[Editor Note: Part I yesterday outlined the continuing problems of eco-imperialism at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which uses taxpayer dollars to pursue Obama-era climate objectives. The post ended with the tension of such deep state eco-imperialism with humanitarian ends. Part II today examines the negative impacts of renewable energies from taxpayer subsidies, as well as USAID’s ignoring the true issue of infectious diseases.]

“The Climate Change Strategy is a green cancer that has spread throughout USAID. It is eco-imperialist, carbon colonialist and callously inhumane. It violates the most basic human right to have access to the modern energy, agricultural, disease control, and other technologies that create the jobs, living standards, leisure time, health, prosperity and longevity that we in developed nations almost take as our birthright.”

Problem 2: Ecological Problems of USAID Energy Subsidies

Obama era climate and sustainability policies also fail every ecological test.…

The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is an informal coalition of individuals and organizations interested in improving national, state, and local energy and environmental policies. Our premise is that technical matters like these should be addressed by using Real Science (please consult WiseEnergy.org for more information).

A key element of AWED’s efforts is public education. Towards that end, every three weeks we put together a newsletter to balance what is found in the mainstream media about energy and the environment. We appreciate MasterResource for their assistance in publishing this information.

Some of the more important articles in this issue are:

Wind and Solar Require Massive Subsidies

Renewable energy seeks demand, investment to survive Trump squeeze

Technical Experts: Wind Turbines Pose “Significant Danger” To Environment

Video: Wind Turbine Infrasound

Even ‘clean’ and ‘green’ energy have an environmental impact

Energy development: free market purists vs the state

The Electric Power Struggle

Two North Texas wind projects cancelled due to military concerns

Magical Wind Power: Illusions versus Reality

Ontario’s new premier must save the province

The BP 2018 Statistical Review, electricity and CO2 emissions

China’s Renewable Energy Growth Isn’t as Good as It Seems

Fearing Climate Change, Experts Say Nuclear Industry Faces Collapse

Successful passage of an important US Nuclear bill

If Nuclear Power Is So Safe, Why Are We So Afraid Of It?…

“United States withdrawal [from the Paris accord] could become a specific excuse for countries that were hesitant to join in the first place…. The second thing is withdrawal of our financial support and technical support for other countries, particularly developing countries, for both mitigation and adaptation.”

– John Holdren, May 31, 2017

John Holdren is the proverbial gift-that-keeps-on-giving. He has toned down–but not repudiated–his past of exaggerated alarms. (Remember his worry about one billion climate-related deaths by 2020?)

In the wake of President’s Trump decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, Kiley Korth of the Center for American Progress interviewed Obama’s former science advisor. The entire interview is reprinted below in light of the new story line from ThinkProgress that Trump’s decision was really not that important! So Holdren then versus ThinkProgress now.…

“Substituting CO2 taxation for existing levies is not the tax debate from the conservative/free market side. The debate is about the flat tax versus a consumption tax as fundamental tax reform. And, hypothetically, if Malthusian decarbonization were to come about, what would be revenue-neutral?”

“In Neeley’s defense, he switched sides assuming that Obama energy policy would continue at the federal level. That way, he could argue [in his lucrative new position] that a CO2 tax was the least worst policy compared to cap-and-trade and existing command-and-control (still a weak argument). But Trump won, and the tide went out… [leaving] Neeley exposed an energy/climate progressive (statist).”

“The conservative/libertarian position is to not price or otherwise regulate carbon dioxide. Eliminate intervention, do not introduce it. Reject Mathusianism’s ultimately anti-humanistic, deep-ecology worldview.”

In “Confessions of a former Carbon Tax Skeptic,” Josiah Neeley of the pretend free-market R Street Institute, pens his latest case for supporting a federal tax on carbon dioxide (CO2).…