On October 5, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order, FEDERAL LEADERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY, AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE, that sneak-previewed policies toward reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the rest of his time in office. The 15-page executive order, divided into 20 sections, provided strict guidance for all agencies in the executive branch and their interactions with outside organizations. Portions of the executive order follows:
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, and to establish an integrated strategy towards sustainability in the Federal Government and to make reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 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, the General Services Administration, in coordination with the Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies as appropriate, shall review and provide recommendations 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 to provide information that will assist Federal agencies in tracking and reducing scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions related to the supply of products and services to the Government. These recommendations should consider the potential impacts on the procurement process, and the Federal vendor and contractor community including small businesses and other socioeconomic procurement programs. Recommendations should also explore the feasibility of:
(a) requiring vendors and contractors to register with a voluntary registry or organization for reporting greenhouse gas emissions; (b) requiring contractors, as part of a new or revised registration.
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 average over 500 per year, the vast majority of which describe programs to satisfy this Executive Order. Tabulating these News Releases would require tens of thousands of pages. It appears each agency is trying to outperform other agencies in pleasing President Obama’s commands.
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 Times columnist 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 six years is in the trillions of dollars.
Educational 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.
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.Sincerely,
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?
- 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.
Kind regards,
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.
Corporate Compliance
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 encouraging greater action by government, consumers and other corporations.
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 in California (30 percent tax credit) and North Carolina (35 percent tax credit) that make solar facilities practically cost free.
The losers are all federal taxpayers and taxpayers in solar friendly states. No doubt these corporations will highlight their renewable energy bona fides when responding to requests for proposal for federal government services or products.
Alas, this little known Executive Order has produced policies that have added trillions to the tax burdens of U. S. citizens the past six years. All accomplished bypassing Congress. All representing an easy budget cut for a new Administration serious about cutting the deficit.
—————-
James H. Rust, professor of nuclear engineering and policy advisor The Heartland Institute, blogs at MasterResource.
If the non-fossil fuel rules are adding trillions in taxpayer costs, that means trillions in increased wages and benefits to American workers. Prior to Obama taking office, two thirds of oil was imported with that money paying for jobs outside the US, including hundreds of millions in taxpayer money going to nations that have funded terrorists against the West, the Arab and Africa oil producers (not Iran which is Persian and embargoed). Electricity can not be imported on tanker ships so with the exception of nuclear and hydro power from Canada must be generated by capital assets built and run by US workers.
The coal industry has been increasing the pollution and destroying the land more completely to slash jobs in the coal industry since Reagan took office, so rules forcing switches to more expensive US labor cost energy means a lot more US jobs and wages and incomes.
If cheap is the priority, then why aren’t the wages and bonuses of the upper management of corporations being slashed, along with dividends to shareholders. Why should 90% of workers and other people suffer low wages and pollution for the benefit of the high income top 10% who can easily pay ten times as much for energy?
There is an ironic twist, in that clearly Obama, all through this woeful presidency with it has greatly benefited from the shale industry boom which is helping the US economy no end, cheap and plentiful fossil fuel – cheap gas for the motor! and what’s not to bloody well like?
On the other hand. this son of Chicago is a consummate political player as are they all from that neck of the woods, recall if you will the Daleys or indeed, Al Capone?
The Washington/NYC political elite, that liberal mulch of ‘bleeding hearts America’ has had the country in a stranglehold of false premise and perceptions since the early civil rights movements of the Sixties.
‘Liberal America’, their grip has only tightened since those heady crusading days during that pill popping decade, though, it should be remembered just who it was that took them to war in IndoChina and – it wasn’t a Republican.
With Hollywood, as their major promulgator of liberal emoting and hand wringing left wing politics, not least banging on ever so loudly beating the drum for the green agenda. He [Obama], was an up and coming legal bod from Chicago who got oh so very lucky and very much bought into the liberal false consciousness, supping the Kool Aid in a big way.
By God, now because he is at heart, a clueless and shallow leader who cannot, has not made a decision in 8 fallow years. Quite preposterously, he’s promoting the green agenda and thus undermining Americas industrial resurgence! By going off to Paris – it is his only chance at leaving some sort of legacy – he wants to be remembered as the President who rode the shale gas-oil boom and then ‘switched off’ America.
Having benefited so much from a fossil fuel bonanza, this double dealing president – Obama now seeks to limit fossil fuel usage!
In so many sly ways, Obama brings forwards legislation to hamstring all future presidents thus and in attempting to enact this process Obama will seal Americas fate with [see above] some lunatic green policies and all of it – will help drag America down and jobs and manufacturing with it.
The man is a menace not only to America but he threatens the chances of western energy security and therefore weakens, sabotages if you like the stability and future prosperity of all western industrial nations – not least my country – Britain.
Get thee gone Barry, we’ve had it with your lies and your obeisance to the liberal and corporate wet dream of the end of the nation state and central government for the world, megalomania – it gets them all in the end.
Not only that but they are doubling down on the hoax of the hole in the ozone and the EPA wants to ban all Freon. The initial ban was based on computer models and the models were wrong. As on e scientist noted, models are useful for generating and testing hypotheses, but cannot be used to draw conclusions about the real world.
[…] [Originally published at MasterResource] […]
President Obama said, “Thanks, in part, to the investments we’ve made, there are already parts of America where clean power from the wind or the sun is finally cheaper than dirty conventional power.” Yet, his climate change ally Bill Gates, in the November issue of The Atlantic magazine makes clear that this is a “misleadingly mindless statement.”
When President Obama has to rely on lies to promote his climate agenda, you know it’s a bad idea. Wind and solar are about producing expensive unreliable electricity that has no hope of making any difference in global climate; Keystone is an oil pipeline. The US uses almost zero oil for electrical production. The two are unrelated except by lobbyists who want to fool people who don’t know where electricity comes from.