Why Everything The Media Tells You About Fracking Is Wrong…

On this week’s show, we were privileged to speak with Ann McElhinney, co-creater of “Fracknation” and “GosnellMovie.com.” To put it lightly, the broad knows her stuff when it comes to fracking. Not only did Ann affirmatively state that “fracking is a miracle,” but she went on to explain why everything the media tells us about fracking is wrong.

Ann is an interviewer’s dream come true, an incredible journalist, and someone you should support. Please consider donating something, anything, to her newest project (the most successful indiegogo.com project ever btw), GosnellMovie.com.

Be sure to listen to the full podcast below, and subscribe for free on iTunes (or Soundcloud) so you don’t miss a beat!

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Exposed: The Obama Climate Monarchy

aradaphotography / Shutterstock.com aradaphotography / Shutterstock.com

ISIS terrorists continue to butcher people while hacking into a French television network. Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons remains on track. In a nation of 320 million people, American businesses hired only 126,000 workers in March, amid a pathetic 62% labor participation rate. Wages and incomes are stagnant.

And yet, President Obama remains fixated on one obsession: dangerous manmade climate change. He blames it for everything from global temperatures that have been stable for 18 years, to hurricanes that have not made US landfall for nearly 9.5 years, and even asthma and allergies. He is determined to use it to impose energy, environmental, and economic policies that will “fundamentally transform” our nation.

He launched his war on coal with a promise that companies trying to build new coal-fired power plants would go bankrupt; implemented policies that caused oil and gas production to plunge 6% on federal lands, even as it rose 60% on state and private lands; proclaimed that he will compel the United States to slash its carbon dioxide emissions 28% below 2005 levels by 2025, and 80% by 2050; and wants electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket.” His Environmental Protection Agency has led the charge.

The EPA has targeted power plants that emit barely 3% of all mercury in US air and water, saying this will prevent IQ losses of an undetectable “0.00209 points.” On top of its recent “Clean Power Plan,” the EPA is taking over what used to be state roles, demanding that states meet CO2-reduction mandates by reorganizing the “production, distribution, and use of electricity.” The agency justifies this latest power grab through a tortured 1,200-page reinterpretation of a 290-word section of the Clean Air Act.

The injuries, abuses, and usurpations have become too numerous to count, and involve nearly every federal agency – as the President seeks to make the states and Executive and Judicial Branches irrelevant in his new monarchical “do as I tell you, because I say so, or else” system of government.

Now even the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is getting involved, by dramatically retooling the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA requires that federal agencies consider the impacts of their significant decision-making actions on “the quality of the human environment,” anytime they issue permits for projects, provide government funding, or conduct the projects themselves.

The law has avoided many needless impacts but has also enabled activists to delay or block projects they oppose on ideological grounds. The new White House/CEQ “guidelines” were issued on Christmas Eve 2014 to minimize public awareness and response. They require that federal agencies henceforth consider potential impacts on climate change, whenever they provide permits, approvals, or funding for any federal, state, or private sector projects, on the assumption that such projects will always affect Earth’s climate.

Problems with the new diktats are far too numerous for a single article, but several demand discussion.

First, CEQ uses US carbon dioxide emissions as proxy for climate change. This assumes CO2 is now the dominant factor in climate and weather events, and all the powerful natural forces that ruled in past centuries, millennia, and eons are irrelevant. It presumes any increases in US “greenhouse gases” correlate directly with national and global climate and weather events, and any changes will be harmful. It also considers emissions from China and other countries to be irrelevant to any agency calculations.

Second, CEQ employs the same “social cost of carbon” analyses that other agencies are using to justify appliance, vehicle, and other efficiency and emission standards. This SCC assessment will now examine alleged international harm up to 300 years in the future, from single project emissions in the United States, despite it being impossible to demonstrate any proximate relationship between asserted global climate changes and any US project emissions (which are generally minuscule globally).

Moreover, the entire SCC analysis is based on arbitrary, fabricated, exaggerated, and manipulated costs, with no benefits assigned or acknowledged for using hydrocarbons to improve, safeguard, and save countless lives – or for the role that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide plays in improving crop and other plant growth, thereby feeding more people, greening our planet, and bolstering wildlife habitats.

Third, the expensive, time-consuming, useless, impossible exercise is made even more absurd by CEQ’s proposed requirement that agencies somehow calculate the adverse global climatic impacts of any federally approved project that could emit up to 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide or its equivalents per year. A single shopping mall, hospital, or stretch of busy highway could meet this threshold – triggering endless “paralysis by analysis,” environmentalist litigation, delays, and cost overruns.

Fourth, CEQ also wants agencies to somehow evaluate “upstream” and “downstream” emissions. In cases reviewing highway or hospital projects, this would entail examining emissions associated with mining, processing, shipping, and using cement, steel, other building materials, and heavy equipment before and during construction – and then assessing emissions associated with people and goods that might conceivably be transported to or from the facility or along the highway following construction.

CEQ likewise wants project proponents to offset these alleged impacts with equally spurious mitigation projects, which will themselves by subjected to still more analyses, contention, litigation, and delays.

Fifth, the proposed CEQ guidelines would supposedly evaluate any and all adverse impacts allegedly caused by climate changes supposedly resulting from fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions. But they do not require federal agencies to assess harms resulting from projects delayed or blocked because of the new climate directives. Thus agencies would endlessly ponder rising seas and more frequent and/or severe hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts that they might attribute to particular projects.

However, they would not consider the many ways people would be made less safe by an analytical process that results in more serious injuries and deaths, when highway improvements, better levees and other flood protections, modern hospitals, and other important facilities are delayed or never built.

Nor has CEQ factored in the roles of ideologically motivated anti-development bureaucrats in the federal agencies – or the ways Big Green campaigns and lawsuits are sponsored by wealthy far-left foundations, Russian money laundered through a Bermuda law firm, and even grants from the government agencies.

Sixth, in many cases, the CEQ rules could actually be counterproductive even to the Administration’s purported energy and environmental goals. Its war on coal is intended to replace coal mines and power plants with “more climate-friendly” natural gas. However, CEQ’s new guidelines for methane and carbon dioxide could delay or prevent leasing, drilling, fracking, production, pipelining, and export of new gas. That would hardly seem a desirable outcome – unless the real purpose is to keep fossil fuels in the ground, increase energy prices, compel a faster transition to unreliable wind and solar power, cause more brownouts and blackouts, destroy jobs, reduce living standards, and keep more people dependent on government welfare and thus likely to vote Democrat.

NEPA is supposed to improve the overall “quality of the human environment,” and thus human health and welfare. That means all its components, not merely those the President and his Executive Branch agencies want to focus on, as they seek to use climate change to justify shutting down as much fossil fuel use as possible, in an economy that is still 82% dependent on hydrocarbons.

The CEQ and White House violate the letter, spirit, and intent of NEPA when they abuse it to protect us from exaggerated or imaginary climate risks decades from now – by hobbling job creation, families, human health and welfare, and environmental quality tomorrow. That their actions will impact poor, minorities, and working classes most of all makes the CEQ proposal even more pernicious.

When will our Congress, courts, and state legislatures step up to the plate, do their jobs, and rein in this long Train of Abuses and Usurpations?

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The Trouble With Google Defining “Truth”

Frederic Legrand - COMEO / Shutterstock.com

With its $385 billion share value, Google, Inc. has bumped ExxonMobil to become America’s No. 2 ranked company in market capitalization.

That may not be a good thing. A February article in New Scientist announced that Google wants to rank websites based on facts, not links; and writer Hal Hodson said, “The internet is stuffed with garbage. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.”

Not surprisingly, the idea of changing page rank from popularity to “truthfulness,” based on a Google-made “knowledge vault,” did not go down well.

Fox News reported: “Google’s plan to rank websites is raising censorship concerns.” Douglass Kennedy opened with: “They say you’re entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. It’s a concept not everyone is comfortable with.”

They’re saying we’re only entitled to Google’s “facts,” which completely short-circuits how slippery “facts” can be and naively equates facts with truth. Ask any lawyer about truth.

Today’s climate wars consist of arguments between highly qualified scientists about facts that some sincerely believe are true, and some sincerely believe are false, each for solid reasons. It should be an honest debate among equals, but it’s degenerated into a power play by alarmists to kill debate to drive favored public policies that are pushed by certain politicians and their social and political base.

Google’s truth plan is not so simple. Facts are statements about existence. Statements about existence can be true or false. Existence itself – your kitchen sink or the climate or whatever – can’t be true or false; it just exists. Say anything you want about existence, and it won’t change a thing. It still just exists. Existence doesn’t give a darn what you think about it. Facts are statements about existence, and statements are always arguable.

But get everyone to believe Google Facts, and you can enforce political policies worth trillions of dollars to climate profiteers – and impose punitive, economy-strangling, job-killing regulations on millions of families.

You can see where this is going.

Imagine: Big Google the Universal Truthsayer. That’s as scary as “Mr. Dark” in Ray Bradbury’s 1962 novel Something Wicked This Way Comes, only worse. It’s the perfect machine to kill all dissent and wither the Internet into a wasteland of groupthink, susceptible to disinformation campaigns from any power center from the CIA to the rich bosses of Google, Inc. to Google’s political friends and allies.

What about those rich bosses? Google’s two co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, created a corporate foundation in 2005. The Google Foundation has 2013 assets of $72,412,693, gave grants of $7.9 million, and added $29.4 million from corporate profits.

Three of Google’s top-ten recipients are key climate alarmists: the World Wildlife Fund ($5 million); Energy Foundation ($2.6 million); and the rabidly anti-fracking Natural Resources Defense Council ($2.5 million).

NRDC is particularly influential because it also has received $3.01 million in taxpayer-financed Environmental Protection Agency grants since 2009 and has 50 employees on 40 federal advisory committees. NRDC has 33 employees on 21 EPA committees, and more in six other agencies.

The big gun in Google philanthropy is Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, whose Schmidt Family Foundation ($312 million, 2013 assets) is a major armory for groups that attack skeptics of dangerous manmade climate change. The Schmidt Foundation has given $67,147,849 in 295 grants to 180 recipients since it was endowed in 2007.     

Top Schmidt money went to Climate Central ($8.15 million), a group of activist climate scientists bolstered by $1,387,372 in EPA grants made since 2009.

Schmidt also gave $3.25 million to the Energy Foundation, which was almost superfluous since EF is practically the Mother Ship of green grants, with $1,157,046,016 given via 28,705 grants to 11,866 recipients since 1999.

Among the shadier grants in the Schmidt portfolio are anti-fracking, anti-fossil-fuel grants totaling $1.19 million to the Sustainable Markets Foundation, a shell corporation that gives no recorded grants but funnels money to climate and anti-fracking organizations such as Bill McKibben’s 350.org–so that the donors are not traceable.

Schmidt supported the far-left Tides Foundation empire with $975,000 for an anti-consumer film, “The Story of Stuff.” It gave the Sierra Club $500,000 for anti-natural gas activism, the Center for Investigative Reporting $985,000 for an anti-coal film, and so forth. Schmidt’s list goes on for pages.

With all the massive resources of wealth and power alarmists have, we must ask: Why do they give so much to destroy the climate debate and the debaters? What are they afraid of?

Perhaps they have staked so much money and reputation on manmade climate catastrophe claims that they are terrified by the prospect that inconvenient evidence, data, debate. and scientists could destroy their carefully constructed climate house of cards.

Or perhaps it’s what Eric Schmidt said at January’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, when he was asked for his prediction on the future of the web. “I will answer very simply that the Internet will disappear.”

How? The mature technology will be wearable, give us interactive homes and cars, and simply fade into the background – to become something that we all have, that most of us don’t really know (or care) very much about, as long as it can do whatever we want.

That’s the view from the pinnacle of wealth and power. On the ground, the joke is on Google.

Michael Humphrey, Forbes contributor and instructor at Colorado State University, sees younger people abandoning the public forum in favor of one-to-one connectivity. He says they don’t trust the Internet.

Why? Millennials say the Internet is cheapening language, it is stunting curiosity (because answers come so easily), we are never bored so we lose creativity, it steals innocence too quickly, it makes us impulsive with our buying and talking, it is creating narcissists, it creates filter bubbles that limit discovery, it hurts local businesses, it is filled with false evidence, it desensitizes us to tragedy, and it makes us lonely.

They want the real world.

Google that.

Ron Arnold is executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and coauthor of “Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.”

Photo credit: Frederic Legrand – COMEO / Shutterstock.com

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The Inconvenient Truth About The California Drought

Dan Holm / Shutterstock.com

On Wednesday April 1, 2015, Gov. Jerry Brown declared via ‘executive order’ that mandatory water restrictions would be imposed upon all California residents, farms, businesses, cities, and towns in the hopes of reducing water usage by 25%. And even though this mandate coincided with April Fool’s Day, I don’t think too many people were laughing.

Brown stated that “we’re in a new era… the idea of your nice little green grass getting lots of water every day, that’s going to be a thing of the past.”

Someone being brutally honest might have instead said: :we’re in a new era, that of the recklessly ignorant environmentalist.”

Assuming there is a 25% reduction in water use, the savings might amount to approximately 1.5 million acre-feet of water (an acre foot of water equals about 325,000 gallons) over nine months, according to state officials.

But the trusty Governor forget to mention the other devastating news that will be affecting Californians and all Americans are a result of his ‘executive order’; the cost of eating will be going up considerably!

Nevertheless, the most important question might be the one that is not being asked: why is there a water shortage?

The blanket ‘politically correct’ (yet incorrect) answer that has been repeated over and over by the Marxist-environmentalists is ‘Global Warming.’ However, as a result of the emergence of the historical climate data painting a very different picture, their latest mantra has morphed to ‘Climate Change.’ One of the best-known meteorologists has called the junk science behind these theories “pure baloney.”

Furthering this point, Dr. William Happer agrees with Dr. Coleman that there is no Global Warming and that the climate of the earth has actually been much warmer with 10 times the amount of CO2, prior to the industrial age of man.

The fact is the earth has been much, much warmer and with far more CO2 than we see today; and it has also been much, much colder as well. The notion that man is causing ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ is a fiction of socialist-environmentalists and belongs in Grimm’s Fairy Tales. The climate of the earth has changed constantly over millions of years, and man has had nothing to do with that change. However, there have been documented changes attributable to man that have absolutely affected the amount of water that Californians and others have and can use.

Let’s take a look at some real culprits for the water shortages, which augment the naturally occurring change in climate evolution and weather patterns (which is nothing new). What is new is man and his development of land. Land development and planning is fairly simple compared to other more complex problems. However, land development and planning is nonetheless made complex by politics and greed.

Under New Management

When the leftist-dominated environmentalist movement became popular in the 1960s, coincidentally with the heavy infiltration of Marxist operators and professors into America, things in America changed. The environmentalist movement found synergy with the socialist-Marxist movement; and given the huge influence on college campuses then (and now), many areas of thought were modified in favor of this movement, including things like land-use planning, forestry, water-resource planning, and fisheries management. Generally, environmentalists favor the lives of trees, fish, and frogs over the lives of humans; and their actions speak volumes in this regard. Do these people care if you and your children have enough water to drink and cool off in the summer? Heck no! They are more interested in seeing a pollywog or a fish 500 miles away having the water, without compromise.

By the time the environmentalist movement took hold over most government planning and regulatory agencies (EPA, etc.), earlier planners had already built out a great portion of the lands in California (and elsewhere), especially in the most habitable areas of central and southern California. Additionally, California agricultural exports became and remain America’s leading supplier. As a part of that earlier planning (1945-1965), many dams were built in order to support the land-use planning, development, and vision at that time. The dams that had been built prior to that time solved many problems related to the development and use of the land, including preventing flood damage and storing water from winter rain for use by the growing populations; and agriculture. Dams, and the lakes they form also provide habitat for scores of wildlife and recreational opportunities, and produce thousands of megawatts of clean-green energy.

But with the advent of ‘environmentalism’, dams were seen as a very bad thing by these same environmentalists–as well as the planned construction of the new dams needed to keep up with water needs. It even became trendy to protest anything that might change the living conditions for almost any biological organism except humans! Instead of making small adjustments in wildlife and resource management practices that would dovetail with existing planning, the management trends and practices proffered by environmentalists, who made it a point to insert themselves into the process, were draconian, moratorium-styled changes. The lives and livelihoods of men and women meant less to these environmentalists than some poorly understood insect or owl.

In the 1970s, as a result of the ‘spotted owl’ debacle, I watched entire families go bankrupt as cities in the Pacific Northwest fell into decline due to skyrocketing unemployment that affected tens of thousands of people in Oregon, Washington, and California. Suddenly, everything was either protected or completely off-limits as the Federal government jumped into the environmentalists’ game, seeing an opportunity to own and control more public lands–thus further exacerbating the unfolding economic problems across the board.

Federal forests suddenly fell under ‘new management’, and this is important. The environmentalists had quite handily convinced the Government that they had all the answers–in this case, to forest and wildlife management policies. Of course, this ‘sway’ was a result of their infiltration on the academic side; the professors who were teaching resource management and writing the college textbooks on the subjects were mostly socialist-environmentalists. In the case of forest management practices in regard to the spotted owl and timber harvests, they basically adopted a ‘hands-off’ position and, for all intents and purposes, shut loggers out of the forests. So forests that previously were carefully managed by loggers, whose lives depended upon renewable harvests, were left untouched and became so severely overgrown that we started having forest fires that consumed one million acres of forests annually in the Pacific Northwest, burning for months on end. So much for the spotted owls and their virgin forest habitats, which are now gone forever; ashes wash down with the muds of erosion into the streams and rivers and cover the spawning beds for thousands of fish, which are also now in decline as a result. In the past, the loggers’ management practices prevented such devastating fires and catastrophic erosion; and the owls, as well as all the rest of the wildlife, flourished in harmony with loggers and logging.

But this is what happens when you exchange ‘generational knowledge’ (that had been compiled though actual experience for over a century) with a college graduate with a few years of textbook learning. And it remains an unfolding disaster to this day; and less trees means less water in the water-table.

Finally, however, some people in government are starting to advocate what loggers knew four decades ago when the environmentalists showed up on the scene: college graduates don’t have the experience that 4 generations of loggers who lived in the woods had flowing in their veins!

So this leads back to our unfolding water shortage in California; the following is a summary of the executive order issued by the Governor:

For the first time in state history, the Governor has directed the State Water Resources Control Board to implement mandatory water reductions in cities and towns across California to reduce water usage by 25 percent. This savings amounts to approximately 1.5 million acre-feet of water over the next nine months, or nearly as much as is currently in Lake Oroville.

To save more water now, the order will also:

  • Replace 50 million square feet of lawns throughout the state with drought tolerant landscaping in partnership with local governments;
  • Direct the creation of a temporary, statewide consumer rebate program to replace old appliances with more water and energy efficient models;
  • Require campuses, golf courses, cemeteries and other large landscapes to make significant cuts in water use; and
  • Prohibit new homes and developments from irrigating with potable water unless water-efficient drip irrigation systems are used, and ban watering of ornamental grass on public street medians.

Notice what’s missing in Gov. Brown’s solution? What’s missing is the most common and well-proven way to store winter rainwater (much of which is not required to maintain fish and wildlife, and just runs into the sea) for mankind: construction of new dams!

But what some people don’t realize is that Gov. Brown is in a real jam; how can he possibly talk about the best single solution (more dams) for creating more available water (and jobs, by the way) when he is currently supporting the removal of several perfectly good dams in Siskiyou County? And adding insult to injury, California taxpayers will foot the bill for this insane dam removal project, costing approximately one billion ($1,000,000,000.00) dollars, which could be used to build more water storage dams instead.

These particular dams hold approximately 135,000 acre-feet of fresh water; that’s nearly 44 billion gallons of fresh water that may disappear at a time when California desperately needs more water, not less! These dams also produce about 150 megawatts of clean-green electrical power for Californians. What kind of lunacy does this potential dam removal action represent? The simple answer is greed!

California needs more dams (and the water they can provide), not fewer. Bad management of the People’s resources is at the root of these and many other problems we all face and, according to socialist-environmentalists, must endure. And for Californians who are being shorted on their water by a short-sighted politician, I think it’s a good bet that the bigwigs will have all the water they want for their spas, pools, and lawns–regardless of rationing. Think about the 44 billion gallons of fresh water these people want to carelessly drain into the sea, and then email or phone Gov. Brown and give him a piece of your mind! And if you live outside California, this same paradigm is (or soon will be) affecting you as well; so make it a point to become proactive while you can!

Photo credit: Dan Holm / Shutterstock.com

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Liberals, Morality, And ‘Global Warming’

ChameleonsEye / Shutterstock.com

You’ve got to admit, liberals are masters at describing every initiative they launch as “the moral thing to do.” Their campaign for draconian energy regulations and a new global warming treaty is no exception. Protecting people, wildlife, and ecosystems from climate catastrophes is the greatest moral cause of our time, alarmist scientists, activists, politicians, bureaucrats, clerics, and journalists insist. Rubbish.

It has nothing to do with morality. It’s all about money, power, and control. It narrowly defines “morality” to ignore the incredible benefits that fossil fuels and electricity bring to people everywhere – while dismissing the enormous harm their policies will wreak on families and ecological values that they profess to care so much about. And it makes no mention of the fact that they will rarely, if ever, be held accountable for their falsehoods and fraudulent science, or the damage and deaths they cause.

On March 31, President Obama promised to slash America’s carbon dioxide emissions 28% below 2005 emission levels by 2025 and 80% by 2050, taking us back to Civil War-era emission levels, 150 years ago. He wants U.S. taxpayers to contribute our “fair share” to a new UN $100-billion-per-year UN slush fund to help poor countries adapt to and mitigate rising seas, storms, and other climate change disasters that our plant-fertilizing CO2 emissions allegedly cause. He instructed his federal agencies to implement a host of new rules prior to the December 2015 United Nations climate conference in Paris.

Mr. Obama’s EPA will use “Clean Power Plan” and other regulations to shutter more coal-fired generating plants, issue new methane rules for landfills and natural gas production, funnel countless millions of dollars to activist and propaganda groups, and use sue-and-settle lawsuits to impose even tighter restrictions. FEMA will require that states use CO2-based computer models to determine how manmade climate change threatens communities, if they want disaster preparedness funding.

The Council on Environmental Quality will require that all applicants for federal project permits fully evaluate greenhouse gas emissions and potential impacts on climate change, to the satisfaction of bureaucrats and litigious Big Green pressure groups. The Department of Energy will issue new efficiency standards that double the cost of pickup trucks and appliances, and spend more taxpayer billions on wind, solar, and biofuel loans and subsidies. The Interior Department will close more federal lands to drilling and exempt more wind and solar projects from endangered species and other environmental laws.

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation and World Bank will refuse to lend money for coal-fired power plants, and even most gas-fueled generators and hydroelectric facilities, in developing countries.

These actions will have disastrous consequences. According to the Heritage Foundation, NERA economic consultants, and other experts, the EPA’s actions alone will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and a $100-billion loss in gross domestic product. By 2030, America’s electricity output will drop by nearly 10% even as we add 54 million people to our population. Brownouts and blackouts will occur regularly; and we will be told to get used to using expensive electricity when it’s available, instead of when we need it.

Poor, minority, and blue-collar families will have to find thousands of dollars a year for soaring electricity, vehicle, and appliance costs. Small businesses will have to find tens of thousands of dollars to keep the heat and lights on. Factories, malls, school districts, hospitals, and cities will have to pay millions more.

Millions of middle class workers will get laid off – in coal mines, power plants, factories, shops, and other businesses. Entire families and communities will be impoverished. Bread winners lucky enough to find work will be forced to work multiple jobs, commute longer distances, and suffer severe sleep deprivation.

Families will have to cope with more stress, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and spousal and child abuse. Nutrition and medical care will suffer. More people will have strokes and heart attacks. More will die. But the White House, the EPA, and other federal agencies studiously ignore these impacts. The only moral issue they want to talk about is alleged impacts from exaggerated and fabricated manmade climate change.

Two-thirds of Florida’s endangered manatees survive cold winters by huddling in warm waters that flow from coal-fired power plants. EPA’s plant closures could cause hundreds of them to die, while millions of birds and bats will be slaughtered every year by proliferating wind turbines.

Meanwhile, thousands of elderly people perish every winter from hypothermia because they can no longer afford to heat their home properly, due to soaring electricity costs under Britain’s climate policies.

In poor countries, millions already die every year from lung and intestinal diseases because of polluted air from open cooking fires, filthy water, spoiled food, substandard hospitals, and squalid living conditions – because billions still do not have access to electricity. Imagine your life following hurricanes or other natural disasters that make electricity and safe water unavailable for a week or month. Then picture living that way for decades on end. White House, World Bank, and OPIC policies will save people from “climate disasters” decades from now by killing them tomorrow. This, they pass off as morality.

In the years since EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972, tens of millions of Africans and Asians died from malaria. Now his daughter is promoting similarly deadly policies as lead author for the National Climate Assessment, which hypes every exaggerated and imaginary climate scare imaginable. Other Big Green and Climate Crisis radicals oppose GMO crops and chemical fertilizers, and insist that starving, energy deprived families limit their living standards to what is dictated by climate activists and supported by wind, solar, and biofuels. The death tolls continue to mount.

African Development Bank’s president Donald Kaberuka says poor nations will no longer tolerate these hypocritical, lethal policies. His bank will continue loaning money for coal-fired generating units. But in a perverse irony, the absence of World Bank and OPIC money means those projects will not have sufficient funding to install modern, readily available pollution controls. So millions of families will finally have electricity and won’t be sickened by wood and dung fires, but new pollutants will needlessly afflict them.

Japan is also financing coal-fired power plants in Japan, India, and Bangladesh – often using Green Climate Fund money! It points out that these high-efficiency units burn coal with less pollution and fewer carbon dioxide emissions than older plants – and stresses the importance of helping impoverished countries get reliable, affordable electricity to create jobs, improve living standards, and save lives.

China, India, Germany, Poland, and other countries are also building coal-fueled power plants at a steady clip. And Russia says it will “comply” with any new treaty primarily by emphasizing CO2 reductions due to absorption by forests. At this rate, the United States will soon be the only nation that strangles its economy and imperils people’s health and welfare in the name of stopping climate change.

But the Obama Administration is imposing its authoritarian policies anyway – and justifying them by falsifying temperature data and ignoring the reality that: (1) rising carbon dioxide levels are improving crop and tree growth; (2) temperature, hurricane, sea ice, and other trends contradict climate models and manmade disaster hysteria; and (3) any human influences on the climate are drowned out by the sun, deep ocean circulation patterns, and other powerful natural forces. No wonder alarmists won’t debate skeptics.

Earth’s climate and weather will continue changing because the forces driving them are always in flux. We simply have to adjust to them. But Obama prefers the Lewis Carroll approach to climate and morality.

“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less,” Humpty Dumpty told Alice, “The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things,” Alice replied. No, Humpty responded. “The question is, who is to be master, that’s all.”

We the People must not let Obama & Co. be our master. Congress can and should refuse to ratify any climate treaty. It can and should defund these totalitarian initiatives. The next president can and should review and revoke every one. States can and should challenge them in court and refuse to knuckle under.

Photo credit: ChameleonsEye / Shutterstock.com

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom