Tag: COP21

SCOTUS Smackdown of EPA: Top Takeaways


Stroke of the pen. Law of the land ... (record screech!)The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) did something remarkable on Tuesday: It momentarily respected the separation of powers and finally shouted “Enough!” to the lawless rule of the Environmental Protection Agency. SCOTUS issued a stay on Obama’s “Clean Power Plan,” which is a radical, law-by-decree scheme to do nothing less than put this nation’s enormously complex energy-delivery system into the hands of central planners on the Potomac.

It was Clinton advisor Paul Begala who once said: “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.” Not any more … at least for now in this case.

Here are the top three take-aways of this historic moment in SCOTUS history.

Live-stream Today: A “Climate Realist” Briefing on COP-21 in Paris


The welcoming party at COP-21 in Paris for those who don't believe in the faith of man-caused global warming.The Heartland Institute just got back from Paris for COP-21, the “Conference of the Parties,” commonly known as the United Nations’ annual global climate conference. The world declared COP-21 a historic moment: The “Paris Agreement” will stop humanity from raising the global temperature by 2 degrees Celsius before the end of the 21st Century!

Balderdash! Hubris of the highest order. Not only does humanity not have the ability to put its collective hand on the global thermostat, humans are not causing a climate crisis.

Heartland’s contingent to Paris presented something unique and sorely needed: the only examination and explanation of the latest climate science, economics, and sensible global energy policy one could find in the city.

Eco-fascists’ Mockery of Justice

<small>Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein: The smiling faces of mock tyranny.</small>

Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein

I just returned from Paris for the UN’s COP-21 climate conference. There were a lot of nutty things that went on, but this might be the nuttiest, and most disturbing: at the so-called “People’s Climate Summit” in Montreuil, a suburb north of Paris, author Naomi Klein and climate activist Bill McKibben put on an event called “The People vs. ExxonMobil: A Public Trial for the Greatest Climate Crime of the Century.”

After the Paris Climate Deal…


RTX1YJBR-paris-e1450110046927Not surprisingly, perhaps, many on the right dismiss the big climate agreement reached in Paris. But here is a dour take from activist and author Bill McKibben in the New York Times:

So the world emerges, finally, with something like a climate accord, albeit unenforceable. If all parties kept their promises, the planet would warm by an estimated 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit, or 3.5 degrees Celsius, above preindustrial levels. And that is way, way too much. We are set to pass the 1 degree Celsius mark this year, and that’s already enough to melt ice caps and push the sea level threateningly higher.

The irony is, an agreement like this adopted at the first climate conference in 1995 might have worked. Even then it wouldn’t have completely stopped global warming, but it would have given us a chance of meeting the 1.5 degree Celsius target that the world notionally agreed on.…

They Saved the World?


This is a preview from Monday morning’s The Daily Shot newsletter. Subscribe here.

TDS-Logo-BThe 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (aka “COP21,” aka “CMP 11,” aka “Martha Stewart’s Cookware Extravaganza!”) has concluded and produced a 31-page plan to save the world. (That’s what they tell us anyway.)

Without Congress, Obama’s Paris Climate Change Powers Limited



John Bolton and I have a piece in the LA Times arguing that the Obama administration cannot reach any meaningful deal at the Paris climate talks because he refuses to seek consent from the Senate or Congress. The more he promises — such as pollution caps or financial support for developing nations — the more he needs the cooperation of the legislature.

The Paris deal could not survive the Constitution’s treaty process because of the President’s poor relations with the Senate, especially on foreign policy and national security, nor could he win legislative changes by Congress, which is currently rejecting the latest ideas from the EPA on limiting greenhouse gases. Obama will probably have to rely on an executive agreement, the weakest and most tentative of our forms of international agreements because they are not even mentioned in the Constitution and depend on a President’s exercise of his sole constitutional powers. From our piece: