As part of its plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is targeting the dairy industry to reduce methane emissions in their operations.
This comes despite falling methane emission levels across the economy since 1990.
The White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25 percent by 2020. Although U.S. agriculture only accounts for about 9 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, it makes up a sizeable portion of methane emissions — which is a very potent greenhouse gas.
Some of these methane emissions come from cow flatulence, exhaling and belching — other livestock animals release methane as well.
“Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence,” according to How Stuff Works. “Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day… while others say it’s up to 500 liters… a day. In any case, that’s a lot of methane, an amount comparable to the pollution produced by a car in a day.”
Read the full story at The Daily Caller.
Climate change fanatics (they call it “climate change” now ’cause that whole “global warming” thing didn’t work out too well for them) protesting in front of the White House earlier this month were asked to sign a (bogus) petition to, among other things, lower the temperature of the sun.
This week the environmental movement suffered its biggest defeat since Climategate. And at the hands of its most hated enemy: Big Oil.
Here are the reasons why the court ruling by a US federal judge that Chevron should not have to pay $9.5 billion in damages to victims of oil pollution in Ecuador is a victory for common sense and justice which we should all be celebrating.
[NOTE: This is a condensed excerpt of the full article. To render due respect to the original source numerous, important and well-written parts were omitted. To read the full article go to Brietbart.com.]
1. It’s not about David v Goliath.
If anyone was being bullied here, it was Chevron. As New York lawyer Steven Donziger well knew, it is almost impossible for an oil company to get a fair hearing in a world brainwashed by environmentalist propaganda. Chevron knew this too. It could have settled for much less out of court – and most oil companies in its position probably would have done. However, Chevron’s chief executive John S Watson took the bold and principled decision to fight it all the way.
2. Chevron had done nothing wrong. No really.
The damage was done in the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties in the Oriente region of Ecuador by Texaco and the national oil company Petroecuador.
3. The case against Chevron was rigged.
In 2011, an Ecuadorian court ordered Chevron to pay $19 billion in damages to the native people allegedly poisoned by oil spills. This was subsequently reduced by the Ecuadorian National Court of Justice to $9.5 billion. Chevron appealed on the grounds that the case was fraudulent – extortion of “greenmail” masquerading as concern for the environment. This has now been confirmed by US District Judge Lewis Kaplan in a 500-page ruling.
4. Read the ruling: it’s great entertainment!
As Judge Kaplan says in his highly-readable summary “This case is extraordinary. The facts are many and sometimes complex. They include things that normally only come out of Hollywood…”
4. Donziger’s dodgy past.
“I feel like I have gone over to the dark side” wrote Donziger in one incriminating email. What possibly could have caused this? I make no comment whatsoever on this biographical detail from a profile in The New Yorker. It seems that he belonged to the same Harvard Law School year group as one Barack Obama. Apparently they played basketball together.
5. Green Greed
Donziger stood personally to make $600 million from the litigation should it prove successful.
6. Green parasites.
Among the other organizations shown in a deeply unflattering light by the court ruling is a Colorado-based environmental consultancy – regularly employed by various branches of government – called Stratus Consulting. However, on Donziger’s instructions, the “independent local expert’s” testimony was in fact written for him by Stratus.
7. The complicit media: if it’s green it must be good.
There have been several long articles about the Chevron/Ecuador story – one in The New Yorker, one in Vanity Fair, one in Bloomberg Business Week – each one more sympathetic to Donziger than to Chevron.
8. The usual rent-a-celeb suspects weigh in…
Among those who championed Donziger’s cause were Mia Farrow, Sting, Trudy Styler and Darryl Hannah. Pop stars and rich people who’ve been in movies: is there ANYTHING they don’t know about the environment?
9. Big Green sticks its oar in too.
No green campaign is complete without a few ad hoc, allegedly grassroots campaign groups there to give the illusion of diverse and committed support: Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action Network both supported the campaign against Chevron. So too, inevitably, did the Sierra Club.
10. Green hubris.
Almost none of this information would have come to light in court if Donziger had not made one fatal mistake. In a supreme act of arrogance, he decided to turn his legal adventures into a Michael-Moore-style documentary with himself as the crusading hero negotiating his way through a corrupt legal system, battling a powerful and heartless oil giant, on behalf of the ordinary people of Ecuador. The movie – inevitably – was premiered at the Sundance Festival.
The reason this case is so important is because it very nearly didn’t happen. Though environmental activists like Michael Mann, James Hansen and Al Gore often like to claim that their enemies are in the pay of Big Oil, the truth is the exact opposite.
Republican lawmakers in the House are pushing legislation that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing new regulations based on science that is not transparent or not reproducible.
The Secret Science Reform Act, introduced Thursday by Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., would bar the agency from proposing or finalizing rules without first disclosing all “scientific and technical information” relied on to support its proposed action.
“Public policy should come from public data, not based on the whims of far-left environmental groups,” Schweikert said in a statement. “For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country with no public evidence to justify their actions.”
Several of Schweikert’s fellow House Science Committee members have signed onto the bill as co-sponsors, including Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas., Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Okla., and Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas.
“The American people foot the bill for EPA’s costly regulations, and they have a right to see the underlying science. Costly environmental regulations should be based upon publicly available data so that independent scientists can verify the EPA’s claims,” Smith said in a statement.
Read the full article at FoxNews.com.
President Barack Obama admitted in an interview with The New Yorker that his plan to lower U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by banning new coal plants would do little to curb global warming since developing countries like China and India will still use coal power.
The Obama administration published its proposed carbon dioxide emissions limits for new coal plants which would effectively ban coal power. That is, unless they use commercially unproven carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Tighter emission controls for coal plants are part of Obama’s plan to fight global warming.
Critics of the administration argue that banning coal plants won’t curb global warming because developing countries continue to build coal plants, frustrating U.S. efforts to lower global carbon emissions. Obama conceded that fact, but argued that limiting emissions here will only help the U.S. because other countries will come to us for the technology once we’ve developed it.
“And so if we can figure out a carbon-capture mechanism that is sufficiently advanced and works, then we are helping ourselves, because the Chinese and the Indians are going to build some coal plants, and even if we don’t build another coal plant in this country, there are going to be a lot of coal plants around the world that are built,” Obama told the New Yorker.
Read the full story at The Daily Caller.
The nearly $3 billion “Cash for Clunkers” program approved by Congress in 2009 did little to boost the environment and created few jobs, a new study released Wednesday found.
A Brookings Institution study found the $2.85 billion program “provided a short-term boost in vehicle sales, which were pulled forward from sales that would have occurred in subsequent months. There was a small increase in employment but the implied cost per job created ($1.4 million) was far higher than other fiscal stimulus programs.”
The study — from researchers Ted Gayer and Emily Parker — said the “Car Allowance Rebate System,” or CARS did little to boost employment. This is at least the fourth major study since 2012 that has raised questions about the value of the program.
The study said far more jobs could have been created using other government stimulus programs — increasing unemployment benefits (at $95,000 per job); $80,000-$133,000 per job created for cutting employers’ payroll taxes; $222,000 per job created for reducing employees’ payroll taxes; $200,000 per job created for providing additional Social Security benefits; or $222,000 per job created for allowing the expensing of investment costs.
Read the full article at Detroit News.