EPA Administrator Zeldin lies about carbon dioxide emissions, climate change.

 

 Environmental Pollution Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin didn’t waste time when he came out spreading lies and touting himself as the champion of the “Powering the Great American Comeback” initiative.  He claims that tRump had been outspoken about his desire for people “to access clean air and clean water”.

However, this administration clearly has other plans. 

“Emissions went down during the [first] Trump presidency,” Zeldin said. 

This is a lie.  Emissions dipped during 2020, but that was due to the lockdown during the pandemic.  CO2 emissions have continued to rise over the past 50 years and do not show any signs of slowing.  The United States is the second highest producer of CO2 behind China. 

The timelines of those predictions of “climate change” ending the world have “come and gone,” Zeldin said, and the world is still here.

No, Zeldin.  Another lie.  The predictions of climate change are for the future.  There was no deadline, no “ending of the world” talk.  You made that up.  CO2 emissions have not peaked.  Climate change is real, and it isn’t going away, thanks to you and FOTUS.

While Zeldin talks about clean air, he has proposed rollbacks for car emissions, favoring fossil-fuel burning vehicles, and complaining that electric cars are an obsession with electric vehicles.  What does fElon say about that?

Zeldin also commented”

that Americans who want to be able to go out and purchase a gas-powered vehicle would have that option denied to them by the government

Who has been denied the purchase of a gas-powered vehicle?

Say good-bye to clean air, clean water, clean soil, and clean energy.

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/epa-takes-aim-water-air-toxics-protections-part/story?id=119733125

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/icymi-administrator-zeldins-powering-great-american-comeback-unveiled-epa

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions?insight=global-emissions-have-increased-rapidly-over-the-last-50-years-and-have-not-yet-peaked#key-insights

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1298441/annual-global-methane-emissions/

 

Scientists race to save data on climate-change, fearing a Trump dump

The Huffington Post, Business Insider and Inverse Science have reported in the past few days that scientists are racing to protect and save climate data stored at the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration prior to Trump’s inauguration tomorrow.  Trump, a devout climate change-denier, has nominated another global warming denier Scott Pruitt to head the EPA.  Scientists fear this administration could wipe out important data on environmental issues beyond just climate data.  

On January 12, 2017, the Sierra Club filed Freedom of Information Act requests for information held by the EPA and the Department of Energy, while similar efforts are being undertaken elsewhere, such as DataRefuge, at University of Pennsylvania’s Program in Environmental Humanities.  PhD students at Harvard have joined with other scientists and policymakers to form Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, which is working to archive publicly available information and monitor changes in government websites. 

Data purges have been carried out by previous administrations, such as W. for example.  During his regime, EPA shut down some of its research libraries and reduced access to important data.  A Trump advisor has suggested NASA cease its climate research and focus on space exploration.  The Trump team has also asked the Department of Energy to provide names of employees and contractors who have participated in international climate talks and President Obama’s work on regulating carbon emissions, a request the DoE has denied.  Ronald Regan, whom the New York Times said trees cause pollution, appointed two champions of industry, including Anne M. Burford as Administrator for the EPA, but forced to resign after being investigated by Congress in mismanaging toxic waste remediation.

There is no direct promise from the Trump group to purge scientific data or make it vanish, but scientists are taking no chances.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/13/scientists-are-frantically-copying-u-s-climate-data-fearing-it-might-vanish-under-trump/?utm_term=.7f1a53f6ac05

https://envirodatagov.org/

https://www.inverse.com/article/25184-scientists-backup-climate-change-data-donald-trump

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scientists-save-environmental-data-before-trump_us_58797f6de4b09281d0eb07fa

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/rogue-scientists-race-save-climate-data-trump/

http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-archiving-government-data-trump-2017-1

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/02/us/reagan-and-environment-to-many-a-stalemate.html?pagewanted=all

Five reasons Scott Pruitt is the worst choice for EPA

The Donald has put Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's name forth as director of the Environmental Protection Agency, a man who is a global warming denier, anti-clean air, and on his knees in the oil and gas industry.

The  Sierra Club posted 5 things about Scott Pruitt that are terrifying.  I actually most of them except his fight against EPA's Mercury and Air Toxins safeguards.

In a nut shell,

Pruitt receives major donations from oil and gas industries, which oppose the Clean Air Act, a policy that has  been in place since 1970 and has greatly reduced air emissions from fossil fuel burning power plants.

He has plagiarized a letter from an oil and gas industry giant and sent it to the federal government and EPA using State of Oklahoma's stationery.

He has sued the EPA several times opposing anything that doesn't allow the oil and gas industry free reign to pollute the atmosphere.

http://www.sierraclub.org/compass/2017/01/top-5-things-you-didn-t-know-about-polluting-scott-pruitt

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/07/504723628/trump-selects-oklahoma-attorney-general-scott-pruitt-to-run-the-epa

Study finds NOAA did NOT fudge data on climate change!

Texas Republican Lamar Smith (B.A. in American Studies from Yale and a J.D. from SMU) was named chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.  Smith, who has no background or experience in any type of science (Christian Scientist does not mean a scientist who is Christian), accused National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists of fudging the data and lying about global warming in a paper published in 2015.  NOAA scientists also took time to explain their findings to Smith, but it wasn’t good enough for him.  The reason behind his allegations?  NOAA manipulated the data to benefit the Obama administration, who has been pushing the Clean Power Act.  Note that two sources report that Smith has received more money from the fossil fuel industry than any other industry.

Now, an independent study reviewing NOAA’s climate data, which has already been made public, has declared the results as accurate.  They found no evidence of cooking the books or manipulating the data to get the results they needed to support Obama’s “extreme climate change agenda.”

So the only basis for Smith’s accusations is money.  He has no proof of a climate change ‘hiatus’.  He is motivated by contributions from the fossil fuel industry which opposes Obama’s Clean Power Plan and the Clean Air Act.  Smith has issued more subpoenas in his time as chairman of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology than the committee's entire history.  

What will he and Trump do in the face of facts?  Probably ignore them again since it doesn’t suit their own agenda.  Trump has called global warming “bullshit” and a “hoax”.  He has promised to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement.   

Our environment is doomed.  Our planet is warming an at alarming rate, but Trump is ignoring it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/global-warming-hiatus-theory-debunked_us_586bf909e4b0eb58648ac638

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/08/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-noaa-global-warming-faux-pause-paper

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/418542137899491328

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-donald-trump-climate-change-hoax_us_582ceb8be4b099512f80d55e

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lamar-smith-climate-change_us_563bb981e4b0411d30702775

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_S._Smith

https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/smith-subpoenas-ma-ny-attorneys-general-environmental-groups

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/11/lamar-smith-climate-scientist-witch-hunter

Our environment is doomed, because the GOP lied. Here's the proof:

Trump and Trumpsters have an unhealthy, inexplicable love affair with the coal industry and the GOP sees itself as its savior.  During his campaign, Trump maligned President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the EPA by stating they had declared war on the coal industry.  Trump promised to repeal “all the job-destroying Obama executive actions”.  In his America First Energy Plan he actually said the difference is between wealth and poverty. 

What does Trump know about poverty?

It’s obvious he and his cabinet know nothing about science, either.  Or reading.

At the Republican National Convention, the GOP listed coal’s wonderful quality and vowed to dismantle Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which limits emissions from coal-fired power plants.  GOP Activist David Barton, who has absolutely no background in science, convinced delegates, who approved unanimously to add the adjective ‘clean’ to the platform’s statement:

“The Democratic Party does not understand that coal is an abundant, clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource.”

What the Republican Party does not understand is that Democrats are not as stupid as the GOP is.  Democrats base their energy platform on facts, not personal beliefs.  Coal can be made less harmful but it cannot be made clean. 

Barton’s wording comes from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE).  In a July 11, 2016 posting, the ACCCE set about to debunk ‘myths’ about coal fired power plants.  Addressing the ‘myth’ that coal-fired plants are dirty, the site references an EPA article from 2016. 

This is where the GOP and the ACCCE lied to mislead the public.  The first citation claims the EPA states the total tonnage of three major pollutants (SO₂, NO_x and PM) has been reduced by 83% since 1970. 

The article, National Air Pollutant Emission Trends, 1900-1998 does NOT say that.  Yes, some air pollutant levels have declined but due to the EPA’s Clean Air Act, which the GOP promises to eliminate!  And the reductions are nowhere near what ACCCE claims the EPA said.

Sec. 3.4.1, page 54 states:

“As a result of the EPA’s regulations SO₂ and PM₁₀ emissions from coal-fired electric power facilities fell by 8 and 85 percent, respectively.”  Note the ACCCE quote does not differentiate between PM₁₀ (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter) and PM_2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter).

The numerous data tables also show the coal-fired industry is not as rosy as the GOP would have you think.  The ACCCE ignored coal’s contribution to carbon monoxide which has soared since 1970 (Table 3-1).  Coal emitted NO₂, which ACCCE said had been reduced, has also increased since 1970 (Table 3-2).

I could continue but I'll let you read the reports for yourself.  Links are below.

The GOP has been outspoken in criticizing NOAA and NASA, accusing them of falsifying data.  But they have no data of their own to support their claims.  They lied and they knew it and they don’t care.  

Just as long as you voted for them.  

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-energy-plan

http://www.americaspower.org/issue/myths-coal-fired-power-plants/

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000ETJA.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2000+Thru+2005&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C00thru05%5CTxt%5C00000002%5C2000ETJA.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/12/2016-anti-science-trump-pence-flint-nra-hurricane-matthew

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/11/climate-deniers-trump-administration

The Oklahoman "endorses" Trump

Although The Oklahoman did not specifically say it endorsed Trump, the "non-endorsement" gist of the editorial makes it plain, it prefers Trump to Clinton.  The Daily Waste of Paper states that Donald Trump is the "wildest of wild cards" and a "flawed candidate".  But the editorial goes to much greater lengths to blast Clinton for her stances on policies (all without any citations, of course.  Who needs facts?).

Clinton has over eighty newspaper endorsements, including conservatives such as the Duncan Banner and the Stillwater News Press.  Trump has four, including the New York Observer (which has also endorsed Clinton) and the National Enquirer!  Nuff said.

The editorial ends with "By all means vote on Nov. 8, then pray for this country."

How did that work for the oilfields?


http://okiefunk.com/content/once-again-oklahoman-editorial-board-takes-immoral-cowardly-position

http://newsok.com/on-nov.-8-good-of-the-country-must-come-first/article/5522581

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-endorsements-newspaper-editorial-board-president-2016-2016-9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_primaries,_2016#Hillary_Clinton