Tag Archives: Carbon Dioxide

Canada Quits Kyoto as Globalists Step Up Climate Change Money-Grab

Two major news headlines came out yesterday, Dec. 11, 2011, that when read separately do not lead the readers to see the complete picture of how one is directly connected to the other. Headline 1, from Business Standard was titled, Canada quits Kyoto Protocol, becomes first nation to do so. The second headline is from Fox News.com titled, >U.N. Climate Conference Reaches Hard-Fought Agreement.

In the first headline from Business Standard we see the following explanation about Canada dropping out of the original Kyoto Protocol, which is explained here from the United Nations Kyoto Protocol/Climate Change homepage as:

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012
The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so.
(emphasis mine)

As the above headline states, Canada has now refused to abide by any further mandates by the globalists in the U.N. that were inserted into the original Kyoto protocol. Canada’s conservative P.M., Stephan Harper and their Environmental Minister, Peter Kent released the following statements as to why they will no longer allow the U.N. Climate Change manipulators to basically charge Canada for carbon emissions, siphon off that wealth to other countries, while the two largest emitters, China and the United States are not covered under the newest U.N Climate Change mandates that were established just two days ago at the U.N. Climate Change Conference held in Durban, S. Africa.( now known as the Durban Platform)

“We are invoking Canada’s legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto,” Environment Minister Peter Kent said, two days after a marathon UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa, at which 194 nations agreed to work on a new roadmap to curb global carbon emissions. Before this week, the Kyoto Protocol covered less than 30% of global emissions. Now it covers less than 13% — and that number is only shrinking. The Kyoto Protocol does not cover the world’s two largest emitters – the United States and China – and therefore will not work” he said.

As the original Kyoto Protocol was shown to be pretty much a lopsided failure, as is usually the case when people try to get many different nations to agree on one set of rules, it has now been proven to be just the initial step in allowing the U.N. Climate Change plutocracy to take massive amounts of wealth from one country and give it to another country based on very shady and cloudy Global Warming theory-based mandates. We see this proven by several of the U.N. Durban conference attendee statements after the headlines hit the news announcing, U.N. Climate Change Conference Reaches Hard-Fought Agreement. From the above-linked Fox News article we see the following tidbits: (emphasis mine)

The proposed Durban Platform (COP17) offered answers to problems that have bedeviled global warming negotiations for years about sharing the responsibility for controlling carbon emissions and helping the world’s poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations cope with changing forces of nature.
Sunday’s deal also sets up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year for poor countries. Other documents in the package lay out rules for monitoring and verifying emissions reductions, protecting forests, transferring clean technologies to developing countries and scores of technical issues.

While the debate raged on, India objected to being included in the Durban Platform mandates under the guise that “developing nations” of the past 20 years should not pay for 200 years of Global warming caused by industrialized nations. If that is to be considered fair, how about “developing nations” compensating industrial nations for developing the very technology that reduces carbon reductions in the first place? India’s Environmental Minister, Jayanthi Natarajan did have the most compelling comment of the conference: “How do I give a blank check and give a legally binding agreement to sign away the rights of 1.2 billion people?”

This is the main problem with the U.N. being given the power to take wealth and technology from one nation to give it to the nation of their choice, under the guise of being World Climate Change Czars. This is also being driven by a conglomerate of Socialists that seem to want Americans to ignore just what that Socialism has done recently to the European Union countries. Canada has taken the lead in pulling out of this One World Government scheme that is hiding behind the initials U.N.

It would be wise for the U.S to pull out of this recently announced Durban Platform/Kyoto Protocol redo, and take a firm stand against this unfair attempt at redistributing America’s wealth and technology under the guise of saving the planet from the evil carbon emissions that have in fact, allowed America to help feed and develop other nations for over 200 years. Unless of course, the Globalists at the U.N. would like to discuss the other nations being mandated to pay America back for her centuries of contributions to carbon emission reductions, clean-air technology, food production, electricity generation etc. America’s system of capitalism has allowed the rest of the world to benefit from it for a long time now. Is that something we should bend over and let the U.N. Climate Change plutocrats and fear-mongers penalize us for?

Footnote: Actual commitments from the last minute “negotiations” at the Durban Platform conference have been slow to hit the news. Relative updates will be posted as they develop, including a final summary of just what, if anything this conference accomplished.

Update: Ed Morrissey over at hotair.com summed it up nicely:

So the “agreement” is a non-binding pledge to meet again and make another agreement in, oh, three or four years, and that agreement won’t have to take effect for another five years after that. The only commitments in the near future for the Durban agreement is some voluntary reduction goals that emerging nations won’t bother to meet and industrial nations will ignore. Just like … Kyoto.

Mitt Romney: Flip-flop on Greenhouse Gasses [Video]

Perhaps he was for it before he was .. well you get the point. Back in June, Mitt was in New Hampshire on a campaign stop and told the group that clearly global warming was at least in part due to human causes.

I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that.


It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.

In this video of a campaign stop at Consol Energy in Virginia Mr. Romney had a different view.

Mitt Romney Flip-Flop on Global Warming

Why Obama’s Use of Regulation vs. Legislation is Flawed

The Failure of Barack Obama The Obama administration is using regulatory controls in place of legislation in many areas. By moving traditionally legislative actions into the executive branch, President Obama does not need to depend on a Congress that may not be able to produce the laws needed to force his progressive agenda on the whole of America. What he has failed to recognize is that the approach has a major flaw that could leave his legacy .. empty.

The latest of Obama’s regulatory pushes is the EPA’s push to limit CO2 by stretching the intent of the clean air act to illogical extents. By simply “declaring” carbon dioxide, the same element in human exhalation, a pollutant, the executive branch agency can create legally enforceable regulations that can limit anything that produces, and perhaps consumes, the life-giving molecule.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on H.R. 910 last month in response to the administration’s dictator-like actions. The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 is a bill that would prohibit the EPA Administrator from regulating carbon dioxide. It passed the house 255-172, but will likely die in the progressive-heavy Senate. The executive branch trumps the legislative – what happened to checks and balances?

In April, CDN reported on the EPA’s successful maneuver to block Shell Oil from drilling in the arctic sea. As the article shows, EPA head Lisa Jackson and her band of progressive extremists didn’t use the law, didn’t even try to fight the actual act of drilling – they killed the project because of the CO2 emissions of a single ship.

The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling. (emphasis mine)

Right out of Saul Alisnky’s teachings the EPA uses ridiculous guidelines, that no one could possibly follow, to grind the American business machine into the ground.

Where the Obama team has been short-sighted is in thinking that this tactic will create lasting change. By relying on the executive branch’s authority, all one needs to do to reverse it is .. that’s right .. change the executive.

If Kathlene Sebelius uses regulation to define a market-killing health care system, whomever the next president chooses to replace her will undo it. Which will effectively render the law worthless precisely because it relies too heavily on regulatory authority and not enough on legislative backing.

This will apply to the EPA’s overreach on CO2, health care regulation and anything else the Obama administration dreams up. This is up to the will of the people. The founders of our nation may just have been even more wise than we have or can imagine.

HR 910 Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 [Full Text]

HR 910 RFS




1st Session


H. R. 910




APRIL 8, 2011


Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works





To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.


    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,



    This Act may be cited as the ‘Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011’.



    Title III of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:



    • ‘(1) Water vapor.


      ‘(2) Carbon dioxide.


      ‘(3) Methane.


      ‘(4) Nitrous oxide.


      ‘(5) Sulfur hexafluoride.


      ‘(6) Hydrofluorocarbons.


      ‘(7) Perfluorocarbons.


      ‘(8) Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to, regulation, action, or consideration under this Act to address climate change.


      • ‘(A) IN GENERAL- The Administrator may not, under this Act, promulgate any regulation concerning, take action relating to, or take into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.


        ‘(B) AIR POLLUTANT DEFINITION- The definition of the term ‘air pollutant’ in section 302(g) does not include a greenhouse gas. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, such definition may include a greenhouse gas for purposes of addressing concerns other than climate change.


        ‘(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (4)(B), implementation and enforcement of the rule entitled ‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards’ (as published at 75 Fed. Reg. 25324 (May 7, 2010) and without further revision) and finalization, implementation, enforcement, and revision of the proposed rule entitled ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles’ published at 75 Fed. Reg. 74152 (November 30, 2010).


        ‘(B) Implementation and enforcement of section 211(o).


        ‘(C) Statutorily authorized Federal research, development, demonstration programs and voluntary programs addressing climate change.


        ‘(D) Implementation and enforcement of title VI to the extent such implementation or enforcement only involves one or more class I substances or class II substances (as such terms are defined in section 601).


        ‘(E) Implementation and enforcement of section 821 (42 U.S.C. 7651k note) of Public Law 101-549 (commonly referred to as the ‘Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’).


        ‘(A) ‘Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases’, published at 74 Fed. Reg. 56260 (October 30, 2009).


        ‘(B) ‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act’, published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (December 15, 2009).


        ‘(C) ‘Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations That Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 17004 (April 2, 2010) and the memorandum from Stephen L. Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, to EPA Regional Administrators, concerning ‘EPA’s Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program’ (December 18, 2008).


        ‘(D) ‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 31514 (June 3, 2010).


        ‘(E) ‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 77698 (December 13, 2010).


        ‘(F) ‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 81874 (December 29, 2010).


        ‘(G) ‘Action to Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82246 (December 30, 2010).


        ‘(H) ‘Action to Ensure Authority to Implement Title V Permitting Programs Under the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82254 (December 30, 2010).


        ‘(I) ‘Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82430 (December 30, 2010).


        ‘(J) ‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82536 (December 30, 2010).


        ‘(K) ‘Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal Implementation Plan Regarding Texas Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program; Proposed Rule’, published at 75 Fed. Reg. 82365 (December 30, 2010).


        ‘(L) Except for actions listed in paragraph (2), any other Federal action under this Act occurring before the date of enactment of this section that applies a stationary source permitting requirement or an emissions standard for a greenhouse gas to address climate change.


          • ‘(I) is not federally enforceable;


            ‘(II) is not deemed to be a part of Federal law; and


            ‘(III) is deemed to be stricken from the plan described in clause (ii)(I) or the program or permit described in clause (ii)(II), as applicable.


            ‘(I) is contained in a State implementation plan under section 110 and authorizes or requires a limitation on, or imposes a permit requirement for, the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change; or


            ‘(II) is part of an operating permit program under title V, or a permit issued pursuant to title V, and authorizes or requires a limitation on the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.


        • ‘(i) RULE- Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), any provision described in clause (ii)–


          ‘(ii) PROVISION DEFINED- For purposes of clause (i), the term ‘provision’ means any provision that–


      • ‘(A) NO LIMITATION- This section does not limit or otherwise affect the authority of a State to adopt, amend, enforce, or repeal State laws and regulations pertaining to the emission of a greenhouse gas.


        ‘(B) EXCEPTION-


        ‘(C) ACTION BY ADMINISTRATOR- The Administrator may not approve or make federally enforceable any provision described in subparagraph (B)(ii).’.


    • ‘(1) LIMITATION-


      ‘(2) EXCEPTIONS- Paragraph (1) does not prohibit the following:


      ‘(3) INAPPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS- Nothing listed in paragraph (2) shall cause a greenhouse gas to be subject to part C of title I (relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality) or considered an air pollutant for purposes of title V (relating to permits).


      ‘(4) CERTAIN PRIOR AGENCY ACTIONS- The following rules and actions (including any supplement or revision to such rules and actions) are repealed and shall have no legal effect:


      ‘(5) STATE ACTION-


  • ‘(a) Definition- In this section, the term ‘greenhouse gas’ means any of the following:


    ‘(b) Limitation on Agency Action-



    Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7543) is amended by adding at the end the following:


    ‘(4) With respect to standards for emissions of greenhouse gases (as defined in section 330) for model year 2017 or any subsequent model year new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines–


      ‘(A) the Administrator may not waive application of subsection (a); and


      ‘(B) no waiver granted prior to the date of enactment of this paragraph may be construed to waive the application of subsection (a).’.



    • (1) there is established scientific concern over warming of the climate system based upon evidence from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level;


      (2) addressing climate change is an international issue, involving complex scientific and economic considerations;


      (3) the United States has a role to play in resolving global climate change matters on an international basis; and


      (4) Congress should fulfill that role by developing policies that do not adversely affect the American economy, energy supplies, and employment.


  • It is the sense of the Congress that–


Passed the House of Representatives April 7, 2011.







1st Session

H. R. 910


To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes KAREN L. HAAS,