Press Releases


Entries in Environmental Extremeists (52)


NHDP - NEW CAMPAIGN: NHDP Launches “Big Oil Billionaires for Brown”

Highlighting Brown’s Devotion to Big Oil Special Interests
Brown Votes for Their Tax Breaks, They Fund Brown’s Campaigns

Manchester, NH—The New Hampshire Democratic Party is launching “Big Oil Billionaires for Brown,” a fully integrated campaign to highlight Brown’s special relationship and record of close ties with out-of-state special interests that do not have New Hampshire families’ best interests in mind. This campaign will include earned, paid, and owned media initiatives calling out Scott Brown’s past record and continued relationship with Big Oil special interests.
“There's a reason Big Oil billionaires like the Koch Brothers are spending millions to buy New Hampshire's senate seat for Scott Brown: they want him back in the Senate voting for their interests--not New Hampshire's--just like he did when he was representing Massachusetts. For years Brown delivered for Big Oil by voting to protect their special tax breaks, while they rewarded him with half a million dollars in campaign contributions and ads, and now he's anxious to get back to work for them,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Communications Director Julie McClain

“New Hampshire Democrats are making sure Scott Brown gets what he deserves—a hearty endorsement by a group that he has fought for year after year—Big Oil billionaires," added McClain. 
The “Big Oil Billionaires for Brown” campaign will include digital extensions—FacebookTwitter, and an official website—as well as paid digital ads that target persuadable voters in New Hampshire.

Brown’s record of support for Big Oil and Wall Street special interest is long and consistent.
·      Brown voted for tens of billions of dollars in special tax breaks for big oil companies even when it meant voting against reducing the deficit and investing in alternative energy.
·      Brown voted to save tax loopholes for oil and gas companies even when it meant voting against tax deductions for small businesses. 

And Big Oil billionaires have returned the favor.
·      Big Oil has invested big in Scott Brown, rewarding him with nearly a half million dollars in campaign contributions over his career for protecting them.
·      In 2012, only five members of Congress took more money from oil and gas companies than Scott Brown.
·      Big Oil has spent more than $2.3 million on attack ads against Jeanne Shaheen to help their former guardian Scott Brown get back to Senate to work for them. In total, special interest groups have spent and will spend more than $7.8 million against her to date.


New Hampshire's Absentee Senator Refuses To Do Her Job


Concord - Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who hasn't held a town hall meeting in New Hampshire in 723 days, will attend a special interest fundraiser in San Francisco, California today instead of meeting with her constituents. Shaheen has repeatedly refused to hold open and unfettered meetings with Granite Staters.    


"Senator Jeanne Shaheen doesn't respect New Hampshire's tradition of open and accessible government because she is an out of touch Washington politician and an absentee senator. Senator Shaheen is afraid to face her constituents because she knows that she can't defend her record of voting with President Obama 99% of the time," said NHGOP Chairman Jennifer Horn. "Jeanne Shaheen puts Barack Obama first. It's time to replace her with a responsible Republican who will put New Hampshire first."


The Hill reported this week that instead of planning to hold a town hall meeting, Shaheen is making time to attend an exclusive fundraiser at the residence of a prominent lobbyist in Washington's tony Georgetown neighborhood. Contributions range from $1,000 to $2,500 per person to attend.


CEI Today: Let Me Google That For You, an enviro flip-flop, Operation Choke Point, and more 

Wednesday, August 6, 2014
In the News Today


LET ME GOOGLE THAT FOR YOU - RYAN YOUNG The Let Me Google That for You Act

The Commerce Department’s National Technical Information Service doesn’t just charge people for documents that can be found for free with a simple Google search. It also has a staff of 150 and a $66 million budget, which modern technology has rendered completely wasteful.
> Read more

> Interview Ryan Young

ENVIRO FLIP FLOP - WILLIAM YEATMAN NRDC Doubles Down on Disingenuous Interpretation of Clean Air Act


Last Friday, 12 Attorneys General filed a lawsuit challenging EPA’s recently proposed greenhouse gas regulations for existing power plants, known as the Clean Power Plan. Putting aside the significant procedural and jurisdictional matters attendant to the case, the meat and potatoes of the AGs’ complaint is that 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act prohibit EPA from issuing the rule.

In response to a reporter’s query, NRDC’s David Doniger called the lawsuit “laughable.” But NRDC used to make the same argument that is now being advanced by the States. Simply put: NRDC used to argue that EPA doesn’t have the authority to issue the Clean Power Plan. Talk about your all-time flip-flops! > Read more

> Interview William Yeatman


OPERATION CHOKE POINT - IAIN MURRAY "Operation Choke Point" Targets Legal Businesses, Harms American Consumers

A new Competitive Enterprise Institute report digs into a campaign by federal regulatory agencies to shut down businesses that are politically disfavored but perfectly legal, under the pretext of preventing fraud.
> Operation Choke Point: What It Is and Why It Matters

> Interview Iain Murray


Apply for CEI's Journalism Fellowship!

CEI's Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellowship is a one-year fellowship that aims to provide journalists the opportunity to improve their knowledge of free markets principles and limited government through interaction with CEI policy experts. >


Sign Up for the Weekly Cooler Heads Digest!

Every Friday afternoon, we send out an electronic newsletter on the latest energy and environment happenings, known as the Cooler Heads Digest. Sign up today!




CEI President Lawson Bader



Operation Choke Point
the govt’s helicopter parent

I thought we frowned upon using physical force and intimidation to get our way?

Saturday, 10am ET

General Counsel of @ceidotorg, Sam Kazman on the latest Obamacare court decisions.



ALG's Daily Grind - Will the House defund Obama's racial housing quotas? 


June 9, 2014

Permission to republish original opeds granted.

Will the House defund Obama's racial housing quotas?
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) is introducing an amendment to the Transportation and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) appropriations bill this week defunding implementation of the "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing" rule.

Obama's Enviro Radicalism Dooms Reid's Senate Majority
Majority Leader Harry Reid lost his majority last week.  It will just take five months to make it official.

The regulatory death of energy in the U.S.
Before President Obama took office in 2009, the amount of electricity being produced by coal-fired utilities was approximately 50 percent of the total. Today it is approximately 40 percent and, as the Environmental Protection Agency regulations that took effect on June 2 are fully implemented, more such utilities are likely to close their doors.

Daily Caller: Shocking poll shows Eric Cantor struggling in primary
"A poll of Republican primary voters commissioned by The Daily Caller shows that GOP Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor is just above 50 percent in the hard-fought race for the 7th district nomination."


Cooler Heads Digest 6 June 2014 

6 June 2014


Registration is now open for the Heartland Institute’s 9th International Conference on Climate Change, July 7-9, at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino in Las Vegas. Click here to learn more.

In the News

How the Climate Crusade Came to Resemble a Cult
Steven Hayward, Weekly Standard, June Issue

Does EPA’s Left Hand Know What Its Far-Left Hand Is Doing to Fight Fracking?
Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner, 6 June 2014

CASAC Sows Confusion on Ozone by Playing Legal Word Games
William Yeatman,, 5 June 2014

EPA’s Next Wave of Job-Likking CO2 Regulations
David Rothbard & Craig Rucker, Watts Up With That?, 5 June 2014

Our new Climate Strategy: Jump off Cliff, Ask China to Follow
Christopher Prandoni, Forbes, 4 June 2014

National Climate Assessment Doubles Down on Climate Doom
Fred Singer, American Thinker, 3 June 2014

James Hansen to Obama: Cap-and-Trade Is a Special Interest Boondoggle
Robert Bradley, Jr., Master Resource, 2 June 2014

Obama’s Cold Political Calculus on Global Warming
Patrick Michaels, Washington Times, 2 June 2014

How Fracking Helps America Beat German Industry
Reuters, 2 June 2014

Europe’s Gas Power Capacity at Risk as Utilities Turn to Coal
Isis Almeida, Bloomberg, 1 June 2014

News You Can Use
Polar Bears International Admits It’s Only Guessing

Polar Bears International, which claims to be “the pre-eminent resource for all things polar bear” and which provides widely-used teaching materials for schools, long has asserted that climate change would wipe out 2/3 of polar bears by the end of the century. This week, the group conceded that the claim was “simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand,” and agreed to put a disclaimer on all its educational materials.

Inside the Beltway
Myron Ebell

Obama's EPA Touts Asthma Benefits of Higher Electric Rates and Job Losses

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy introduced the proposed rule for limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants in an extraordinary speech to the media at the EPA's headquarters on Monday, 2nd June. It turns out that the main selling point of cutting CO2 emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 is that one of the alleged co-benefits is up to 150,000 fewer childhood asthma attacks per year. That should be a great comfort to the millions of children whose parents lose their jobs and can't afford to keep the lights on because of a policy that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) concisely described as “nuts.”

Five years into the most sluggish economy since the Great Depression, President Barack Obama has taken the biggest step yet in fulfilling his 2008 campaign promise that under his plan electricity rates “will necessarily skyrocket.” The sad fact is that the president knows so little about how the economy works that he might actually believe the new report from his White House Office of Management and Budget that claims that major regulations promulgated since 2003 have cost only $57 billion, but have produced $863 billion in benefits. Clearly, the road to prosperity is paved with red tape.

The EPA proposes to achieve a 30 percent cut in emissions from existing coal and natural gas power plants by requiring electric utilities to use a variety of tools, most of which Congress rejected in 2009-10, when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate by wide majorities. The Waxman-Markey bill, H. R. 2454, failed in the Senate, but cap-and-trade, renewable standards, and demand-side management apparently do not need to be enacted by the Congress, but can be required by administrative ukase.

The formulas used to apportion the CO2 reductions among the states are complicated and will require considerable analysis. The 2005 baseline is much easier to understand. It rewards the states that have already undertaken significant energy-rationing regimes, such as California and the members of the northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. And it punishes the states that have had significant economic and population growth. These are largely states that have pursued policies that result in affordable energy from coal and natural gas power plants. Cynics may notice that the former states are mostly controlled by Democrats and the latter states by Republicans. has several posts by my CEI colleagues William Yeatman and Marlo Lewis that provide expert analysis of many of the details in the proposed rule. See here, here, here, and here.

Across the States
William Yeatman

West Virginia Judge Issues Suspect Ruling on "Conductivity"

In a ruling delivered Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Chambers sided with West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Sierra Club, and the Ohio Valley Coalition, and found that coal mines operated by subsidiaries of Alpha Natural Resources committed “at least one violation” of Clean Water Act permits. The alleged violation pertained to discharges of saline effluent into West Virginia waterways.

The ruling is flawed on a number of counts. For starters, the permits at issue were issued by West Virginia, acting pursuant to its EPA-approved Clean Water Act authority, and the state doesn’t regulate saline effluent (which is more commonly referred to by its primary physical property—electric “conductivity”). As such, this would appear to be a case of an activist judge imposing his will on an entire state. This perception is not aided by the fact that Judge Chambers used to be a member of one of the plaintiff organizations (the WV Highlands Conservancy), and has, moreover, issued controversial, anti-coal rulings in the past. Finally, it is worth noting that the putative “victims” of saline “pollution” is a short-lived order of insects, the mayfly, which isn’t an endangered species.

Alpha Resources said it will appeal the ruling to the 4th Circuit.

Around the World
William Yeatman

Media Evinces Knee-Jerk Bias by Running with Fake “News” on China Carbon Cap

On Tuesday morning, a number of prominent reporters allowed wishful thinking to get in the way of their jobs by running with a mistaken Reuters report that China would cap its CO2 emissions in 2016. It turns out that the Reuters report was based on a misquote that got lost in translation, but before the article was retracted, reporters at the New York Times and New York magazine, among others, concluded that President Obama’s climate plan was the cause for China's about-face on climate policy. These reporters’ evident absence of skepticism, and also their willingness to give to credit to EPA’s new climate plan, is telling.

Science Update
Marlo Lewis

Richard Tol Challenges 97% Consensus Claim

How many times have you heard there is a 97% “consensus” among climate scientists?

The claim comes from a study by John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli of the misnamed ‘Skeptical Science’ blog and colleagues, who examined 11,944 abstracts of climate papers published during 1991-2011.

Supposedly, Cook et al (2013) found that 97% of climate scientists agree with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that most of the 0.7°C of global warming since 1951 is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases. Skeptics, they suggest, are a fringe element, unworthy of public attention.

But the Cook study does not really prove what the spinners claim it proves.

Nearly two-thirds of the 11,944 abstracts expressed no opinion on the supposed “consensus” position. So for all we know, many of the authors may doubt the consensus view.

 Of the abstracts that expressed an opinion, Cook et al. claim that 97.1% (less than one-third of the original total) agree with the IPCC consensus position. That too is more than the Cook team can possibly know.

University of Delaware Prof. David Legates and three colleagues examined Cook et al.’s database, and found that less than 1% of the 11,944 abstracts explicitly endorse the so-called consensus.

Is the 97% figure made up out of whole cloth? Not quite. It turns out that 97% of about one-third of the abstracts affirms or implies that humans are responsible for some portion of global warming since 1951.

And guess what? Just about every prominent skeptic agrees with that as well. As an attempt to discredit contrarians, the Cook study is a bust.

A new study by climate economist Richard Tol, published this week in Science Direct, dumps more cold water on the Cook et al. 97% consensus study. Tol, you may recall, withdrew his name from the IPCC climate impacts report summary for policymakers because of its alarmist hype.

Tol accepts the IPCC view that most warming of the past six-plus decades is anthropogenic. Nonetheless, as an assessment of what most scientists think, he finds Cook et al. To be deeply flawed. From the abstract:

“A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.”

The consensus-mongers should stop wasting our time. The key science question for climate researchers today is not whether greenhouse gas emissions warm the planet but whether state-of-the-art computer models are accurate enough to forecast climate change and inform policy decisions. As it turns out, the IPCC’s latest ensemble of climate models produce estimates that overshoot the warming of the past 20 years by 100% and of the last 15 years by 400%.

The key science question for citizens and their representatives is not whether most recent warming is man-made but whether climate change, as Al Gore put it, is a “planetary emergency – a crisis that threatens the survival of civilization and the habitability of the Earth.” This doomsday view of global warming is not credible (see here, here, and here).

Finally, the key issue for policymakers is not whether climate change poses risks but whether the proposed “solutions” – carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and other schemes to rig the market against plentiful, affordable, reliable fossil fuels – would do more harm than good. There are many compelling reasons to regard those so-called solutions as either all cost for no benefit or a cure worse than the alleged disease.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads