Press Releases


Entries in Climate Alarmism (122)


Cooler Heads Digest 09 October 2015 

9 October 2015

In the News

Time To End Energy Cronyism
Robert Bradley, Jr., Master Resource, 9 October 2015

The 97 Percent Solution
Ian Tuttle, National Review, 8 October 2015

SunEdison: A Cloudy Picture for another Renewable Energy Company
Rob Nikolewski,, 8 October 2015

Sierra Club Testimony Reveals It’s Worse Than We Thought
Marlo Lewis,, 7 October 2015

Documents Reveal Dem Efforts To Discredit EPA Critics
Lachlan Markay, Washington Free Beacon, 7 October 2015

The Global Warming Racket: Nice Work If You Can Get It
Kerry Jackson, Investor’s Business Daily, 6 October 2015

What To Make of India’s Carbon Intensity Pledge
David Kreutzer,, 6 October 2015

India Leads Asia’s Dash for Coal
Krishna Das, Reuters, 6 October 2015

Electric Truck Company Looks Like Next Stimulus Funded Bankruptcy
Paul Chesser, National Legal and Policy Center, 5 October 2015

Britain’s Commitment to Climate Aid Is Immoral
Bjorn Lomborg, The Telegraph, 5 October 2015

News You Can Use
EPA: Armed & Dangerous

According to data compiled by Stephen Moore for the Investor’s Business Daily, EPA this year will spend $1.4 million on guns, $380,000 on ammunition, $210,000 for camouflage, and $280,000 on night vision equipment.

Inside the Beltway
Myron Ebell

House Moves To Lift Oil Export Ban

The House of Representatives on 9th October passed a bill to lift the forty-year old ban on crude oil exports by a vote of 261 to 159.  Twenty-six Democrats joined 235 Republicans in voting Yes on H.R. 702, which was sponsored by Representative Joe Barton (R-Tex.).  Six Republicans and 153 Democrats voted No. 

An obscure provision to raise authorized funding to subsidize U.S.-flagged merchant ships that can be commandeered for military purposes was added to H.R. 702 by Republican leadership in order to increase Democratic support. That caused at least two conservative groups, Heritage Action and Freedom Works, to withdraw their support for the bill. 

Although the bill or a similar bill has a good chance to pass the Senate, the White House earlier in the week issued an official veto threat.  The statement said: “Legislation to remove crude export restrictions is not needed at this time.  Rather, Congress should be focusing its efforts on supporting our transition to a low carbon economy.  It could do this through a variety of measures, including ending the billions of dollars a year in federal subsidies provided to oil companies and instead investing in [subsidies for] wind, solar, energy efficiency, and other clean technologies to meet America’s energy needs.”

As Representative Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the energy subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, drily noted, President Obama did not make this argument when he lifted the sanctions on oil exports from Iran.  The United States is now the only oil-producing country that bans crude oil exports.   

Across the States
William Yeatman

North Carolina and Kentucky Show Their Hands on Clean Power Plan

EnergyWire ($) reports this week that North Carolina won’t seek an extension on the September 2016 deadline for submissions to comply with the Clean Power Plan, but that the state’s ontime submission will be limited to “inside the fence line” measure--in direct contravention of EPA’s requirement to remake the entire electricity sector in accordance with the administration’s climate goals. In Kentucky, Attorney General Jack Conway, the Democratic nominee for governor, promised this week that he would not submit a state plan, if he were elected governor. His Republican challenger already has pledged to not submit a plan.

Around the World
Myron Ebell

IPCC Selects New Leader

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change elected Dr. Hoesung Lee as its new chairman at its meeting in Dubrovnik, Croatia, this week. Dr. Lee, who is currently one of the IPCC’s three vice chairmen, defeated five other candidates.  Dr. Lee replaces two-term IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri, who resigned in disgrace in February.

Dr. Lee is professor of the economics of climate change, energy, and sustainable development at Korea University.  In an informative interview with the Carbon Brief, he said, “If you ask me to choose the most important work in climate change issues, then I'll choose carbon price. That's because it is the driver to put us into the right track.”

In his nomination papers, Dr. Lee wrote that his vision for the IPCC was to “enhance participation of developing country experts,” “increase policy relevance and neutrality,” and to “pay special attention to climate change issues associated with job creation, health, innovation and technology development, energy access and poverty alleviation.”

The IPCC also elected three vice chairs: Ko Barrett from the U.S., Thelma Krug from Brazil, and Youba Sokona from Mali.  It also elected co-chairs and vice chairs for the three Working Groups for the sixth Assessment Report.  Co-chairing WG I will be Valerie Masson-Delmotte from France and Panmao Zhai from China.  Co-chairing WG II will be Hans-Otto Portner from Germany and Debra Roberts from South Africa.  And co-chairing WG III will be Priyadarshi R. Shukla from India and Jim Skea from the U.K.  A list of all officials elected by the IPCC can be found here. 

United Nations Releases “First Draft” of Paris Climate Treaty

The co-chairmen of UN negotiations on the forthcoming Paris climate treaty on 6th October released what they called a “first draft,” which they said will serve as “a concise basis for negotiations for the next negotiating sessions from 19-23 October in Bonn. The new twenty-page draft is a slimmed down version of much longer drafts released in February and July. 

As Andrew Revkin points out on his New York Times blog, the new draft is a lot shorter, but it is still riddled with brackets that enclose text that has been suggested during the negotiations by one or more countries, but has not been agreed on.   Although the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, as the negotiations are officially titled, was adopted in 2011, the draft text still doesn’t answer a key question: whether the new agreement is going to be “a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force” under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

It is widely understood that the inability or unwillingness of the negotiators to decide what form the agreement will take is due to the conflict between the desire to have a legally-binding agreement (that is, a treaty like the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol) and the need to pretend that it is not a treaty so that it is not subject to ratification by the U.S. Senate.  The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated by the Clinton Administration in 1997 and signed by President Clinton in 1998, but was never submitted to the Senate because ratification would not have come close to the two-thirds super-majority necessary for ratification.  At this point, the Paris Agreement looks just as unratifiable as Kyoto.

My view is that they can call it whatever they want, but the draft text makes clear that it’s a treaty; and therefore the Senate would have to ratify it for the U.S. to become a party.  For those interested in the details of why the Paris Agreement will undoubtedly be a treaty, I suggest looking especially at Articles 16, 18-22, and 25 of the draft text prepared by the co-chairmen of the Ad Hoc Working Group, Daniel Reifsnyder of the United States and Ahmed Djoghalf of Algeria.   

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website,


Cooler Heads Digest 02 October 2015 


2 October 2015


The Competitive Enterprise Institute, FreedomWorks, Institute for Energy Research, and Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council submitted a joint comment letter on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) proposed rule, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles – Phase 2.”

In the News

U.S. Continues To Distance Itself as the World Leader of Natural Gas
Chris Pederson, Platts, 2 October 2015

House Panel Probing Taxpayer Support for Efforts to Investigate Climate Change Skeptics
Lachlan Markay, Washington Free Beacon, 1 October 2015

Eliminating the Path to Energy Poverty
Nicolas Loris,, 30 September 2015

Petition: Forget “Climate Change,” Energy Empowers the Poor
E. Calvin Beisner, LinkedIn, 30 September 2015

The Energy Election
Joel Kotkin, Real Clear Politics, 30 September 2015

Shale Shock: A New, Better Energy World
Steve Goreham, Master Resource, 30 September 2015

$9 Billion of Crappy Renewable Energy: Just What the World Needs
James Delingpole, Breitbart, 29 September

New Name, But Still “Cap and Trade”
Rep. Ed Whitfield, The Hill, 29 September 2015

EPA’s Clean Power Plan Oversteps Federal Authority
Terry Jarrett, Real Clear Energy, 29 September 2015

News You Can Use
Pope News Roundup

Here are some notable columns on Pope Francis’s U.S. visit and his views on climate and the environment: Victor Davis Hanson; Michael Grunwald; Maureen Mullarkey; and George Will.

Inside the Beltway
Myron Ebell

EPA Issues Job Killing Ozone Rule

The Environmental Protection Agency released its final rule to reduce ozone levels on 1st October.  The current National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 75 parts per billion will be reduced to 70 parts per billion.

The new 70 parts per billion limit will cost hundreds of billions of dollars in compliance costs, but major industry groups took some satisfaction in the fact that it wasn’t worse.  Then-EPA Administrator Richard Windsor (aka Lisa Jackson) in 2011 proposed 65 ppb.  The White House then decided to delay that rule until after the 2012 elections because the potential costs were so colossal that the issue could have threatened President Obama’s re-election.

The final rule will undoubtedly be litigated by environmental pressure groups and by industry groups.  The environmental groups will have a strong case that the standard should be lowered to 65 ppb at the most.  That’s because the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee stated in a 26th June 2014 letter that: “[O]ur policy advice is to set the level of the standard lower than 70 ppb within a range down to 60 ppb, taking into account your judgement regarding the desired margin of safety to protect the public health, and taking into account that lower levels will provide incrementally greater margins of safety.”  As my CEI colleague William Yeatman noted, federal courts have been very deferential to the recommendations made by the EPA’s scientific advisory boards.

On top of the EPA’s Clean Air Act rules for greenhouse gas emissions, mercury emissions, cross-state air pollution, and regional haze and its Clean Water Act wetlands rule, the ozone rule guarantees that the EPA has become the number one job-killing agency in the Obama Administration.  EPA’s top political appointees and senior civil servants have probably held several big taxpayer-funded parties to celebrate this cumulative achievement and are probably in line for numerous awards from President Obama.

Professor Who Advocates Criminalizing Global Warming Skepticism Has Taken $63 Million in Federal Grants

In early September, twenty professors sent a letter President Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and White House science adviser John Holdren that congratulates the President on his climate policies to raise energy prices and impoverish Americans and then urges that another tool be used to save the planet: criminalize opponents of global warming alarmism.  Here is the key request in the letter:

“We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.  One additional tool—recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]—is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.  The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research (Brulle 2013) and in recent books….”

The lead signer was Professor Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC.  Five other signers are also from GMU: Edward Maibach, Paul Dirmeyer, Barry Klinger, Paul Schopf, and David Straus.  Columbia University can proudly claim three signers: Michela Biasutti, Mark Cane, and Lisa Goddard.   

Two signers profess at the University of Washington: Edward Sarachik and Michael Wallace.  Two more are at the University of Maryland: Eugenia Kalnay and William Lau.  And two more are at Florida State University: T. N. Krishnamurti and Vasu Misra.  Alan Robock of Rutgers University, Ben Kirtman of the University of Miami, and Robert Dickinson of the University of Texas are the sole signers from their universities.  Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and Alan Betts of Pittsford, Vermont complete the Gang of 20. 

My CEI colleague Chris Horner filed requests for public records with the various universities to obtain the signers’ statements of economic interest after it was revealed that Professor Shukla has been paying himself and his wife huge salaries from federal grants to a non-profit he controls called the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES) in addition to his GMU salary.  Their combined income was over $800,000 in 2013 and 2014.  In addition, federal grants were used to pay the Shuklas’ daughter.  Steve McIntyre on Climate Audit has a thorough summary of what has been discovered so far.

House Science Chairman Lamar Smith on 1st October wrote a letter to Professor Shukla that states:

“IGES appears to be almost fully funded by taxpayer money while simultaneously participating in partisan political activity by requesting a RICO investigation of companies and organizations that disagree with the Obama administration on climate change. In fact, IGES has reportedly received $63 million from taxpayers since 2001, comprising over 98 percent of its total revenue during that time.”

Chairman Smith’s letter warns Professor Shukla that the committee intends to investigate this misuse of federal funds and that all IGES records and communications should be preserved.   

VW Diesel Scandal Exposes Conflicting Regulatory Mandates

The Environmental Protection Agency on 18th September charged that Volkswagen had sold approximately 480,000 diesel cars in the U. S. that contained “defeat devices” that allowed them to pass EPA’s emissions tests, while pollution levels increased by up to forty times in normal driving. VW quickly admitted they had cheated and had sold 11 million vehicles worldwide with the devices.  The company set aside $7.6 billion to pay for penalties, recalls, and liability judgments, but many analysts thought that the total costs would eventually be much higher.

VW cheated because they are caught between regulations to reduce pollution and regulations to increase fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Meeting both these conflicting goals results in cars that few people want to buy.  Diesel engines are significantly more fuel efficient than gasoline engines, but they are also dirtier.  Making them cleaner results in lower performance and more fuel consumption. 

Mercedes and other high-end diesel car producers have gotten around that by installing very expensive technology, which increases the costs of their vehicles.  Adding five or ten thousand dollars to the cost of a car can work for luxury cars that cost over $50,000 to begin with, but not for VWs and other cars in the $20-30,000 range.  It remains to be seen how the major automakers will continue to produce cars that people want to buy as the 54.5 miles per gallon CAFÉ standard begins to take effect.

Across the States
Isaac Duarte


On 25th September, the California Air Regulatory Board approved regulations that severely limit carbon emissions from gasoline and diesel fuels. The new regulations require oil producers to reduce carbon emissions at least 10% by 2020. This decision comes hot on the heels of the removal of a similar provision in SB 350, which would have mandated a 50% cut in petroleum use by 2030. Presumably, the new regulations are Gov. Jerry Brown’s attempt to force petroleum cuts through the regulatory process rather than through the normal legislative process.


Royal Dutch Shell on 28th September announced that it would end its Arctic oil exploration activities after spending over $7 billion since 2007.  Shell said that it made the decision after the well it drilled this summer in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska’s north coast did not produce any evidence of significant oil or natural gas deposits.  The company also cited continuing low crude oil prices, high production costs, and an “unpredictable” regulatory environment as reasons for pulling out of the Arctic. 

Around the World
Isaac Duarte


On 1st October, India submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (or INDC) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.  The 38-page document recounts India’s climate policies to date and lays out its plans to reduce emissions 33-35% by 2030.  According to the INDC, India will need $2.5 trillion of foreign aid in order to take the appropriate steps.  For reference, that is slightly less than a year and a half of India’s current GDP.  Of this $2.5 trillion, only $883 billion would be used to reduce emissions.  The rest would be used to fund “adaptation action” designed to reduce the effects of climate change on Indians.  While there has been much said in the mainstream media about how ambitious India’s goals are, very little has been said about how much it will cost taxpayers in developed countries to achieve those goals.

Science Update
Marlo Lewis

Are Tropical Storms Becoming More Destructive? Will They?

Lin & Chan, 2015, a study published in Nature Communications, finds that the destructive potential of tropical cyclones (“typhoons”) in the most active and hazardous tropical cyclone basin on Earth, the Western North Pacific Main Development Region, decreased by 35% over the past decade.

Lin and Chan use a metric called the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) to measure the destructive potential of Asia-Pacific typhoons. The PDI is a product of three factors: storm frequency, duration, and intensity. In the past decade, typhoon intensity increased due to increases in ocean heat content. However, typhoon frequency and duration decreased due to stronger vertical wind shear and lower vorticity in the storm genesis region. The declines in frequency and duration overpowered the increase in intensity, producing a net decrease in PDI of approximately 35%.

Based on climate modeling studies, Lin and Chan project that global warming will induce an additional 15% decrease in the Asia-Pacific PDI. In their words, “Although both the intensity and duration increased under global warming, there was an even larger typhoon frequency reduction of 25.7%. As a result, the typhoon PDI decreased by 15.2%.”

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website,


Cooler Heads Digest 25 September 2015 


25 September 2015


The Heritage Foundation this week published a paper on “Obama’s Plan to Avoid Senate Review of the Paris Protocol,” by Steven Groves.

In the News

Air Pope One
Henry Payne,, 25 September 2015

September Was Cruelest Month for Jonathan Chait’s Feature on Climate Change Policy
William Yeatman,, 24 September 2015

Shale Revolution Revitalizing U.S. Manufacturing
William Shughart, San Diego Union Tribune, 24 September 2015

None Dare Call It Conspiracy: Obama’s Coordinated Climate Campaign
Chris Horner, Investor’s Business Daily, 23 September 2015

Pope Misses the Mark on Economics
James Taylor & Jim Lakely, Forbes, 23 September 2015

Obama’s Interview on Climate Change
Jeff Goodell, Rolling Stone, 23 September 2015

An Addition to AP Stylebook Entry on Global Warming
Paul Colford, Associated Press, 22 September 2015

Not All Energy Is Created Equal
Marita Noon, Oil Price, 21 September 2015

Putting People Ahead of Climate Hysteria
Donn Dears, Master Resource, 21 September 2015

E&E Legal on the Capture of the EPA
Jim DeLong, Forbes, 18 September 2015

News You Can Use
EPA Spares No Expense on Office Furniture

The Washington Times this week reported that the Environmental Protection Agency over the past decade has spent a whopping $92.4 million to purchase, rent, install and store office furniture, or about $6,000 for every one of the agency’s 15,492 employees

Inside the Beltway

Pope Francis Barely Mentions Climate Change in Speeches at the United Nations, Congress, and the White House
Myron Ebell

Pope Francis cooled his rhetoric on climate change and the need to de-industrialize the world in order to help the poor in his three speeches to political bodies during his first trip to the United States this past week.  Francis and his Vatican entourage arrived direct from Cuba on 22nd September at Andrews Air Force Base, where he was greeted by President and Mrs. Obama.

Appearing the next morning on the White House lawn with the President, the Pope said, “I find it encouraging that you are proposing an initiative for reducing air pollution. Accepting the urgency, it seems clear to me also that climate change is a problem which can no longer be left to a future generation.”

On Thursday morning, Francis became the first Pope to address a joint meeting of Congress.  He didn’t mention climate change once, although he did call on Congress to exert itself to “to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.”

In his address to the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit at UN headquarters in New York City on 24th September, Pope Francis spoke at length on the connection between protecting the environment and “putting an end to exclusion.”  Francis uses “the excluded” as a catchall term for various categories of downtrodden people. 

His argument is convoluted, but here is perhaps the key passage:

“The misuse and destruction of the environment are also accompanied by a relentless process of exclusion. In effect, a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity leads both to the misuse of available natural resources and to the exclusion of the weak and disadvantaged….  Economic and social exclusion is a complete denial of human fraternity and a grave offense against human rights and the environment. The poorest are those who suffer most from such offenses, for three serious reasons: they are cast off by society, forced to live off what is discarded and suffer unjustly from the abuse of the environment. They are part of today’s widespread and quietly growing ‘culture of waste’.”

In an indication of his charming naivete, the Pope continued: “The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the World Summit, which opens today, is an important sign of hope. I am similarly confident that the Paris Conference on Climatic Change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.” 

Hilary Clinton Opposes Keystone XL Pipeline
Marlo Lewis

Campaigning in Iowa on Tuesday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced she opposes the Keystone XL Pipeline. Keystone foes had pressed her for months to declare her opposition, but until this week she took no side in the controversy, explaining that, as former head of the department reviewing the project, she did not want to “second guess” President Obama and Secretary Kerry, and would “wait and see” what they decide. In July, she told a New Hampshire voter who queried her on Keystone, “If it’s still undecided when I become President, I will answer your question.”

Well, officially it’s still undecided, so Clinton’s action confirms what many of us suspected – Obama and Kerry long ago decided to kill the pipeline through a deny-by-delay strategy.

On announcing her opposition, Clinton criticized Keystone as “a distraction from important work we have to do on climate change.” She offered a fuller explanation the next day in a blog post on

“We shouldn’t be building a pipeline dedicated to moving North America’s dirtiest fuel through our communities — we should be focused on what it will take to make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. For too long, the Keystone XL pipeline has been a distraction from the real challenges facing our energy sector — and the job-creating investments that we should be making to meet them.”

The Keystone project would be funded solely by private investors putting their own capital at risk. “We” – that is, political elites – shouldn’t allow that. “We” should only allow investment in “clean energy.” Sounds like central planning.

Perhaps Clinton also means Keystone has become a political distraction for self-styled progressives. Keystone was useful when it mobilized green activists after the death of cap-and-trade in 2010, but the big game now is the “Clean Power” Plan and Paris climate treaty. Time to move on.

Clinton says she had to speak out on “an issue that matters so much to so many” because “the effects of climate change have grown more acute,” citing recent U.S. forest fires, the California drought, and “more severe storms and heat waves” around the world. Actually, there is no solid evidence carbon dioxide emissions are increasing the frequency or intensity of extreme weather, and fossil-fueled development remains indispensable for making our naturally-dangerous climate system more livable.

“Over the past five years, a 20-fold increase in the amount of oil shipped by rail has led to devastating accidents,” Clinton remarked, proving that irony can be pretty ironic sometimes. The State Department’s environmental review concluded that blocking the Keystone pipeline would dramatically increase shipments of crude-by-rail, leading to more frequent oil spills, accidents, and fatalities.

Around the World
Myron Ebell

American and Chinese Presidents Agree To Continue To Work Together To Raise U. S. Energy Prices

President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping issued a three-and-a-half page joint statement on climate change on 25th September during the Chinese leader’s state visit to Washington, DC.  This follows the climate agreement that Presidents Obama and Xi made on 12th November 2014 when Obama visited China.   

Both leaders commit “to work together and with others toward an ambitious, successful Paris outcome” that makes progress toward keeping the increase in the global mean temperature below 2 degrees centigrade.  “Paris outcome” refers to the new international agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol that is currently being negotiated and is due to be signed at COP-21 (the seventeenth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) in Paris in December.

Press reports have focused on the announcement that China will begin an emissions trading (or cap-and-trade) system for greenhouse gas emissions from electric generation and most industries by 2017.  But just as with the Obama-Xi deal last year, China does not commit to actual emissions reductions. 

Instead, the statement re-affirms “their commitment to reach an ambitious agreement in 2015 that reflects the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances.”  Translated from UN-speak, this means that, as with the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, developed countries will be expected to undertake targets and timetables for reducing emissions, while developing countries will not.

Left unresolved by the joint statement is whether China will continue as a developing country (known as Non-Annex I countries in the UNFCCC) or will move on to the developed country list (Annex I).  The Chinese position has consistently been that they will remain a developing country for several more decades.

To me, the most surprising area of agreement is over transparency.  The joint statement reads: “Both sides support the inclusion in the Paris outcome of an enhanced transparency system to build mutual trust and confidence and promote effective implementation including through reporting and review of action and support in an appropriate manner. It should provide flexibility to those developing countries that need it in light of their capacities.”  The Chinese government has long resisted calls from the European Union and the U. S. to open its internal emissions data to outside inspection and verification.  We’ll have to see what “an enhanced transparency system” amounts to.

Presidents Obama and Xi are also committed to achieving full funding for the Green Climate Fund (or GCF), which is $100 billion per year starting in 2020.  The U. S. share of the GCF will be roughly $30 billion per year.  President Obama’s budget for FY 2016 requests $3 billion over the next four years to help get the GCF off the ground, but the House version of the State Department Appropriations bill prohibits sending any money to the GCF.  China announced that it will provide $3.1 billion “to help developing countries combat climate change.”  It appears that China will distribute funds directly to favored countries and not through the GCF.  

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website,


CEI Today: The Pope and climate change, MIA White House report, and new food labeling changes 

Tuesday, September 22, 2015
In the News Today



A Free Market Perspective on Pope Francis's Forthcoming Speech to Congress


Some ‘progressive’ commentators speculate Francis’s speech will build a bridge between U.S. conservative Catholics and the global climate campaign. That is doubtful, especially if conservative Catholic commentators point out the scientific and moral weaknesses of the case for climate alarm and global energy rationing. > Read more 



Still-MIA White House Report To Congress On Costs And Benefits Of Federal Regulation Is Latest Ever

Congress may initiate a federal government shutdown over the spending of our taxes, yet the costs of regulation and federal intervention exceed the costs of the individual income tax and the corporate income tax combined. So there’s a priority and perspective issue, and Congress and the administration ignore regulation at considerable economic peril. > Read more 

> Interview Wayne Crews


Proposed Food Label Change Could Make Us Fatter and Sicker

There’s a new push to finalize the Food and Drug Administration’s new guidelines for nutritional panels. The changes, which include listing “added sugars” and updating serving sizes to reflect what people actually eat, are intended to make it easier for people to know what they’re eating and make better choices. However, newly published research suggests that the updated labeling guidelines could end up backfiring, causing people to eat more than they normally would. > Read more

> Interview Michelle Minton

Bloomberg Boston
1pm & 7pm ET
Bloomberg San Francisco 10am & 4pm PT




CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.  For more information about CEI, please visit our website,  Follow CEI on Twitter!


Media Contacts: 202-331-2277
Annie Dwyer

Christine Hall
Mary Beth Gombita

Keara Vickers

CEI Issues:

Advancing Capitalism
Business & Gov't
Energy & Environment
Finance & Entrepreneurship
Health & Safety
Human Achievement Hour
Law & Constitution
Labor & Employment
Nanny State
Regulatory Reform
Risk & Consumer Freedom
Tech and Telecom
Trade and International
Transportation & Infrastructure

Sign Up for the Weekly Cooler Heads Digest!

A Friday afternoon e-newsletter on the latest energy and environment happenings. Sign up today!



Cooler Heads Digest 18 September 2015 


18 September 2015

In the News

Dear House: Say NO to the Wind Subsidy
Robert Bradley, Jr., Master Resource, 18 September 2015

20 Climate Scientists Ask Justice Department To Conduct RICO Investigation into Deniers
Judith Curry, Climate Etc., 17 September 2015

Why Democrats Are Wrong To Use the Crude Oil Export Ban as a Bargaining Tactic
Nicolas Loris, The Daily Signal, 17 September 2015

Obama’s Not-So-Grand Energy Strategy: Aimless Authoritarianism
William Yeatman,, 16 September 2015

The President’s Decarbonization Fantasy
Luke Popovich, Washington Examiner, 16 September 2015

Naomi Klein’s Great Leap Backwards
Peter Foster, Financial Post, 15 September 2015

German Energiewende vs. American Fracking: A Tale of Two Energy Revolutions
Isaac Orr, Townhall, 15 September 2015

Is It Time To Stop the Insanity of Wasting Time and Money on More Climate Models
Tim Ball, Watts Up With That? 14 September 2015

News You Can Use
Malaria Deaths Down 60% from 2000, Despite Accelerating AGW

Despite runaway and accelerating anthropogenic global warming, the United Nations this week announced that malaria cases worldwide have been reduced 60% since 2000.

Inside the Beltway
William Yeatman

Historical Perspective on 11 House Republicans Who Support “Doing Something” on Climate Change

On Thursday, 10 republicans in the House of Representatives announced their support for a Sense of Congress Resolution on “conservative environmental stewardship" authored by Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.). The nonbinding resolution calls for action on climate change that doesn’t hurt the economy, which is a policy contradiction (see Around the World: Decoupling Belied, below). Rep. Gibson’s resolution sidesteps this incongruity and, in fact, provides no specifics at all. Over at, my colleague Marlo Lewis expertly dismantles the ultra-weak logic underlying this latest Constructive Republican Alternative Proposal for “doing something” on climate change.

To Marlo's post, I’d add only an historical perspective. The number of republicans who support Rep. Gibson’s shallow resolution is one-fourth the number of House democrats (43) who voted against a cap-and-trade (the American Clean Energy and Security Act) during Obama’s first term. Eight republicans voted for that bill.

Wind & Solar Industries: They're Mature, and They Can't Cut It as Adults

Last week, the American Wind Energy Association, which serves as wind power’s top lobbying shop, released a report warning that the industry would face a “sharp decline” in 2016, if the Congress does not extend a single subsidy by the end of 2015.

This week, Bloomberg New Energy Finance released a report stating that the solar industry in the U.S. will “nosedive” in 2017, if the Congress fails to extend the industry’s primary subsidy by the end of 2016. The sector’s chief lobbying outfit, the Solar Energy Industries Association, issued a press release supporting the report’s conclusions, and urging the Congress to act.

These reports are impossible to square with the claims, often made by green energy proponents and lobbyists, that solar or wind energy has achieved parity with fossil fuels. (Consider this New York Times headline: “Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels.”). If an industry’s existence would come to an end with the expiration of a single tax break, then it cannot be competitive.

Will wind or solar power be competitive, ever? When their tax breaks are secure, the wind and solar lobbies claim they’re vibrant industries; but every time their tax breaks are set to expire, they claim that market maturity is just around the corner, and that they need just one more extension of handouts.

But government support for wind and solar power is not new. Its roots reach back to the Carter administration. Way back then, wind and solar power’s primary problem was their intermittent production of energy. That remains true today. In this fashion, the success of the wind and solar industries is less a function of the wind and solar industries, and more so of the energy storage industry.

In this light, wind and solar energy has matured. It has progressed as far as it can go, and its best effort was to fall well short of market viability. So they’re doomed to perpetual market unreadiness, for as long as the government props them up. This should come as no surprise to anyone who doubts the government’s ability to pick winners in any market.

By extending taxpayer handouts (again) to wind and solar power industries, the Congress would compound (again) its initial mistake by throwing good money after bad (again). For more, see Robert Bradley, Jr.’s excellent post today on Master Resource, “Dear House: Say NO to Wind PTC (10th extension crucial for Obama’s energy/climate agenda).”

Around the World
Decoupling Belied

In 2014, the International Energy Agency reported that global greenhouse gas emissions had stalled, despite positive economic growth. Proponents of “doing something” about climate change seized on this announcement to claim that economic growth had become “decoupled” from increasing greenhouse gas emissions. If true, it suggested that climate change mitigation could be achieved without harming economic growth.

It turns out it wasn’t true. According to an exclusive Reuters report this week, China’s emissions were almost certainly underestimated, and, when more accurate data is used, global emissions actually increased in 2014, in lockstep with economic growth.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website,