Do you consider the following statement to be a) true, b) controversial, or c) false?

The climate has been changing from the dawn of time. The climate will change as long as we have a planet Earth.

If you answered a) then you should hang your head in shame and go to the bottom of the climate-denial stairs. I’m not sure about b), but only c) would allow you to burnish your credentials and hold your head up with pride. The statement was uttered by Senator Ted Cruz, and was enough to see him labelled a climate denier by both the Guardian and the Center for American Progress (CAP). The former recently published an article about a report by the latter.

Where do you stand on this?

I think many scientists would debate the percentage of what is attributable to man versus normal fluctuations.

I’m afraid if you didn’t bridle at such outrageous denialism, then that probably makes you a denier. Just like Senator Marco Rubio, who had the audacity to say it.

How about this?

There is no question that the Earth’s climate is changing and that over the Millennia of the Earth’s existence it has changed dramatically. No climate model is able to determine exactly what effect human activity has on our environment but there is little doubt that human activity has some effect…Yes, the climate is changing, geology tells us that Oklahoma was once covered by water and that glaciers dominated North America in our ancient history.

I hope you don’t think that represents a fairly sensible, middle-of-the-road statement of facts. If you do, then you are a denier, just like Senator James Lankford, whose outrageous words those are.

DeSmog has a list of the shameful people who deserve to be included in a Climate Disinformation Database, and so CAP has a report on the “Climate Deniers of the 118th Congress”. They are, apparently, a despicable bunch. Senator Kevin Cramer is, in the eyes of CAP, definitely someone to be outed. For goodness’ sake, he is quoted as saying this:

The earth has gone through cycles for as long as there’s been creation. What I would also tell them is ‘We can’t destroy ourselves in the process of trying to save the earth.’

Senator John Kennedy is another one with far too open a mind. What on earth was he thinking when he said this?

I’ve seen many persuasive arguments that [Earth’s rise in temperature is] just a continuation of the warming up from the Little Ice Age.

As for Senator John Hoeven, well really!

Well, the science shows that there’s warming. There’s different opinions of exactly what’s causing it.

Senator Rand Paul, how could you?

I mean, the planet is 4.5 billion years old. We have gone through great extremes of climate change, natural and now we may have a man-made influence as well.

On and on it goes. The list includes 123 of these wretched people, 100 in the House of Representatives and 23 US Senators. That’s almost a quarter of Congress. To be honest, what worries me is what the other three-quarters think.

The Guardian tells us that in order to make it onto the list, the individuals concerned have to:

…say that the climate crisis is not real or not primarily caused by humans, or claim that climate science is not settled, that extreme weather is not caused by global warming or that planet-warming pollution is beneficial.

That strikes me as being nonsense. There are at least elements of truth in all of those statements. One can accept that the climate is changing without it being a crisis; one can accept that the climate is changing, but contemplate that it might not be entirely down to the activities of human-kind, or even that humans are causing at least as many problems by chopping down forests as they are by releasing greenhouse gas emissions; one can consider that there must be – or certainly should be – room for doubt among the scientific community as to elements of the science, regarding such things as the equilibrium climate sensitivity; that extreme weather is not caused by global warming (my reading of the IPCC reports suggests that while it concludes that humans are entirely responsible for warming, such warming isn’t necessarily responsible for all forms of extreme weather); that greenhouse gas emissions are not “pollution” (after all, CO2 is a vital ingredient for life on earth); and that there are beneficial aspects to a warming planet, that it isn’t all down-side. So far as I am concerned, anyone who insists that none of that is true is far more of a denier than I am.

It’s worse than that, though. The CAP report adopts these criteria:

In this report, a member is considered a climate denier if they have:

1. Stated that they believe that climate change is not real or is a hoax
2. Stated that the climate has always been changing as a result of natural factors and that today’s warming is merely a continuation of natural cycles
3. Claimed that the science around climate change is not settled or that they cannot speak to the issue because they are not scientists themselves
4. Claimed that while humans are contributing to a changing climate, they are not the main contributors
5. Stated that increasingly frequent and intense extreme weather events such as wildfires and hurricanes are not related to climate change
6. Claimed that climate change impacts are actually beneficial to humans or positive for planetary health.

Saying that you cannot speak to the issue because you are not a scientist, apparently makes you a denier. An entirely rational statement, declining to express an opinion on a subject you do not feel qualified to speak about, makes you a denier.

The entire report has the feel of propaganda. How about this?

The fossil fuel industry also undermines the build-out of a clean energy economy through public misinformation campaigns. For example, a network of oil and gas interests operates to spread offshore wind misinformation with the goal of blocking the expansion of renewable energy in the Northeast, with claims that offshore wind construction has led to whale deaths. While it is true the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has declared an “Unusual Mortality Event” for humpback whales since 2016, none of these deaths have been attributed to offshore wind projects. The deaths, instead, have been attributed to ship strikes and entanglements. These specific falsehoods have been traced back to AstroTurf groups, organizations, and elected officials funded by the fossil fuel industry to block the expansion of wind projects off the Atlantic coast.

Some of us (sceptics, not “deniers”) are not so obsessed with the need to fill the planet with wind turbines that we ignore the obvious. When is a fact an opinion?

CAP concludes thus:

While there has been a shift in the use of rhetorical tactics to obstruct climate action without directly denying climate science, there are still 123 members of Congress who are outright climate deniers. The fossil fuel industry continues to use its exorbitant profits to exert its influence on federal environmental policy in the form of contributions to elected officials and on public relations campaigns. Publicly elected officials and the fossil fuel industry must be held accountable for their statements on climate change and deceptive obstructionist tactics such as greenwashing and spreading misinformation. Climate action cannot afford to be delayed any further.

I prefer to leave the last word to Senator Joni Ernst. Unlike CAP, I most certainly don’t think these words make her a denier; rather they demonstrate some fundamental common sense and decency:

I do believe in climate change, and I think our climate has been changing since the dawn of time and certainly, we as mankind can absolutely do a better job of protecting our environment.

From MasterResource

By Kassie Andrews — August 6, 2024

“Alaska’s Comprehensive Sustainable Energy Action Plan is a kleptocracy plan. The people behind this are taking advantage of decades of hard work of Alaskans who can no longer believe that wise, ethical, logical, civic minded people are at the helm (they are not). We the people must speak up.”

It is formally called “Meeting the requirements of the Priority Climate Action Plan for EPA’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program,” and Alaska’s slim green lobby is winning at the expense of the state’s indigenous resources and natural wealth. A bright light on this alien takeover can stop the takeover, however.

Background

Life is full of letdowns for conservatives in Alaska under the concerted efforts of Governor Dunleavy. Honoring a promise to abide by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Alaska Standard), his administration submitted the State of Alaska’s Priority Sustainable Energy Action Plan (PSEAP) plan to the EPA in March of 2024. This is the initial plan required to access Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (CPRG) funds brought to us by the Inflation Reduction Act. 

On July 22, 2024, the EPA proclaimed, “EPA has announced selected applications to receive over $4.3 billion in Climate Pollution Reduction Grants to implement community-driven solutions that tackle the climate crisis, reduce air pollution, advance environmental justice, and accelerate America’s clean energy transition.”

Led by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the non-partisan nonprofit Alaska Municipal League will “conduct the greenhouse gas emissions inventory [produced by Constellation Energy, “a leader in the clean energy transition”], collaborate with Tribal governments conducting their parallel planning efforts, facilitate stakeholder engagement, and produce the PSEAP and CSEAP.” 

The CSEAP, Comprehensive Sustainable Energy Action Plan, is phase two of the plan with the report stating, “the State recognizes that a more substantial undertaking is ahead, in producing the Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CCAP) over the coming year, and that this effort will require more detailed analysis and thorough review of opportunities for climate pollution reduction.”

Forty-five states now have climate action plans. States opting to keep the Climate Industrial Complex at bay were Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, South Dakota and Wyoming.

Why Alaska?

Alaska has miniscule emissions, as in less than one tenth of one percent of the the total U.S. [1] Put simply, this plan is about how we need to react to ostensibly lower our carbon footprint as if that is a valid concern at all with the report stating

Ultimately, nearly every currently available federal grant opportunity includes reference to the need for projects to advance carbon reduction. The State will evaluate individual opportunities alongside CPRG investments to leverage to the greatest extent possible.

Statewide GHG emissions are tabulated, and it is no surprise that industrial emissions from natural gas and transportation emissions from jet fuel are at the top of the list.  Alarmingly, there is still not a lack of desire in the voting public to address inflation and reduce federal debt to challenge the many tentacles of the climate industrial complex’s degrowth agenda.

Emission Strategies

Preliminary emissions reduction strategies include weatherization assistance, accelerating “beneficial electrification” by way of heat pumps, solid waste methane capture, electric vehicle supply equipment installation program, a “Solar for all” program for $100M, and augmentation of the existing Renewable energy fund for another $100M. 

Also included is carbon capture, use and sequestration.  Making reference to the Carbon Offset Program, passed by the Alaska Legislature in 2023, the direct metric listed is the “number of in-development and accredited carbon removal projects on state lands” and a secondary measure metric is the “construction of electric vehicle charging stations.” 

Carbon credit programs are bogus with the largest accredited and world leading certifier, Verra, being in the hot seat for over 90% of their offset credits being largely worthless.  Verra and Anew, both World Economic Forum partners, were invited to Juneau for expert testimony on the carbon offset legislation.  The legislature was notified of Verra’s fraudulent practices during public testimony on the bill, but it passed 58-2.

Goals

Goals of the plan include leveraging federal funding for an “impactful transformation,” delivering “equitable benefits,” “significantly diversifying power generation” and in its aim to reduce its carbon footprint, “the state is focusing on key sectors like transportation and energy production that contribute significantly to emissions.”

Objectives of the plan, 17 total, include:

• Promote and export technological and process innovation related to carbon emissions reduction and sequestration.
• Increase and promote growth opportunities in careers that contribute to addressing carbon reduction, including engineering, architecture and design, business and entrepreneurship.
• Identify ways to reduce fugitive emissions and increase carbon capture, use storage and sequestration.  (Legislation passed 2024)
• Improve electric generation efficiency in the Railbelt through a regionwide system operator and economic dispatch.  (Central planning as passed in 2024 and discussed here)
• Prepare for and promote a rapid transition to electric vehicles (EV) and lower-carbon fuels for transportation; this includes providing the requisite EV charging infrastructure, as well as shared bulk purchasing of EVs.
• Establish a Green Bank to develop long-term state-led financing of clean energy and energy efficiency.  (Legislation passed 2024)

Coincidentally, three of these key objectives also happened to be Governor Dunleavy’s priority “energy” bills for 2024. These bills were passed this legislative session, after the PSEAP was submitted to the EPA.

Sneaking It Through

The central planners are not at all concerned with what the public has to say about these plans. Public comment was not taken on this plan. , as mentioned in the Plan Elements and Key Takeaways:

The PSEAP is a preliminary analysis of the potential for climate pollution reduction in Alaska, and corresponding mitigation measures. DEC expects a more thorough review as part of the comprehensive planning process, including a robust stakeholder engagement and public consultation. 

The plan goes on to state that plans for future engagement are listed in another section, section VII, and within is not a single reference to public comment although they will “complete a benefits analysis for the full geographic scope and population covered by the plan.”  How very nice of them. 

A key word count found the following:

• Climate-51
• Disadvantaged-78
• Carbon-89
• CO2-90
• Justice-15
• Afford/Affordability-15
• Reliable/Reliability-11
• Sustainable-48

“Sustainability”

The Governor loves to use this word. It’s best application is to the economic system that provides the most to the most, free-market capitalism, while providing for environmental protection via private property rights (see here). But as a code word to Green New Deal plans, it means governmental command-and-control.

“Sustainability” is the new and perfect word to advance the unconstitutional United Nations global “sustainable” development goals (SDGs). According to the American Policy Center, it is a trigger word to get us to voluntarily surrender our liberties to government control, and as seen in the billions of dollars being dangled over states to comply with the climate goals, that is no stretch. 

Sustainability in today’s world and in the vast majority of corporate plans is the establishment for a new governance and is really just a signal to our overlords that we are willing and on board with their plans to fulfill the SDGs – and the only way to do that is by rationing and degrowth. 

SDG Goal 1:  End poverty in all its forms everywhere.  This simply means redistribution.  Everyone will be equally poor.  Less of everything for everyone (except the elite). 

SDG Goal 7:  Affordable and clean energy for all. 

On the energy side of things, we are systematically being reduced to unreliable energy commonly known as windmills and solar panels. You couldn’t possibly supply energy for everyone using sources that supply less energy, so the result will be less energy for all, using more of your earnings to give you less through debt and inflation. 

When thinking about what is really meant by the term sustainability and where we go from here, the rule of thumb is climate change overrules all other considerations. Politicians, bureaucrats, and corporate pirates have inserted the word “sustainability” into every state and corporate function possible.  In its well-crafted game to subvert the representative republic, this relegates Alaska and the United States Constitution into a subunit of the United Nations. 

CSEP: Next Steps

The Comprehensive Sustainable Energy Action Plan concludes:

The State of Alaska anticipates moving quickly from the PSEAP to the CSEAP, recognizing that the comprehensive planning process will provide an opportunity to move forward with more granularity of GHG emissions and corresponding mitigation measures.” 

As this report is only preliminary, State authorities will be moving forward with emissions sector workshops with the outputs including “establishing sector greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets and the identification of additional and refined greenhouse gas reduction measures.” The detailed CSEAP with specific targets for emissions reductions is required for the State to remain eligible for federal climate funding. 

With interested “stakeholders” undefined and prioritized within the plan, it is not clear how the State will incorporate the public into the input process.  With more and more local municipalities adopting Climate Action Plans, the public participation check box may well already be marked.

Alaska’s Comprehensive Sustainable Energy Action Plan isn’t an energy plan but a kleptocracy plan. The people behind this are taking advantage of decades of hard work of Alaskans who can no longer believe that wise, ethical, logical, civic minded people are at the helm (they are not). 

The new guard are counting on us to do nothing. But we must show up and speak up. They must know that we know what they are doing. Recall the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying. In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category, but the pillar industry of this country.

Now you know.

———————–

[1] Alaska’s total of 41 million metric tons of CO2 release in 2022 compares to the U.S. total of 6,343 mm tons, or less than one tenth of one percent (0.0065). Globally, Alaska represents about one hundred of one percent of the total (36,100 mm tons).

---

Kassie Andrews is a Principal at MasterResource following Alaska energy policy.