or personal liberties are concerned.
You are right when you say the issue is much deeper than our niche in the scheme of things. As usual, two things loom large; money and control. Money comes from the huge business of alternative fuels and renewable energy. ??The greenhouse scare has helped to create new industries endeavoring to capitalize on alternative fuels. Ethanol seems to be king at the moment, with manufacturing plants popping up across the mid-west an elsewhere.
Corn crops are being devoted to Ethanol to meet the demands of volume dictated under the Renewable Fuel Standard. The greenhouse scare/conspiracy fuels the acquiescence is increased regulation, not only on car, diesel and motorcycle emissions, but also coal powered energy plants.
Since its creation in 1970, under Richard Nixon, the EPA has declared war on industry in America. Bolstered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the war on coal powered energy plants and coal mining in general has cost thousands of jobs. By 2030, it’s predicted 34,000 jobs lost. The coal industry itself has already lost over 47,500 jobs. 37 percent of coal mining jobs in Kentucky have vanished since 2008, yet America relies on fossil fuel energy for 2/3rds of its electricity.
We tend to think of the assault on emissions as singular attack. But farming, mining, ranching and logging are all under attack from the EPA. This is costing jobs and eliminating small business altogether.
In California, independent truck drivers are going out of business because of the EPA and CARB. Standards and regulation on diesel particulate emission make older trucks illegal. Newer trucks or some able to convert have installed Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF), which are suspected in numerous semi-truck fires of questionable origin. These fires are not a consequence of crashes but rather spontaneous affairs. Interestingly, many of the original reports point to the filters but final incident reports exclude the cause and only refer to undetermined heat source. Was the EPA behind the exclusion of first opinion conclusions of origin of the fires?
Exhaust emission regulation has been at the heart of most of our problems dealing with after-market accessories. Before establishing any regulations or restrictions, federal agencies were required to “coordinate” with local government agencies, according to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Any federal agency action had to be submitted to environmental study and for coordination with local governments affected by such action. To be considered was the impact on society, culture and the economy. Recent hearings attended by independent truck drivers in Redding, California, indicated that local government was not contacted by or coordinated with the EPA or CARB on any of the regulations suppressing that industry. The fact that EPA and CARB continue to create more regulations and enforce existing ones, seemingly without regard to local government concerns, is most disturbing.
Even more disturbing is the move toward Harmonization of Motorized Vehicles based on European standards. That should scare the hell out of our industry.
It’s no secret that the EU, headed by Germany, has set a target of 2030 to eliminate all fossil fuel vehicles. The EU envisions an all-electric or at least alternative fuel motor vehicle culture.
The consequences of global harmonization reawaken all the fears of the “One World Government” that so many of us oppose. It goes so far beyond vehicles when you consider land acquisition, deforestation and the so-called reliance of foreign oil.
I suspect the reliance on foreign oil should be blamed partly on the EPA and its regulations. Regulations, not environmentalists, have slowed down or halted oil drilling operations in the U.S.
Our refineries are operating at capacity, and building new, more technologically advanced refineries, are stifled by EPA regulation. Just like coal burning energy plants, the regulations promulgated by the EPA make meeting those standards impossible because the technology to meet emission demands doesn’t exist yet.
So, instead of investing in our own domestic oil program, congress invested billions of dollars (taxpayers money) to explore alternative energy sources like wind turbines, solar panels and Ethanol. We know how the first two experiments turned out, and the jury is still out on Ethanol as a viable alternative to fossil fuels. As it stands, despite pouring billions of dollars into the search for alternative fuels, no technology or alternative fuels come close to replacing fossil fuel systems in place.
Sweden sought a 100 percent carbon-free emission for its power supply, relying on a combination of hydroelectric and nuclear power, and exchanging power with neighboring Scandinavian countries. It investigated substituting its nuclear power with wind power in order to reduce the demand for hydroelectricity. It found that it would have to supplement the system with power from fossil fuel (gas) to meet the demand, resulting in doubling the CO2 emissions.
Can the EPA also have a role in Second Amendment Rights? Consider the closing of the last lead smelting plant in America and the stockpiling of ammunition by federal agencies like Homeland Security. Why did the EPA also stockpile millions of rounds of ammunition after regulating lead smelting in the U.S. out of business.
I could go on, but I think finding allies in congress is essential. The Tenth Amendment was based on federalism, in which the power of government was possessed by independent sovereign states, as opposed to a centralized government with power reserved for a central authority.
To preserve the autonomy or sovereignty of the states, we have to have a Supreme Court made up of justices to understand and support the original intention of the Tenth Amendment to limit the powers of the federal government. In that respect, the Supreme Court is a more important player than even congress in our goal to reduce the regulatory powers of the EPA.
--Tony Pan Sanfelipo
Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
FROM THE FRONT: I'll comment on Tony's comments later this week
The core problem with the global warming movement is the whitewash/ lack of facts when questioning anything they say is the rule. The core of this is to create a global tax on carbon administered by the UN to transfer $ to other nations while they cut a slice off the top.
The UN is active in motorcycle emissions, they want a 78db limit worldwide on m/c and many other things that would make you and I sick to our stomach.
Keep an eye on Morano web site Climate Depot, sounds like he would be interesting to interview.
INDUSTRY EMMISSIONS SEMINAR—
Some of the core issues holding our industry back are stifling EPA and CARB regulations. We want to bring shops and the industry up to speed on efforts to curb regulation.
In addition we will show a short film titled, “Climate Hustle.”
Keith R. Ball, from Bikernet.com and members of the industry will share their findings and efforts exclusively at the V-Twin Expo.
“The motorcycling, auto and truck performance industries are under fire,” said Keith. “But there is hope. Come and find out what’s happening.”
ALREADY SOME GOOD NEWS
Several sources are now officially reported what we have speculated over the last day or so: Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is being named head of EPA by President-Elect Donald Trump.
My colleague Scott Segal, Head of Bracewell’s Policy Resolution Group, shared the following thoughts for the record:
I have watched Scott Pruitt develop over his six years as Oklahoma attorney general into a measured and articulate student of environmental law and policy. The office he headed was present and accounted for in the battle to keep EPA faithful to its statutory authority and respectful of the role of the states in our system of cooperative federalism. These skills will serve him well not only in leading EPA but also in participating meaningfully in the legislative and regulatory reform efforts promised by the next Administration.
Given that we are almost two decades overdue for an overhaul of the Clean Air Act, there is interest on both sides of the aisle to look at that statute.
Some have suggested that Pruitt hands might be tied because he participated in litigation against the Agency. This is a silly position. When you add up all the states that have participated in litigation on the Clean Power Plan alone it amounts to almost the entire United States. Further, Gina McCarthy herself sued the EPA as a Massachusetts state official only to eventually lead the Agency herself. There is no conflict in representing your state on litigation dealing with rules of general applicability and then serving your nation as a federal official.
You can reach Scott (202-262-5845), Jeff Holmstead (202-828-5852) or me if you have additional questions.
Ethanol, another stupid idea mandated by Washington
“Global warming is the biggest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it.”– Meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman.
I swear that if you gave a group of lawmakers a lawnmower they would assemble a snow-blower that stalled every 30 seconds. Such is the case of ethanol, an idea whose time should have never come.
When I was the editor for Outstanding Investments in the early 2000s, I sat down with my uncle who operated a mixed farm for decades. With the internet, a piece of paper, a pencil and his 42 years of farming experience, we set about finding the then-current price of ethanol. We did the same with oil from the pump jack to the gas tank and even included the average discovery cost. According to our numbers, a gallon of ethanol was twice as expensive as a gallon of gasoline. Well worth it, the hardcore greens would say, if you stopped them on their bicycles and asked them.
Late last month the Government Accountability Office (GAO) announced that biofuels, the major one being corn, are costly, take a long time to produce (a growing season to be exact) and will neither make America less dependent on Middle Eastern oil or lower CO2 emissions. For the price of a phone call I could have told them this 15 years ago.
But the last thing the government wants is input from the public, even if it is correct. Their way creates a whole new program, in this case the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, which has set a grandiose target of 857 billion barrels by 2022, something that the GAO now says is impossible.
You would have thought somebody would have said you would need to plant 80 percent of cropland in the United States to hit that target, but nobody did. The GAO’s conclusion: “There is not nearly enough of this fuel to meet the program’s targets — nor will there likely be enough in the near future.”
But this is the kicker; research by the government found out that biofuels emit more carbon dioxide than gasoline!
Nowhere could I find the number of people working for the RFS, but they are eating high off the taxpayer’s hog. From 2013 through 2015 the federal government plowed more than $1.1 billion into research and development of advanced biofuels.
It is mind boggling to think about how much money the RFS has gone through since its creation in 2005. Enough money that it would help rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure or, as a neocon would measure it, enough to buy an aircraft carrier, planes and all. And that is not even the worst of it.
More than half the corn grown in America is used for ethanol, taking up 50,000 acres that could be used for corn, which makes up 95 percent of the total feed grain consumed by livestock. More corn thrown into the gas tank makes for higher corn prices at the table. And it is not just corn; the vast acreage for growing fuel, increases the price of beef, pork, poultry and even fish. Inflation across the country is offset by the deflation resulting from the $10 billion a year charged to motorists to pump watered down gasoline into the fuel tank.
If you didn’t think it could get any worse, it does. Ethanol added into gasoline results in up to 10 percent lower mileage. And as any hot rod driver will tell you, gas mixed with ethanol causes a noticeable reduction in performance.
Chet Thompson, president of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, stated the obvious; that the EPA plan is “completely detached from market realities and confirms once again that congress must take immediate action to remedy this broken program.”
This will be an early test for President-elect Donald Trump. Either he supports grain growers or the petroleum producers. If he is honest in making the best deals he can for America, the dollars and cents equation and not lobbyist arguments will dictate the cessation of biofuels immediately.
This dog won’t hunt
Unfortunately biofuels are just one chink in the Green’s armor. The fundamental fact would strip them naked if there is no man-made climate change. This should be borne out by the fact that temperatures have not risen in the past 15 years and the temperatures that over the past couple of decades are well within the ranges earth has had over the past millennial.
If you have had the misfortune to see Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, for which he has received every award except the Medal of Honor, you might remember the segment where, across this gigantic screen behind him, CO2 levels and the earth’s temperatures going back 900,000 years is said to be shown. Gore points out that as CO2 increases so does the earth’s temperature. Not so say many scientists, most of them retired and therefore not in fear of losing their jobs if they speak out against climate change.
What they point out in Gore’s two lines is that it is temperatures that lead CO2 levels. This is such a small inconvenient truth for the former vice president who is a perfect crusader for the globalists to push their agenda for less independence and greater interdependence around the globe. For the past eight years he has had a lot of support from the world’s most powerful voice, President Barack Obama. Just weeks after ISIS had murdered 130 people in a series of attacks in France in 2015 Obama said: “Today, there is no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”
Funny, but most people would think that someone with a black balaclava and an AK-47 is a little more worrisome than a government-spun weather fantasy.
On its face climate change is nothing but a ridiculous fairy tale and people would know that if they invested less than an hour in reading the facts.
According to Skeptical Science, Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. Ian Pilmer, renown Australian geologist and a professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, contends that, “Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.”
None of which distracts Gore who has a complete ignorance of science but is well-informed on building personal wealth. Gore grew up rich on Washington’s Embassy Row and then went on to Harvard where he avoided not only the Vietnam draft but also math. After losing an election he went on to make $200 million selling his sky-is-falling routine. And it’s an easy sell.
Obama pulls a number out of a hat that says that 99.5 percent of scientists agree that there is man-made climate change. I doubt you can get 99.5 percent of any group to agree on anything, even the best way to make toast. It is a made up number.
It was a questionnaire mailed to several hundred scientists or quasi scientists, of which only a third replied.
And consider this, one that even the Greens cannot dispute, are the facts stated in the March 27, 2009, issue of The Daily Signal:
Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to?
The truth is climate change has become a religion and an extremist one at that. Some of the behavior of hard core environmentalists is similar to Islam.
According to a March 11 article in London’s Sunday Telegraph:
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning man’s impact on climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges.” Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”
But you will not find these facts on climate change because the mainstream media, like Obama and other former presidents, answer to the globalists.
It is hard to believe that 45 years after Watergate we trust the president of the United States. I suppose it is easier that way and, after all, society provides enough narcotics in pills, booze, weed, gambling and sports we just don’t care. Like the Jews that must have known they were being taken to their death, it had to help that they believed Germany would not do such a thing.
Soon we will know which side of the road Trump is on. Will he be independent and sign laws that make things better for Americans, or will he be a figurehead for the nefarious globalists? Two things should tell us the answer early next year: Trump’s decision on the Keystone Pipeline and whether the Trump administration allows for the spending of billions of dollars combating climate change, something that exists but has nothing to do with man.
Yours in good times and bad,
— John Myers
THIS JUST IN FROM THE CLIMATE DEPOT-- Princeton physicist William Happer says that "if global warming were any other branch of science it would have been abandoned a long time ago."
Climate scientists are, of course, obsessed with man's carbon dioxide emissions. But Happer says this is essentially nonsense.
"All of the geological evidence indicates that CO2 is a minor player" in previous eras of warming, he said last week in a Climate Depot podcast. "We've had ice ages with 10 times more CO2 than we have today. That's not supposed to happen, according to current computer models, but it did happen."