EPA Administrator: The War On Coal Is Over!

“The war on coal is over,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt declared in the coal mining state of Kentucky. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday that he will sign a new rule overriding the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era effort to limit carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Pruitt was among about two-dozen attorney generals who sued to stop former President Barack Obama’s push to limit carbon emissions, so the elimination of the Clean Power Plan is personal to him. Getting rid of the Clean Power Plan will mark the culmination of a long fight he began as the elected attorney general of the state of Oklahoma.

Pruitt has long rejected the government consensus that man-made emissions from burning fossil fuels are the primary driver of global climate change – or is it global warming? President Donald Trump, who appointed Pruitt and shares his skepticism of the often fabricated climate science, promised to kill the Clean Power Plan during the 2016 campaign as part of his broader pledge to revive the nation’s struggling coal mines and boost the economy.

Obama’s plan was designed to cut the United States carbon dioxide emissions to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The rule dictated specific emission targets for states based on power-plant emissions and gave officials broad latitude to decide how to achieve reductions. However, it was the broad executive overreach Obama became known for that some states took issue with.  The Supreme Court put the plan on hold last year following legal challenges by industry and coal-friendly states.

Pruitt is expected to declare that the Obama-era rule exceeded federal law by setting emissions standards that power plants could not reasonably meet. Appearing at an event with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Pruitt said, “The EPA and no federal agency should ever use its authority to say to you we are going to declare war on any sector of our economy.”

“This president has tremendous courage,” Pruitt said Monday. “He put America first and said to the rest of the world we are going to say no and exit the Paris Accord. That was the right thing to do.”

Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

Please Spread The Word And Share This Post

Author: Mac Slavo
Views: Read by 14 people
Date: October 10th, 2017
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.

It’s Here – Geoengineering Now Normalized as Scientists Spray Chemicals to Dim the Sun, Soak Up CO2

Undeterred by steep cost and the interminable controversy on the very concept of global warming, scientists will again experiment with geoengineering — as a means to bolster the effect of cloud cover by seeding the atmosphere with chemicals meant to dim the light of the sun — in a concerted effort to cool the planet.

While the project will undoubtedly stir distrust among those already doubtful pumping the air full of chemicals could ever end well, ‘chemtrail’ theories have seemingly been proven recently, particularly as a growing number of projects aim to align with strictures from the laden Paris Climate Accord.

Unsurprisingly — considering the arrogance of meddling with nature — praise of its methods and even of its goal has been anything but unanimous.

Swiss company Climeworks coughed up $23 million and constructed a facility to begin collecting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the air in May using sizable fans and filters — billing itself the planet’s first “commercial carbon dioxide capture plant.”

Reuters reports,

Advertisment

“Climeworks reckons it now costs about $600 to extract a tonne of carbon dioxide from the air and the plant’s full capacity due by the end of 2017 is only 900 tonnes a year. That’s equivalent to the annual emissions of only 45 Americans.”

Another, “Carbon Engineering, set up in 2009 with support from Gates and Murray Edwards, chairman of oil and gas group Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, has raised about $40 million and extracts about a tonne of carbon dioxide a day with turbines and filters.”

Image: Reuters.

Several additional companies have similar projects underway in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands — but nascent technology and lack of cost-benefit efficacy mean carbon scrubbing, alone, won’t be sufficient.

Obviously, even that effort sees the world falling behind in guidelines agreed upon by major world powers in Paris in April 2016 — a grave concern for scientist-adherents who laud the cooperative attempt to stave off what many believe will be untenably hot conditions (a global average rise from the birth of industry of over 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit or 2 degree Celsius), should dense gases and particulates, like methane and carbon, continue filling the atmosphere, unhindered.

Considering renewable energy has only recently begun dethroning fossil fuels as the go-to source for power generation, emissions from manufacturing, vehicle exhaust, and innumerable other polluters should be expected to continue for decades — a dire concern, according to U.N. data — meaning additional solutions may have to take up the slack to make the goals of the Paris accord attainable, particularly now that President Trump announced the U.S.’ withdrawal.

“We’re in trouble,” Janos Pasztor, head of newly-created Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Project, told Reuters of Earth’s putatively perilous warming. “The question is not whether or not there will be an overshoot [of the post-industrial maximum tenable temperature rise] but by how many degrees and for how many decades.”

“If you want to be confident to get to 1.5 degrees you need to have solar geo-engineering,” David Keith, of Harvard University, explained, referencing the preferred maximum 1.5-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature, compared to what is considered the 2-degree point of no return.

Harvard will conduct a geoengineering experiment of its own in Arizona next year, for which private donors have already contributed some $7.5 million, as Reuters adds,

“Keith’s team aims to release about 1 kilo (2.2 lbs) of sun dimming material, perhaps calcium carbonate, from a high-altitude balloon above Arizona next year in a tiny experiment to see how it affects the microphysics of the stratosphere.”

Perhaps in response to popular but unproven allegations aircraft have been spraying the atmosphere with chemicals for years — a burgeoning theory called “chemtrails,” whose adherents believe aerosols are being sprayed from planes to fend off global warming (or for more nefarious purposes) — Keith asserted,

“I don’t think it’s science fiction … to me it’s normal atmospheric science.”

READ MORE:  Conspiracy Theory No More, Harvard Reveals Big Oil-Approved "Stratospheric Injection" Geoengineering

In this race to ostensibly undo damage inflicted upon the planet by human activity, some scientists would rather slam on the brakes. How the manipulation of weather and dimming of the sun’s rays at surface level will affect intricately-related planetary weather patterns — for example, monsoons — remains the subject of, pun intended, heated dispute.

Critics peg carbon scrubbing and other geoengineering tactics as only slightly palliative smokescreens masking the monumental task of actually cutting industrial and personal greenhouse emissions — and generally ending reliance and fealty to fossil fuels and polluting power-generation methods.

Instead of foisting tens or hundreds of millions on projects to compensate for greenhouse gas pollution stemming from dirtier energy, detractors imagine the money put to better use improving and implementing wind, solar, and other green energy sources. Curbing the amount of contaminants spewed into the atmosphere — rather than removing them after the mess has been made — seems infinitely more prudent and cost effective.

Even pro-geoengineering scientists haven’t aligned entirely behind a method to cool the earth — while some believe reflectant chemical additives may be necessary for adequate dimming effect, others admonish against the use of anything other than water vapor.

Whether geoengineering in any form — from simple cloud seeding to capturing, filtering, and using carbon from the air for other uses — will ultimately have any measurable effect on the Earth’s temperatures and climate is a question long from an answer.

Considering the topic of global warming has been itself fraught with unending contention, any plans to manipulate nature further as compensation for the stunning failures in foresight humankind has displayed over the decades since the birth of industry won’t necessarily find welcoming ears in the public.

After all, the same governments sanctimoniously warning of grievous consequences from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases reach deep into their coffers to subsidize the exact oil and gas industry — as well as other notorious environmental villains — largely responsible for the presence of such pollutants in the first place.

It is Trump Against the World

There is no doubt that the Paris Climate Accord is about everything but the climate or the environment.

Put simply, the United States does not need the Paris Accord to become environmentally friendly and neither do the countries that stick to the agreement need the United States to carry out what they see as their responsibility to ‘save us’ from armageddon.

The issue is that the Paris Climate Accord is not about the environment, it never was. It was and will continue to be about the largest transfer of US dollars from the middle class and the poor people in the United States to the rich in developing nations.

It is like a giant welfare program for the elites in Latin America, Asia and other regions of the world where leaders are serfs of the European and North American aristocracy.

The departure of the United States from the Paris agreement is the first great evidence that Donald Trump has decided to withdraw his country from the world, to take care of it before wasting money in subsidising corruption schemes in other countries.

An unprecedented withdrawal that has generated a storm of criticism, global outrage and demonstrations of protest but at the same time an unusual unity.

In Europe, the first thing the European Union has done is to stage a renewal of its strategic alliance with China, the world’s first polluting country, that incidentally will not comply with any emissions reductions or put up any money to ‘save us’ from doomsday.

Secondly, the European aristocracy has warned Washington that its pledge to the pact will not prevent it from negotiating directly with US states and companies engaged in the fight against climate change.

“We are convinced that the US decision to abandon the Paris agreement is a big mistake, bigger than not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol because Paris is fairer. But the fight against climate change and all research, innovation and technological progress will continue, with or without the United States,” said European Council President, Donald Tusk, at a joint press conference with Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang and the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, after the 19th EU-China bilateral summit.

It has been a meeting dominated by good words but with less syntony than expected because of the divergences about the status of market economy that China claims to have within the framework of the WTO.

The challenge of Trump has forced Tusk, Juncker and Keqiang to leave their differences on trade, as in steel or human rights, to put the emphasis on what unites them. “The most important thing is what Li said last night, that we have to look for common points and not what divides us,” Tusk explained.

And the only thing that keeps them in the same vein today, besides multilateralism, is the so called fight against climate change.

“I am pleased to see that China agrees with our sadness over the unfortunate decision of the United States,” said the Luxembourg Christian Democrat not to mention that discrepancies over free trade and steel have prevented passage of the declaration on climate change and clean energy Negotiated in the last weeks, according to confirmed sources of the Council.

Even so, Beijing has closed ranks with the EU. “There have been changes in the international situation and an increase in uncertainty and destabilizing factors.

“That is why it is important that relations between the EU and China are more stable,” Li said, aware that the decision of Donald Trump opens the door to a change of balances around the world.

But beyond working with China, India or developing countries, Brussels is clear that it will try to circumvent Trump’s refusal to the Paris agreement by negotiating directly those who want to get involved in the fight against global warming, even within the United States.

“We will establish a dialogue in the United States with all the actors who support ambitious climate policies,” says climate and energy commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete.

“States like California have very serious ambitions and policies. The US companies are going to generate clean energy and therefore also in the United States there will be efforts to reduce emissions,” he added just hours after Trump confirmed that the US would leave the agreement.

Brussels is aware that with a more committed and ambitious US administration, the battle against climate change would be easier, but they see the means – the Paris agreement, the mechanism, the national reduction contributions and the politics needed to face the “greatest challenge facing humanity”.

What they won’t have will be billions of US dollars that will not be taken from the US economy, which together with insane anti human policies enacted by the Paris agreement would have further weaken the American economy. Instead, Trump seeks to strengthen its infrastructure, politics and economy by carrying out negotiations in a bilateral manner.

Put simply, Trump wishes to make America great Again, to perhaps later occupy himself making the planet great again.

Meanwhile in Europe, Trump is criticised by globalist Macron who says that “all the scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and responsible citizens who are disappointed by the decision of the President of the United States” should work in French territory: “come and work here with us to find concrete solutions to protect the climate”.

Further away, Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel, who called Trump’s decision a “brutal act”, has even advocated taking action against a possible “climate dumping” by the Americans.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has expressed with much more restraint her anger but with equal firmness: “It is a regrettable decision and I express it very contained,” but “nothing will stop us,” she promised.

Trump Goes Off Script: Withdraws US from Paris Climate Accord

In a blow for NWO plans for a worldwide carbon tax, Trump has gone off script (from a globalist point of view) & withdrawn the US from the Paris Climate Accord.

Trump has withdrawn the US from the Paris Climate Accord in what can be considered as majorly going off script (from the point of view of the globalists / New World Order conspirators). Of course, for Trump supporters, the president is keeping on script with his campaign promises. This is good albeit somewhat rare, given that in his first 4 months as president, Trump has done some significant flip flopping, reversing his position on many key issues since assuming office. Despite some of the atrocious recent moves by Trump – cutting weapon deals with the terrorist-funding and citizen-beheading fake royal Saudis, as well as sucking up to the Zionists in Israel – credit must be given where credit is due. Trump has seen through the manmade or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hoax, which is the basis for the worldwide carbon tax agenda, and has followed through on his word to not be a part of the deception any longer. The Paris Climate Accord will now be lacking any real substance without the signature of the most powerful nation in the world, the USA.

AGW is Based on Falsities, Fallacies and Insanities

At this point, it’s important to briefly recall that AGW is not only based on cherry-picked data, cooked books and fake numbers, but also on utterly crazy and false ideas. Proponents of manmade global warming want you to believe that carbon dioxide (CO2) – the molecule of life for all plant life on this planet – is actually an unwanted pollutant. They want to classify the very air you breath out as some sort of toxin that needs to be regulated, despite the very provable fact that higher levels of CO2 mean more abundant growth of plants – a fact well known to greenhouse farmers.

The irony is that the more plant life we have, of course, the better the flowdown effect on the environment – the very thing that AGW supporters claim they are protecting and standing up for.

Yes, humans are polluting the world in horrible ways, but this has nothing to do with carbon dioxide, and everything to do with the synthetic chemicals, petrochemical drugs, crude oil, plastics and other horrible stuff that we are dumping into the world – not to mention the incessant geoengineering programs which spray aluminum, strontium, barium and God knows what else on unsuspecting people below as though they were mere bugs.

NWO Dream of Worldwide Carbon Tax Suffers Setback

You can be sure the Bilderbergers, locked away from the eyes and ears of the world in their plush hotel in Chantilly, Virginia, will be discussing how to get the carbon tax agenda back on track. The carbon tax, for those who don’t know, is the brainchild of the Rothchilds, Rockefellers and other NWO criminals who have been working on the idea since at least the 1980s as a pretext with which to bring in a One World Government.

You can read more about the background to the carbon tax in my earlier article Good Hearts, Fooled Minds: Top 4 Fallacies of the Hijacked Environmental Movement, but basically, the agenda arose out of 2 conspiracy reports/documents from The Iron Mountain and The Club of Rome. The 1966 Report from the Iron Mountain made the case for exaggerating an environmental threat so as to justify world global governance:

“It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power.”

Meanwhile, The Club of Rome’s 1991 document The First Global Revolution? hatched the plan of justifying a World Government so as to protect humanity from itself:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together … all these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

The Club of Rome is part of a key group of 6 interlocking societies known as the Round Table, which was first led by imperialist Cecil Rhodes. The Round Table includes the Bilderberg Group (widely considered to be at the apex), the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), the RIIA (Royal Institute of International Affairs), the Club of Rome, the Trilateral Commission and the United Nations.

To reiterate, the carbon tax is the key plank of their NWO manifesto. Without the US involved, there is little chance of it becoming truly global. It is surely not too much to imagine that many key Bilderbergers must be fuming at Trump’s withdrawal and plotting on how to bring him back into line.

Reactions to the Trump Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord

Trump’s decision has already met with a lot of disappointment, criticism and condemnation from many politicians, including European leaders and even the mayor of Pittsburgh, Bill Peduto. Trump had said in his speech announcing the withdrawal that he represented the people of Pittsburgh, not Paris. Peduto wrote on his Twitter account:

Bill Peduto writes about Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord.

Trump also lost the support of another billionaire – Elon Musk, founder of Tesla – who wrote on Twitter that he is “departing presidential councils”:

Elon Musk writes about Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord.

Sources:

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/hijacked-environmental-movement/