“Climate alarmism cannot be understood outside of the long-standing, long-debunked Malthusian view of man as a market failure, a planetary failure. The last half-century’s litany of alarm marches on, with one failed prognostication morphing into another.”

“The Planet Doesn’t Have Time for This,” screams the headline of a recent New York Times Sunday Review. “President Trump is in charge at a crucial moment for dealing with the climate crisis,” the subtitle reads. “We may never recover.”

The article by Bill McKibben begins:

President Trump’s environmental onslaught will have immediate, dangerous effects. He has vowed to reopen coal mines and moved to keep the dirtiest power plants open for many years into the future. Dirty air, the kind you get around coal-fired power plants, kills people.

and ends:

We can hope other world leaders will pick up some of the slack.

“The battle over whether man-made or natural forces are the primary driving force behind global warming and climate change will likely become more contentious in the next few years. The key point is that the world’s population is at greater risk of serious harm from colder temperatures rather than warm temperatures.”

“Since the EPA’s ruling, the effort to find a solution to the wood-burning stoves remains elusive. As the editors of the local Fairbanks newspaper put it, ‘The borough faces two unpalatable alternatives: More stringent restrictions on home heating devices that could impact residents’ ability to heat their homes affordably, or choosing to stand pat and accept a host of costly economic sanctions and health effects to residents.'”

I previously commented on a New York Times column by personal health writer Jane Brody (highlighting recent studies showing that cold temperatures cause more deaths than heat spells). …

“As a first priority, the Trump Administration must review, revise, reject or even rescind the SCC, and reduce its values well below what Obama used – perhaps even to zero or negative numbers. Doing so will destroy the justification for many expensive, intrusive, punitive, useless, counterproductive regulations.”

“The benefit estimates … will remain orders of magnitude larger than any reasonable SCC estimates, which means the B-C ratios will also remain very high.”

The Obama Administration aggressively used a Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) scheme to justify federal regulations pertaining to carbon-based fuels, carbon dioxide and methane emissions, coal mine and pipeline permit denials, energy development foreign aid, and many other actions.

While “SCC” may sound esoteric or academic, it is a critical concept. Without the artificial and inflated SCC estimates, many recent energy and environmental regulations could not have been justified or promulgated.…

Upon the election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States, the UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton 3rd Viscount of Brenchley proposed a plan for fundamental reform of climate science and climate policy.

With climate disengagement becoming a clear Trump priority, Monckton’s guide is more pertinent than ever.

—————-

1. U.S. withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, from the Paris climate agreement and from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The President of the United States should invite the Secretary of State to serve upon the Secretary General of the United Nations, qua Depositary, immediate notification of withdrawal from the Framework Convention on Climate Change and from all protocols or agreements thereunder, including the Paris climate agreement, in terms of Article 25 [withdrawal] of the Convention, which provides for a year’s delay before the withdrawal takes effect.…