Political Foibles

Trump: Homeland Security Not in Climate Change Business

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Steve Milloy reported on X:  President Trump deports “climate change” from the Department of Homeland Security: “Top officials at the US Department of Homeland Security received a memo on Friday ordering an immediate stop to work connected to climate change and the elimination of climate-related terms across the agency. The memo instructs senior office heads to “eliminate all climate change activities and the use of climate change terminology in DHS policies and programs, to the maximum extent permitted by the law,” according to the document seen by Bloomberg News. The changes are meant to bring “alignment” with Trump’s executive orders that reverse multiple climate-related orders by former President Joe Biden, it said.”

Comment:

A good place to start is the DHS webpage Climate Literacy at DHS which was updated January 27, 2025, probably only adding a disclaimer “In an effort to keep DHS.gov current, the archive contains outdated information that may not reflect current policy or programs.”

Table of Contents

Climate Science Overview

The DHS Mission and Climate Change

Climate Change Adaptation, Mitigation, and Resilience

Climate Security

Climate Change and Fragility

Further Resources

Further Resources Include:

DHS Resources

Component Resources

External Resources

Climate Tools

Conclusion

DHS still thinks it’s very much in the “Climate Change Business” and rooting it out will be an extensive process met with unwelcome resistance.

Due This Week: EPA Plan for GHG Endangerment Finding

Posted on by Ron Clutz

As promised, Trump on day 1 (January 20, 2025) issued an Executive Order challenging the presumption  “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) endanger public health and safety.  The pertinent text is in Section 6 reprinted below with my bolds and added images.

Executive Order 14154 of January 20, 2025 Unleashing American Energy

Sec. 6 . Prioritizing Accuracy in Environmental Analyses. (a) In all Federal permitting adjudications or regulatory processes, all agencies shall adhere to only the relevant legislated requirements for environmental considerations and any considerations beyond these requirements are eliminated. In fulfilling all such requirements, agencies shall strictly use the most robust methodologies of assessment at their disposal and shall not use methodologies that are arbitrary or ideologically motivated.

(b) The Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG), which was established pursuant to Executive Order 13990, is hereby disbanded, and any guidance, instruction, recommendation, or document issued by the IWG is withdrawn as no longer representative of governmental policy including:

(i) the Presidential Memorandum of January 27, 2021 (Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking);

(ii) the Report of the Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Measurement Interagency Working Group of November 2023 (National Strategy to Advance an Integrated U.S. Greenhouse Gas Measurement, Monitoring, and Information System);

(iii) the Technical Support Document of February 2021 (Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990); and

(iv) estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases, including the estimates for the social cost of carbon, the social cost of methane, or the social cost of nitrous oxide based, in whole or in part, on the IWG’s work or guidance.

(c) The calculation of the “social cost of carbon” is marked by logical deficiencies, a poor basis in empirical science, politicization, and the absence of a foundation in legislation. Its abuse arbitrarily slows regulatory decisions and, by rendering the United States economy internationally uncompetitive, encourages a greater human impact on the environment by affording less efficient foreign energy producers a greater share of the global energy and natural resource market. Consequently, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of the EPA shall issue guidance to address these harmful and detrimental inadequacies, including consideration of eliminating the “social cost of carbon” calculation from any Federal permitting or regulatory decision.

(d) Prior to the guidance issued pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, agencies shall ensure estimates to assess the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from agency actions, including with respect to the consideration of domestic versus international effects and evaluating appropriate discount rates, are, to the extent permitted by law, consistent with the guidance contained in OMB Circular A-4 of September 17, 2003 (Regulatory Analysis).

(e) Furthermore, the head of each agency shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, initiate a process to make such changes to any rule, regulation, policy or action as may be necessary to ensure consistency with the Regulatory Analysis.

(f) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of the EPA, in collaboration with the heads of any other relevant agencies, shall submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings, “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” Final Rule, 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).

What Might Happen Next

Source E&E News : Trump set a deadline on the endangerment finding. Here’s what might happen.

The finding, issued during President Barack Obama’s first term, holds that greenhouse gas emissions “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” It’s the prerequisite for Clean Air Act rules targeting heat-trapping pollutants such as carbon dioxide and methane. The finding originally pertained to climate pollution from vehicles, but it opened the door for regulations on power plants and oil and gas infrastructure. And it could support future regulation on additional sources of climate pollution, such as landfills, refineries and industrial plants.

Getting rid of the finding would make scrapping EPA climate rules a matter of routine paperwork, an expert said. Regulations could be undone through simple, swift rulemakings. No replacement rules would be needed.

“Taking away the 2009 endangerment finding would really make it almost a virtual formality to take down all the greenhouse rules for CO2 and methane,” said Joe Goffman, EPA’s air chief under Biden.

EPA would still need to strip out sector-specific findings from rules written under a key section of the Clean Air Act — known as Section 111 — he said. But when the dust settled, EPA could regulate oil and gas facilities for ozone-forming pollutants alone, and not for methane — greatly reducing requirements for industry. And power plants that burn fossil fuels wouldn’t be regulated for carbon.

Daren Bakst, director of the energy and environment program at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has long advocated getting rid of the endangerment finding, agreed that it would “present legal challenges.”  But he said the risk was worth taking.

“If the EPA finds there is no endangerment, and this survives in court, it would have the important effect of stopping the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases,” he said.

Regarding next week’s deadline, he said Zeldin might submit only preliminary recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget, rather than a full-blown decision to challenge the finding, or pass on it.

SEC Chair Revokes Illegal Climate Disclosure Rule

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Jon McGowan reports at Forbes Acting SEC Chair Says Climate-Related Disclosure Rule Is Illegal.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Background

Following the Paris Agreement in 2015, a series of global initiatives were pursued to reduce the impacts of climate change and reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions to “net zero” by 2050. The goal included a significant reduction in GHG emissions, but also utilized “offsets” that, through technology and protection of natural resources, would result in overall emissions being at a net of zero. This resulted in a carbon credit market that allowed high GHG emitting countries and businesses to purchase credits from underdeveloped countries that produce little emissions.

On the financial side, a multi-prong approach was used to influence and regulate businesses. Large investment firms, like BlackRock, used their influence to drive ESG and sustainability. By 2021, it was standard practice for businesses to release annual ESG and sustainability reports. However, there was no standardization of the practice. Claims were unregulated and content was unclear. As a result, reports were focused on what the business thought mattered to investors and were little more than marketing pieces.

This became problematic in the highly regulated financial industry. Funds that claim to be ESG, green, climate friendly, or sustainable must back up those claims with data. As a result of demand and Paris Agreement based initiatives, international regulators began drafting standards for reporting, marketing, and investments relating to climate change and other green initiatives.

In 2021, the International Sustainability Standards Board drafted the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation’s Sustainability Disclosure Standards. IFRS is an independent, nonprofit organization that develops financial reporting standards, including international accounting standards. IFRS is not used in the U.S., who uses generally accepted accounting principles, also known as GAAP, but is used in 132 jurisdictions. The IFRS Standards were adopted in June 2023 as the global standard for sustainability and climate change reporting, including greenhouse gas emissions.

The US Securities Exchange Commission Story Regarding ESG

In the U.S., the SEC proposed the development of climate-related reporting standards in March 2022. The final rule, adopted on March 6, 2024, required large publicly traded companies to disclose climate action, GHG emissions, and the financial impacts of severe weather events. The Climate-Related Disclosure Rule was initially set to go into effect in 2026. However, it was immediately met with legal challenges and the SEC delayed implementation indefinitely while the cases worked through the judicial process. Now it appears the delay will become permanent.

Rough Seas for Captains of Industry

Under the leadership of Gary Gensler, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission saw a wave of regulatory and enforcement actions relating to environmental, social, and governance; sustainability; and climate change. It was clear that his exit, effective the day President Trump took office, would significantly alter the SEC’s approach to those topics.

On February 11, acting SEC Chair Uyeda, a Biden appointee, effectively ended the Climate-Related Disclosure Rule. In the statement, Uyeda said,

“The Rule is deeply flawed and could inflict significant harm on the capital markets and our economy.”

“Both Commissioner Peirce and I voted against the Rule’s adoption. Commissioner Peirce said that then-existing disclosure rules were sufficient and that the ‘[R]ule’s anticipated benefits do not outweigh the costs.’ She argued that ‘only a mandate from Congress should put us in the business of facilitating the disclosure of information not clearly related to financial returns.’ I stated that the Commission was ‘without statutory authority or expertise’ to address climate change issues and that ’this [R]ule is climate regulation promulgated under the Commission’s seal.’”

“The Commission’s briefs previously submitted in the cases consolidated in the Eighth Circuit do not reflect my views… I also question whether the agency followed the proper procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act to adopt the Rule.”

As a result, Acting Chair Uyeda has asked the court for a delay in the proceedings while the SEC takes action to rollback the Climate-Related Disclosure Rule. As a result, climate reporting at the national level is effectively dead. The focus now turns to the states and international actions.

 

Funding for University Wokism Cut

Posted on by Ron Clutz

William M Briggs explains in his blog article Trump Slashing The Cancerous “The Science” Bloat: Cut Cut Cut! Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

I responded on Twitter (follow me): “You might not know it, but this is a MAJOR VICTORY of outstanding proportions. Overhead is what fed the administrative beast. Overhead paid for DIE. Overhead paid for assistants to the assistants to the assistant Deans for development. Kill the Beast by starving it.”

For those new to grants, the overhead is the amount tacked on by the researchers’ institution to a researcher’s grant. If a Harvard grant is for, say, $1 million, an amount already bloated for all the usual reasons of excess, then the amount NIH pays to Harvard is $1,690,000. That extra $690,000 feeds the Beast. The Beast grows and causes the original grant totals to swell, for reasons not directly related to the research, like increased salaries for all and such like. Bureaucrats are spawned from the overhead funds. They emerge from their pods with gaping maws mewing to be fed—fed—fed! Overhead is a slow-motion monster movie.

(If you want more detail on overhead, this is a good article.)

Now I know this next part will make no sense to you, but not all are taking well the splendiferous news overhead will be treated like a bikinied teenager in a Wes Craven movie. The far-left politics journal Science screamed “NIH slashes overhead payments for research, sparking outrage“.

“Outrage”, as we have said many times, is the second of only
two emotions a woke can express. The first being smug self-satisfaction.
They don’t get the first anymore, though.

Or take as representative lead covid panicker Eric Fing-Ding. Through sweet, sweet tears, he tweeted (among other things) that the cuts will “COMPLETELY DECIMATE MEDICAL & PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH”.

Bad news, because we’d like the effect to be greater than a mere measly ten percent. We need to whack, with pitiless remorseless brutality, at least half of governmental science funding. The Science article was more hopeful. They said “‘This is a surefire way to cripple lifesaving research and innovation,’ said a statement from the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR)”.

Crippling is much better than decimating.

Bring on the pain. Their pain. Universities have had it good too long. And we’ve had it bad.  It’s not only your old Uncle Sergeant Briggs saying this.

Here’s a ripe pull from “The natural selection of bad science” by Paul E Smaldino and Richard McElreath. These fellas are not critiquing cellar-dwelling simulacra of science, like say sociology, but what’s taken as the good stuff, like medicine.

These are not the only ones on the inside saying these things. The word is out. Science has gone bad: “A 2015 British Academy of Medical Sciences report suggested that the false discovery rate in some areas of biomedicine could be as high as 69 percent.”

Data Republican says: “Universities are among the largest drains on taxpayer money in my dataset. They receive massive funding from NGOs and USAID, and they take more government grants on top of that. Meanwhile, anonymous professors have reported to me that true scientific research is stagnating due to DEI mandates and administrative bloat.”

Understand: universities were ground zero for the DIE zombie invasion. And much worse. A tsunami of bad ideas flowed from universities over the last century. Many of those responsible are still employed there. These people need to be made to go. It’s not only DIE, but the base bloat caused by government micro-managing science. It is government, almost completely, that decided what got funded, and funded to ridiculous levels. This forced consensus-based science upon us. This has stifled much innovation, as we have seen time and again. It must be made to change, for change won’t come from within.

Now that 15% might eventually rise, given the wounded howling coming from universities (an AFMR email said “We have also launched an E-Action Alert to engage the broader scientific community and mobilize support for advocacy efforts to reverse or mitigate these changes.”).  But the rate must fall. The NIH and NSF budgets need to treated like the mess they are.

The only way to rid ourselves of this stuff is to stop feeding those producing it. We need to force a restructuring and rethinking. The old ways need to go. The only way to do this is to cause pain. Minor course corrections are not enough. Cut, cut, and cut some more. Make it sting.

See Also:

Examples of Debased Government Science

Trust Me, I’m a Scientist. Really?

Why Federalized Science is Rotten

US Energy Status Quo and Outlook–Sec. Chris Wright

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Three days after he was confirmed as US Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright was interviewed on CNBC Squawk Box by Brian Sullivan.  The video clip above and one at the end provide his view of the way forward for US energy.  For those who prefer to read, I provide a transcript in italics from the closed captions, lightly edited with my bolds and some added images.  Brian refers to interviewer Brian Sullivan and Chris to Secretary Wright.

Brian: Let’s get to the topical issues, price of oil. The president says drill, baby, drill. You’re a guy that ran a fracking company. How do we balance out ringing down the price of gasoline, adding to US production, but yet not destroying the oil and gas investments as well? The CNBC audience talks about and looks at that every day.

Chris: Yeah, of course it’s a business and prices are dictated by supply and demand. But we’ve had four years of an administration that’s done everything it could to raise the cost to produce a barrel of oil. “We’re not sure if you can get a permit to drill here” or “It’s going to take 18 months. You’ve got uncertainty. You’ve got to build pipelines or gathering lines to move that product to market. “Well, we’re not sure if you can do that. You’ve got to do another study, or another this or that.” So when you add to costs of course you hurt the economics.

Now we’re going to have a more efficient operating environment. I think we’re going to see some efficiencies from scale, some efficiencies from certainty and from more credible Capital Markets. We’ve tried to starve the oil and gas industry globally, somehow thinking that’s going to help climate change. There’s been a lot of nonsense. And I think the agenda of this administration, this president, is to bring back common sense.

Brian: Can we have lower oil and gas prices and still have stocks that are not much lower than they are right now?

Chris: Oh, absolutely. Look, if you lower the cost of operations, there’s a lot of fat in the cost of operations. If you lower the cost of operations that’s going to flow through to lower prices but not necessarily lower profits.

Rough Seas for Captains of Industry

Brian: And that margin you think can remain steady and thus hold up because you were the CEO of a publicly traded company and on the board of another publicly traded company, which you have now left.

Chris:  Absolutely. And look, it’s capitalism and business is driven by profit motives that have driven innovation, that have driven efficiency and driven improvements in our system. And that’s exactly what we want going forward in nuclear and natural gas and oil and geothermal, whatever it is.

Brian: Just before this interview we were talking about tariffs and the impact. They were showing health and beauty stocks down 25%. We know there’s a pause on the potential Canada tariffs, there’s 4.4 million barrels a day we bring in from Canada on average. Much of that goes to where you’re from, the Rocky Mountains, the Denver area, the upper Midwest. What is your view on potential 10% tariffs? If it does happen, what is going to happen to US oil and gasoline prices?

Chris: Well, look. Obviously the Canadian energy system is built and integrated with the United States energy system. Those pipelines come to US refineries that are tuned to refine that heavier, more viscous crude that Canada produces. I don’t think we’re going to see that change. As the president has said, this is a drug war. This is about concerns and security at our border. This is to get everyone’s attention and focus on how can we reduce criminals and fentanyl and drugs that are a threat to American security coming in our borders. I think things are moving in a productive direction.

Brian: It doesn’t sound like you think the tariffs would ultimately occur.

Chris: I don’t know what the future will bring there, but I know we’ve got very productive dialogues right now.

Brian: I’m sure you have many friends in Canada, as do I. And you know, they’re angry about this. They said, “Well, you know what? If they want to tariff our oil, let’s just ship it to Vancouver and we’re going to sell it overseas. I would call that the nuclear option. Do you see anything like that occurring if the tariffs were to occur, Mr. Secretary?

Chris: It’s hard to build new pipeline capacity. Canada does have a West Coast pipeline, which is running today and exporting oil to Asia. But that’s 10% or less of Canadian oil production. But look, this president is aggressive. He doesn’t like the status quo. He wants to change things and improve things. We had a lot of noise and sound and fury last time he was president about tariffs and inflation. Inflation averaged less than 2% in the four years he was president.

His agenda is to lower prices and better American lives, and
I don’t see any reason to believe think that’s not going to happen.

Brian: You mentioned climate a couple of minutes ago. Coming into this Administration, one of the big question marks is: What will happen to the loans and the grants and the IRA Inflation Reduction Act monies that may be already committed to wind, to solar. This matters to CNBC’s audience. In the stock market, a lot of these companies have seen their share price decline by a lot. What is your view on the Inflation Reduction Act and wind and solar projects, and the monies that are required to produce them?

Chris: So look, I’m in this chair three days now. One of the things we are doing is looking at all the projects that are out there. Where are the commitments? Where are the uncommitted funds? What’s the best use to grow the supply of affordable, reliable, secure American energy? Tremendous opportunities there. So there’s upside here as well.

But one thing I will say, Brian, we will not follow the German model. And I think the last administration wanted to go down that road. Germany spent a half a trillion dollars, made their electricity 2 to 3 times more expensive, and they produce 20% less electricity today than they did 15 years ago. We’re not going to go down that road.

We want affordable, reliable, secure energy and
reindustrialization of America, not De-industrialization of America.

Brian: Well, that’s something I’ve obviously personally reported on many times for CNBC. Been over there, seen what’s happened. So just to be clear, because let’s be honest, a lot of Wall Street makes a lot of money investing in wind and solar and even nuclear. You were on the board of a nuclear company. So final question. Should we say that that it’s possible big wind and solar projects are still going to be okay, that they’re not going to be starved of Funds under this administration? What’s the what’s the money situation regarding some of these renewable wind and solar and nuclear type energy programs?

Chris: Look, I think you’re going to see continued development in the United States of all of these energy sources. But obviously, a flow of funds from this administration is all going to be about not what the energy technology is, but will it increase the supply of affordable, reliable, secure energy?

Will it better the lives of American consumers and
encourage businesses to build things in America?

Brian: Well, finally, on building things. The first new nuclear plant in the United States just opened up last year in Georgia, took about 20 plus years to build way over budget. You’re a nuclear guy. You were on the board of Anglo until you resigned that seat. What is the future of nuclear in the United States? Some say it’s the future. Others say way too doggone expensive up front, doesn’t pay off.

Chris: I think the future is very bright, very bright. It’s an energy dense technology that gives reliable energy at all times, with a small amount of land and a small amount of materials. Do we need innovation? Do we need some government out of the way to make it work economically? Absolutely. But that’s what America is about.

Brian: Exclusive interview with the new Secretary of Energy on Day three, Christopher Wright. Thank you very much for your time here.

 

EPA Priorities Announced

Posted on by Ron Clutz

During Trump 1.0 the appointed EPA Director summarized the false dichotomy long plaguing the agency: “If you are for the Environment, you must be against Development; and if you are for Development, you must be against the Environment.” In reality, a balance must be struck, and a new administration intends to find it.  There has been much gnashing of teeth in the legacy media over this month’s dismissal of scientists from EPA advisory boards, without mentioning the same housecleaning happened in 2021 when Biden regime took over.  Now we have an official announcement about the new EPA direction and priorities.  Text in italics with my bolds and added images.

WASHINGTON – On February 4, 2025, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency’s Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative, to achieve the agency’s mission while energizing the greatness of the American economy. This plan outlines the agency’s priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Zeldin. The newly announced Powering the Great American Comeback initiative consists of five pillars that will guide the EPA’s work over the first 100 days and beyond:

Pillar 1: Clean Air, Land, and Water for Every American

“Every American should have access to clean air, land, and water. I will ensure the EPA is fulfilling its mission to protect human health and the environment. In his first term, President Trump advanced conservation, reduced toxic emissions in the air, and cleaned up hazardous sites, while fostering economic growth for families across the country. We remain committed to these priorities in this administration, as well as ensuring emergency response efforts are helping Americans get back on their feet in the quickest and safest way possible. We will do so while remaining good stewards of tax dollars and ensuring that every penny spent is going towards advancing this mission,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Pillar 2: Restore American Energy Dominance

“Pursuing energy independence and energy dominance will cut energy costs for everyday Americans who are simply trying to heat their homes and put gas in their cars. This will also allow our nation to stop relying on energy sources from adversaries, while lowering costs for hardworking middle-income families, farmers, and small business owners. I look forward to working with the greatest minds driving American innovation, to ensure we are producing and developing the cleanest energy on the planet,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Pillar 3: Permitting Reform, Cooperative Federalism, and Cross-Agency Partnership

“Any business that wants to invest in America should be able to do so without having to face years-long, uncertain, and costly permitting processes that deter them from doing business in our country in the first place. It will be important for the EPA to work with our partners at the state and federal levels to ensure projects are being approved and companies can invest billions of dollars into our nation. Streamlining these processes, while partnering with businesses to follow the necessary steps to safeguard our environment, will incentivize investment into our economy and create American jobs,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Pillar 4: Make the United States the Artificial Intelligence Capital of the World

“As we rapidly advance into this new age of AI, it is important that the United States lead the world in this field. Those looking to invest in and develop AI should be able to do so in the U.S., while we work to ensure data centers and related facilities can be powered and operated in a clean manner with American-made energy. Under President Trump’s leadership, I have no doubt that we will become the AI capital of the world,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Pillar 5: Protecting and Bringing Back American Auto Jobs

“Our American auto industry is hurting because of the burdensome policies of the past.

Under President Trump, we will bring back American auto jobs and invest in domestic manufacturing to revitalize a quintessential American industry. We will partner with leaders to streamline and develop smart regulations that will allow for American workers to lead the great comeback of the auto industry,” said Administrator Zeldin.

Footnote:

The Trump Administration not only cut “environmental justice” programs at the Environmental Protection Agency, they put nearly 200 staffers on leave.

According to reports, the staffers were called into a meeting on Thursday afternoon where they were informed that they were being placed on leave.

“Effective immediately, you are being placed on administrative leave with full pay and benefits. This administrative leave is not being done for any disciplinary purpose,” the email stated, according to Politico.

“Career staff made determinations on which Office of Environmental Justice employees had statutory duties or core mission functions,” EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said in a statement. “As such, 168 staffers were placed on administrative leave as their function did not relate to the agency’s statutory duties or grant work. EPA is in the process of evaluating new structure and organization to ensure we are meeting our mission of protecting human health and the environment for all Americans.” Source.

Carnage: Trump Cuts ‘Environmental Justice’ Programs, Puts Nearly 200 EPA Staffers on Leave

Poilievre: On Canada and US Partnership

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Last week Jordan Peterson conducted the above interview What Pierre Poilievre Thinks About Donald Trump. Poilievre is the Conservative leader expected to form the next federal government in Canada.  My lightly edited transcript is below in italics with my bolds and added images. JP refers to Peterson and PP to Poilievre.

JP: Trump famously met with Trudeau and seemed to troll him quite hard. First thing, I don’t know to what degree the Canadian press picked up on this, but Trudeau wasn’t invited to stay at Mar-a-Lago and there’s 126 rooms there. So when Trump invites someone he also invites them to stay there. So you know that was a message, and then he trolled him hard. He called him the governor of America’s 51st State and let it be known that he had very little respect for him. And then he announced a 25% tariff on Canadian goods.

So I had two reactions to that. You know, because I’m no fan of Trudeau, one was amused pleasure at Trump’s vicious humor let’s say. And the other one, you know he is the leader of our primary ally and a G7 nation, and so maybe that verged on contempt. I’m not exactly sure what to make of that and I’m curious about your response, and also how you feel about negotiating a new relationship with the Americans and with the Trump Administration in particular.

PP: Well I won’t spend a lot of time on how I feel about it other than to say Trudeau is a weak leader who leads a weakened economy with a weakened dollar and a weakened border. And president Trump has a strong mandate and he he spent his life as a highly successful businessman in the most cutthroat economic environment in the world, New York City. So in construction yeah and in Chicago. This is a former businessman who can spot weakness a mile away and act on it. So it’s just humiliating for all Canadians to witness something like that, because this is our country.

But what am I going to do about it? Look, first and foremost we need to show up with strength. We have an American president who has always put America First, he’s very blunt about it. I’ll put Canada First. The good news is that there’s immense overlap in the two countries respective interests and values. We’re both liberal democracies, we both value Freedom, we both share a geography. We have our enemies and our risks and our threats are the same, so there’s no reason why we can’t both win. If you look at the history of President Trump, he negotiates very aggressively and he likes to win, but in the end he doesn’t appear to have a problem if his counterparty also wins. So I think that we can get a great deal that will make both countries safer, richer and stronger. That’s the goal that I’ll be coming with into these negotiations.

JP: Okay, so what would a great deal look like as far as you’re concerned with the Americans on the energy side. One of the things that Trump pointed to was Canada’s Trade Surplus with the US at 1 billion was his estimate.

PP: It depends how you measure it, other estimates have it at around 40 billion, but he’s right, there is a Canadian Trade Surplus with the states. And from a mercantilist point of view you can say that America has been ripped off by China and Mexico. You can see examples of a factory closing in Ohio or Pennsylvania to open in Mexico or in China. But that’s not the nature of the Canadian Trade Surplus. It’s not a matter of the Canadian economy taking American jobs, far from it.

The nature of our Trade Surplus with America is that while it is a ripoff,
it’s Canada ripping itself off and let me explain.

Our entire Trade Surplus and more is due to oil and gas because we export about $120 billion of oil and gas to the United States at enormous discounts to market price because we have been so stupid and our bureaucrats have been so obstructive and woke activists have been so fanatical that we have not been able to develop the infrastructure to refine and transport our own energy to World Markets. So we are stuck with the US; depending on the time we sell a barrel oil to the Americans for 10% up to 30 or 40% cheaper than the world price. There’s a price called western Canada select and it’s significantly lower than WTI.

Until recently at least 99% of our oil exports to America where they then get to upgrade it and resell it at enormous profits with their welders, pipe fitters and engineers making the six figure salaries that go along with that. We give all of our natural gas exports to the United States because we don’t have an an operating liquefaction terminal to send it away ourselves so they get our natural gas at massive discounts. And then they can decide if they want to liquefy and ship it off to world markets at literally five times higher.

Trudeau’s “Just Transition” to Net Zero

So that is that is the trade surplus he’s talking about. Now if he were to stop that today it would mean that American workers at refineries and in other value added places would lose their jobs and Americans would pay higher energy prices. So that would not be good for America in the long run.

Being very blunt, I intend to approve refineries and LNG plants and
hopefully pipelines so that I could bring that production
back to Canada and make us more energy independent.

But in the short run if president Trump wants to make America richer the last thing he should want to do is block the underpriced Canadian energy from going into his Marketplace. In fact I would encourage him to approve the Keystone Pipeline so that we can create jobs for American workers who will build and install it, but also create much more wealth for Alberta and Saskatchewan and have their product reach tide water in the US Gulf Coast and get World prices.

So that’s an economic win. Also it’s not just oil and gas though. We have in Canada the Strategic minerals that are necessary for Warfare and for the modern digital economy that we could be exporting to the United States breaking both of our dependencies on China. We have the energy, a major Surplus of electricity, a surplus that we could even grow further that could be used for data centers that America cannot build fast enough.

So there’s enormous opportunities for both of us to get vastly richer if
we actually deepen our trade relationship rather than blocking it.

JP: Right, well it seems highly probable to me that that would be the direction that the Trump Administration would turn in if they were negotiating with people who were playing a straight game and were actually aiming for something like economic Prosperity instead of whatever the hell it is that Trudeau’s aiming for. Now you made brief reference to something quite shocking in its full import which didn’t really strike me until your comments. For example, Trudeau turned away the chancellor of Germany and the leader of Japan when they came cap in hand to Canada asking for increased Natural Gas exports over the long run. Given that we refused them, we ended up maintaining our low cost contracts with the United States and selling them all our resources at a discount.

PP: Yes, it’s enormously stupid. That’s the business case Trudeau couldn’t make. And I hate to say this, but because we have blocked LG plants and pipelines and other energy infrastructure, and because we’re giving therefore our gas to America at like a 70 or 80% discount to European and Asian prices and our oil at a discount of 20 or 30%, we’re effectively throwing money out a window. What do you do when someone throws money out a window? Stand next to the window yeah right.

So that is the true story, the pathetic story of our Trade Surplus is
that we’re actually handing over our resources stupidly.

It’s not The Americans’ fault, it’s our fault. We’re stupid and we’re going to stop being stupid when I’m prime minister. We’re going to build this infrastructure ourselves but in the meantime it would be it would be bad for American workers and consumers for the president to tariff our oil and gas.

And look, we have an integrated economy; I think an automobile crosses the Border something like eight or nine times between Ontario and the manufacturing states of the US before it becomes a finished product. Why interrupt those Supply chains? Also why not allow Americans just to have access to buying our minerals? Or better yet why don’t we process improve them here in Canada before we sell them to the United States to break dependence on hostile foreign powers?

By the way I would say to president Trump that the gains that Canada gets from increased access to the United States, I would spend largely on our Continental defense, on a more powerful Canadian military that truly secures the Arctic that protects us against terrorists and against intercontinental ballistic missiles, against threats, God forbid, from other parts of the world. We could have a bigger and more powerful military with a bigger and more powerful economy and so our interests overlap overwhelmingly.

That’s the case I would make to the incoming president
who has proven that he likes to make deals and is good at it.

 

Left Coast Climate Delusion Ends in Flames

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Satellite images of wildfires burning in Southern California By NBC Staff • Published January 11, 2025

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. writes in Wall Street Journal End of a Climate Delusion.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Amid California’s fires, voters wake up from the dream that green pork is a solution.

CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is rapidly and, for all practical purposes, uniformly distributed around the planet.

I may be stating the obvious but it needs to be pointed out. Voters and even political leaders are surprisingly poorly informed on this point. Emissions cuts in California don’t have any significant effect on California’s climate. They also have no global effect. California’s cuts are too small relative to the global whole; they also are largely illusory.

Emitting industries leave the state. They don’t stop emitting. If California imports Canadian hydro to charge its electric vehicles, consumers elsewhere have to burn more coal and gas. If Californians drive EVs, more gasoline is free to be burned by others, releasing more CO2 that influences climate change in California and everywhere else.

Green-energy subsidies do not reduce emissions. This will be news to millions of California voters. It contradicts a central tenet of state policy. It isn’t news to the actual enactors of these subsidies. A National Research Council study sponsored by congressional Democrats in 2008 concluded that such handouts were a “poor tool for reducing greenhouse gases” and called for carbon taxes instead.

Unfortunately, the incoming Obama administration quickly discovered it favored climate taxes only when Republicans were in charge. Backers would later engage in flagrant lying to promote Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, knowingly citing bogus predictions that its trillion-dollar spending profusion would reduce emissions.

A 2019 University of Oregon study had already revealed the empirical truth: Green energy doesn’t replace fossil fuels, it enables more energy consumption overall. That same year the EPA calculated that the potential emissions savings from subsidizing electric vehicles had been offset five times over by the pickup truck and SUV boom Team Obama facilitated to assure the success of its auto bailout.

American Association for the Advancement of Science study finds that of 1,500 “climate” policies announced around the world, a mere 63, or 4%, produce any reduction in emissions.

Last year, the premier journal Science put a nail in the question: 96% of policies supported worldwide as “reducing” emissions failed to do so, consisting mostly of handouts to green-energy interests.

And yet certain Journal readers still assail me with the epithet “denier.” They confuse my criticism of Democratic hypocrisy with my imagined views on climate science. As I’ve written back to many, “Don’t think politicians haven’t figured this out about you. That’s why they can give us unsustainable corporate welfare boondoggles and call it climate policy.”

A CNN moderator Saturday urged viewers to vote in an online poll on whether the California disaster should be blamed on climate change or poor leadership. Notice the non sequitur: as if climate change is an excuse for not acting against fire risk.

By all means, let politicians proclaim a “climate crisis” or any other rhetorical flourish if it helps mobilize support for public actions that actually serve a useful purpose. But a prerevolutionary situation has been building in California for two decades, starting with the Third World blackouts in late 2000 not because of any shortage of power but because of large helpings of political cowardice.

A decision in 2019 authorized yet more Third World blackouts instead of reasonably shielding utilities from lawsuit risk over fires their power lines might be accused of contributing to. One result, predictably, has been a proliferation of backyard generators, which increase fire risk.

Californians are stuck adapting in the ways left open to them. Since 2017, half a million have fled Los Angeles County.

Two social technologies might help but the state has been intent on denying itself their advantages. One is a functioning insurance market. If you can’t afford the insurance, you can’t afford the house. Get ready, instead, for a torrent of federal and state money to help residents, some of them wealthy, rebuild in high-risk fire zones.

The other is a functioning market in water. Five gallons to produce a walnut probably isn’t tenable under any realistic system of water pricing. If water were properly valued, municipalities would also rapidly discover the logic of building aquifers to capture seasonal runoff. A thousand things would change if water were priced to flow to its most highly valued uses.

Here’s another concept: Climate change can exist and yet be an insignificant variable.

In Southern California’s Mediterranean climate, anytime 100-mile-an-hour winds start blowing embers toward densely packed housing developments, a conflagration is certain. The only answer then is to have the manpower and resources ready to put fires out as quickly as they start.

I’ve written repeatedly about climate and energy policies in the Western world being a colossal example of “sophisticated state failure,” in which attempts to address complex problems yield only a succession of boondoggles and economic crises. If California voters don’t wise up now, they never will.

 

 

Canada’s Choice: Elite Globalist or Common Sense Canadian

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Trump will soon fill a 4-year WH vacancy known as the “Biden/Harris Administration.” Meanwhile federal governance in Ottawa is shut down by Trudeau resigning without leaving but also suspending parliament.  There being no one at the helm is eerily similar to the US adrift, and a fitting close to the Trudeau decade. Jamie Sarkonak goes to the core of the upcoming election in his National Post article It doesn’t matter to Mark Carney if Canada survives.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images

As a member of the global elite, he will always be free
from the consequences of his political actions.

The problem Mark Carney, likely Liberal leader-to-be, will always run into is this: his fate doesn’t depend on a successful Canada.

Carney announced his leadership run Thursday. Odds are good he’s going to win. He’s not as recognizable as his only real competition, potential candidate and former finance minister Chrystia Freeland, but he doesn’t share her bruised record of inflating the deficit to multi-billion dollar highs, and last week’s polling shows that more people are open to voting for him than for her.

I hope he wins the party’s support. The Liberals aren’t likely to resonate with the population by running an out-of-touch cabinet minister in the next federal election — and they’re certainly less likely to do so by running an out-of-touch global elite who left small-time federal politics behind for a career at the pinnacle of international poshdom.

Yes, Carney is Canadian. But he’s also a citizen of Ireland,
and through it the European Union,
as well as a national of the United Kingdom.

He can leave this country any time he wants, and he already has: after serving as governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008 to 2013, he moved on to head the Bank of England. Now, he’s embedded in the international ecosystem as a climate finance adviser at the United Nations (among other things, he’s a strong advocate for mandatory climate disclosures by banks).

Oh, and according to his World Economic Forum bio — another mark of borderless eliteness — he is also the following: “an external member of the Board of Stripe, a member of the Global Advisory Board of PIMCO, Harvard University, Rideau Hall Foundation, Bilderberg, the boards of Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Hoffman Institute for Global Business and Society at INSEAD, Cultivo, as well as Senior Counsellor of the MacroAdvisory Partners, Advisor of the Watershed, and Chair of Chatham House, the Group of Thirty and also Advisory Board Chair for Canada 2020.”  Us rubes have no idea what most of that even means.

Carney might call himself an “outsider,” and it’ll be true — in the sense that he is not currently in the Trudeau government’s cabinet. But he’s still very much an elite, one who has advised the Liberal party, and one whose well-being doesn’t depend on local happiness and prosperity.

And everyone filling out a ballot next election will know it.

Different people have different terms for this. Freeland wrote a book on the new richesse mondiale, calling them plutocrats. Circa 2013, she was warning the rest of us that the global plutocracy might one day end up turning into a system of crony capitalist “insiders”; perhaps an aristocracy. Carney’s not Bill-Gates rich, but he’s still part of the global upper class.

Chrystia Freeland is also a Trustee on the WEF Board.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper put it in more digestible terms in his 2018 book, “Right Here, Right Now”: there are people who live “anywhere,” and there are people who live “somewhere.” “Anywheres” are cosmopolitan types who usually have professional, internationally oriented careers. “Somewheres” live and work closer to where they grew up, and share more of their values with people of a similar, localized background. The former tends to look down on nationalism; the latter depends on it.

Carney counts among the “anywheres” of Canadian society; yes, he’s got the passport, but he’s got more in common with a foreign banking executive who makes an annual Davos pilgrimage than he does with regular Superstore-shopping Canadians.

We “somewheres,” on the other hand, can’t just up and leave
in the face of turmoil because our entire life is here.

Our friends and families are here. Our savings and investments (if we have them) are in CAD; our partly-paid mortgages are tied to Canadian land; our children’s education depends on the quality of Canadian schools; our safety depends on Canadian laws; our job prospects suffer when low-wage foreign labour is allowed to flood our local markets. We’re not being forced to leave, but the price of relocating is prohibitively high.

Carney’s Monday appearance on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show was revealing in that way: he targeted his pre-audition pitch to the world through an American late-night show that treated him with the same humorous fascination as it would a fuzzy exotic animal. It was a soft and unserious interview because the people our former central banker is campaigning toward aren’t Canadian and aren’t witnessing the country’s dire situation firsthand.

Poilievre’s appearances on Dr. Jordan Peterson’s American-produced podcast were of a whole different category; both men are Canadian and can talk about Canadian issues with the weight and care they deserve.

None of this is to say that the upper crust of society should stay out of politics — many great leaders come from the elite class, including on the conservative side of politics. But after years of regular Canadians being the low-priority afterthought of a trust-fund supported, second-generation prime minister who seemed happiest at G7 photoshoots and Gavin-Newsom meetups, the animal spirits are hungering for a leader who truly has skin in the game.

And yes, I’d count Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre among the “somewheres.” He’s had an entirely Canadian career, he isn’t gunning for CV-padding UN advisory roles, his ongoing career doesn’t depend on pleasing the moral sensibilities of the world’s politically active, post-national liberals, and he doesn’t seem to think that pre-election media courting should be performed for an international audience.

If the ship that is Canada starts sinking — and it’s been sitting alarmingly low in recent years — most of us are going down with it. Not Carney, who has and always will have a premium life raft, ready to isolate him from the consequences of his political actions. Which is exactly why I can’t wait to see him run.

L.A.’s Self-induced Fires Seen From the Ground

Posted on by Ron Clutz

E.M. Smith provides a resident-level view of the California Calamity at his Chiefio blog Los Angeles Burning & Did It To Themselves.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Check The News – L.A. Is On Fire

Yes, it is a disaster. Yes, $Billions of real estate going up in flames. Yes, “Stars” Losing everything; and normies too. No, it is not due to Global Warming. This is January and seasonal cool swamps any 1.5 C change.

It looks like not just Malibu, but several places all around Los Angeles, the hills, Hollywood, and more are having major fire problems.

Houses built too close together, using flammable materials. Trees and
shrubs that are flammable too. Then the Santa Ana Winds kick in.

Fire is an absolutely normal aspect of the Southern California landscape. When the Santa Ana winds blow (down slope wind that heats up from compression and gets funneled into a narrower space, so very fast) any fire becomes a blow torch. By then, there is not much you can do. Prevention is what matters, so now we wait for the winds to die down.

One TV Video showed a multi-lane major road, about 6 lanes across by the look of it. All abandoned cars. Folks trying to flee the fire, in a traffic jam, got out of their cars and ran. Firefighters had to take a bulldozer and push the cars off the road to make a lane for firetrucks.

This is the edge of insane.

So instead of mitigating fuel loads, assuring there are enough fire trucks, fire fighters, and water storage, Gavin Newsom & the L.A. area Mayors, were busy working on how to run for POTUS, and Get Trump, and assure the Unions donated a lot of money to Democrats. Hollywood “Names” were busy complaining about Republicans and having Panic Attacks about Global Warming instead of asking if their trees were Towering Infernos waiting to happen and replacing that Shake Roof with a metal one.

Distraction leads to destruction. They all knew they lived in a fire zone. PSAs have been running about it my whole life in California (at least 65 years). They chose parties with All The Right People over Prudent Planning and preparation. They chose “self actualization” over Situational Awareness and adaptation (and hard work).   Now comes the consequences.

In Conclusion

BUT, fire awareness and risk has been true the entire life of California. Either you learn to mitigate fuel, provide for rapid and effective fire suppression, and harden you house against fire; or you burn. Has always been that way. Will be too.

Folks have known for generations how to harden, mitigate, and adapt. Have houses separated from each other by enough space that one can not start the next one on fire. Build with non-flammable materials (cinder block, concrete, stucco over wire with metal 2×4 studs, tile or metal roofs, and metal shutters to prevent IR ignition of drapes inside windows (or even fiberglass drapes). Install water sprinkler fire suppression systems. DO NOT PLANT FLAMMABLE TREES, BUSHES & GRASS around houses. Have wide firebreaks between buildings. And more.

Remaining trees and vegetation on the forest floor are more vigorous after removal of small trees for fuels reduction.

All of this has been known for 100 years.

But you get more houses built, so more money made, if you pack them 12 to an acre. Folks like the “look” of wood shake roofs, asphalt shingles are cheaper, nobody wants “stucco” anymore, but I LIKE eucalyptus! and on it goes.

Nobody wants to “damage the ecology” by taking out scrub and clearing forest liter. Paying for and planning large water sources, big pipes & pumps, and having all necessary equipment on standby for a decade (or two) “for that day” just seems wasteful; until you need it.

So call me hard-hearted. I grew up in Fire Country. I’ve fought grass fires and as a temporary Forest Fire Fighter climbed up and down hills with a Pulaski (axe hoe combo) on my shoulder, sleeping in a shredded newspaper stuffed sleeping bag for a weekend, working a fire. The home I grew up in had a metal roof. My present home has cinder block walls with stucco and faux brick over it. When this roof wears out in a few years, the replacement will be metal. I have hoses and nozzles ready to put out any sparks that blow in (old habits die hard…) Folks either prepare for fire, or they accept the consequences.

A feller buncher removing small trees that act as fuel ladders and transmit fire into the forest canopy.

So when the inevitable bleating and braying about Global Warming Oh Noes! and “More Fires!” starts: Just ask if they know how many of the homes had metal roofs & shutters and stucco over cinder block walls? How many homes had a 20 foot fire break of non-flammable area around them?

And answers came there none.

Democrats: You own this one 100% since you own ALL of California Government. You made all the building codes, water systems, fire departments, roads & infrastructure. Planned all of it. Permitted the “rack ’em, pack ’em & stack ’em” building permits. Made money off cheaper wood & asphalt shingle construction. Now you will reap the results.