Everyone is focused on the US withdrawal from Paris and the tariff threat, but several other Executive Orders yesterday will have even more radical impacts and will require Canada to rethink all our energy and climate policies in response. /...
Eliminates the EV mandate. Poof. Canada spent $50b + in subsidies to build unwanted products for a market that just vanished. Unbelievable stupidity on the part of Trudeau, Ford and our other moron leaders.
Hits the jets on project approvals: All agency heads "shall undertake all available efforts to eliminate all delays within their respective permitting processes, including through, but not limited to, the use of general permitting and permit by rule. For any project an agency head deems essential for the Nation’s economy or national security, agencies shall use all possible authorities, including emergency authorities, to expedite the adjudication of Federal permits." 180 degree opposite to what's happening in Canada. But the biggest moves are yet to come.
"ensure that the global effects of a rule, regulation, or action shall, whenever evaluated, be reported separately from its domestic costs and benefits, in order to promote sound regulatory decision making and prioritize the interests of the American people;" That wipes out the basis of using global climate change in US rulemaking. They did that previously under Trump 1.0 but Biden had reversed it.
Directs agencies "to safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances, including but not limited to lightbulbs, dishwashers, washing machines, gas stoves, water heaters, toilets, and shower heads, and to promote market competition and innovation within the manufacturing and appliance industries;". At last a government that sees through the bad economics of so-called energy efficiency regulations. Once they start pulling on this thread a lot of rules will fall apart and consumer prices will fall as a result.
"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Order 13990, is hereby disbanded, and any guidance, instruction, recommendation, or document issued by the IWG is withdrawn" The IWG was relied on not just by the Biden Admin but by Canada and other governments to justify GHG regulations.
Gives the EPA 60 days to address the fact that 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." The EPA must assess repealing all its uses.
Within 30 days submit recommendations regarding repeal of the 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding, which forms the legal basis for all EPA greenhouse gas regulation authority. If this happens they zero out all climate regs.
Rescinds all Green New Deal-type spending and forbids agencies from using climate change considerations in future decision-making. But there's more yet.
Declares an Energy Emergency and gives all agency heads emergency authorization to override regulatory limits on "identification, leasing, siting, production, transportation, refining, and generation of domestic energy resources, including, but not limited to, on Federal lands."
"agencies shall identify and use all relevant lawful emergency and other authorities available to them to expedite the completion of all authorized and appropriated infrastructure, energy, environmental, and natural resources projects that are within the identified authority of each of the Secretaries to perform or to advance."
Not only withdraws from the 2012 Paris Treaty but "from any agreement, pact, accord, or similar commitment made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change." This means they are now out of all global climate agreements made since 1992.
Also they have pulled out of any and all international funding commitments made at past COPs. Since most of the recent COPs have been focused on financing handouts to 3rd World countries this means all of them are now null and void.
All agency heads directed to "prioritize the development of Alaska’s liquified natural gas (LNG) potential, including the sale and transportation of Alaskan LNG to other regions of the United States and allied nations within the Pacific region." Yet again Canada's failure to develop LNG export capability leaves us behind.
Taken together these Executive Orders are remarkably detailed and fine-tuned to wipe out all forms of climate regulation and other barriers to US hydrocarbon energy development (including coal). They not only prescribe agency actions but simultaneously undercut the basis of future legal challenges.
The US is positioning itself for a domestic energy boom. This could be a benefit for Canada if we deal with the fentanyl problem, border security and defence spending, thereby heading off the tariff threat. And then emulate the US actions and unleash our own energy sector.
Our current federal and provincial governments may want to pretend this isn't happening but it just did. We already have trouble attracting foreign investment and the competitiveness gap just opened very very wide. I have no confidence any of the Liberal leadership contenders (especially Carney) are capable of dealing with the situation we now face. .../
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My op-ed on forest fires in the Post financialpost.com/opinion/truth-…
prompted an interesting email to me from an experienced forester .../
"As someone who works in forestry and has worked fires, and been evacuated due to fire, I have looked into the data, and it bothers me to no end how “the science” is ignored...
"I can’t stand that the CIFFC graphs are never used, instead graphs are published that hide the real data. Climate change and fires are a perfect example of the misuse of statistics, percentages and ratios...
To all those for whom one bad year = a trend, and "climate change" explains everything, here two UK experts discuss the real challenges of explaining patterns in global wildfires. royalsociety.org/blog/2020/10/g…
"Fire activity is on the rise in some regions, but when considering the total area burned at the global level, we are still not seeing an overall increase."
"there is no doubt that, as explained in our paper, fire activity is on the rise in some regions, such as the western side of North America. And very importantly, associated with these regional increases, we are already seeing a rise in fire impacts, for example ...
Is the US Pacific region getting drier? Last year John Christy and I published a study of the long term precip history of the US Pacific and SouthEast regions. Here are 2,000 year proxy reconstructions of the Palmer Drought Severity Index for both areas. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Average drought severity in the Pacific region has been declining steadily for hundreds of years including over the 20th century.
Meanwhile long term daily precipitation records for 10 Pacific coast cities show little or no decline, especially in California
THREAD: Two new papers from independent teams show convincingly that climate models exaggerate atmospheric warming and the bias has gotten worse over time. When forced with observed GHG levels all the new gen models ("CMIP6") overshoot the observed post-1979 warming.
refs: Mitchell et al. “The vertical profile of recent tropical temperature trends: Persistent model biases in the context of internal variability” Env Research Letters iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…, and
I have a column today on the IPCC's RCP8.5 GHG emissions scenario. business.financialpost.com/opinion/ross-m…
RCP8.5, like A1FI and others before it, is part of a history of exaggerated top-end scenarios that create misleading pictures about the business-as-usual future.
h/t @RogerPielkeJr and his coauthors who have been doing a lot to push back against misuse of RCP8.5 in the academic community.
Modelers create a range of emission/concentration scenarios where the bottom end is realistic but largely benign and the top end is implausible and scary. Then they mislabel the top end the "no-policy" future and use it to call for deep emission cuts.
Been reading Ch 4 of the Env Can Climate Change report. It's not what you might expect from the alarmist media coverage, instead it's measured, rooted in data and interesting. changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/chapt…
The historical material is what I expected having done a detailed trend analysis of the homogenized Tmax data myself last fall rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/…
Trends vary across the country, with more warming in the western Arctic. If anything they find smaller increases in Tmax than I did post-1950.