“Big polluters must be rubbing their hands in glee that carbon market mechanisms, which further dilute the already weak and inadequate Paris emissions targets, are back on the agenda,” said Dipti Bhatnagar, Climate Justice and Energy Program coordinator for Friends of the Earth International ….

The groups condemned [carbon offsets] as “commodification of the Earth” that enables “climate-destroying business as usual under the pretense of climate action.”

A carbon tax? Emissions trading? Carbon offsets?

Forget all that: climate activists wants something much more comprehensive.

Think global statism from source to sink, even if that means the carbon police ringing your doorbell to make sure you are not using natural gas or firing up the outdoor grill. Remember what Christiana Figueres, former head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, opined back in 2015?…

“Getting out of the Paris climate treaty is the single biggest and most important deregulatory action taken by the Trump administration.”

– Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute, November 8, 2019

The Trump Administration continues to keep its promises when it comes to climate policy. The focus is on free-market adaptation, not alarmist, government-led mitigation, to deal with the uncertainties of future weather events, whether natural or otherwise.

A 277-word press release from The U.S. Department of State, On the U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, is from Secretary Mike Pompeo.

Today the United States began the process to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Per the terms of the Agreement, the United States submitted formal notification of its withdrawal to the United Nations. The withdrawal will take effect one year from delivery of the notification.

“It is not a matter of ‘climate denial’ to be concerned about the opportunity costs or consequences of heavy-handed interventions on liberty and living standards. Or to question the motives of those making such calls, whether for reasons of corporate rent-seeking, or ideological opportunism.” (IEA, below)

“It is not a matter of ‘climate denial’ to highlight that if the worst-case climate science scenarios are correct, adaptation is more likely to preserve life and living standards than mitigation or attempting to shut down all economic activity still dependent on fossil fuels.” (IEA, below)

The climate alarmists are losing, but not for the reason they think. And they are so angry that desperate measures are being undertaken, from civil disobedience to calls for the moral equivalent of book burning.

Climate alarm/forced energy transformation are losing because of consumer preference for affordable, reliable energy, or, in more fundamental terms, the primacy of energy density.…

My September 23, 2019, post, Don’t Debate the ‘Climate Crisis’? (Mann, Dessler, etc. want to assume, not discuss) attracted a critical comment from Master Resource reader David Appell:

Rob, you aren’t honest about what Dessler wrote, and I think you know this. He (obviously) made his point over two tweets, and you only quoted the second of them (“3/” below), out of context.

Professor Dessler in an email added:

… you claim that I don’t want to debate science. The tweet you quoted was one of a string where I make the OPPOSITE statement. However, by quoting it out of context of the surrounding tweets, you misrepresent my position. You also didn’t provide a link to my tweet string, so your readers couldn’t correct your erroneous interpretation. This suggests to me that you KNOW you’re misquoting me.