From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Vijay Jayaraj

Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.

As the presidential election nears, it is reasonable to ask why the United States continues to give away billions to “avert” a fabricated climate crisis to countries that have little interest in participating in the charade beyond accepting handouts.

The United States has been a significant contributor to global climate initiatives, most notably through its involvement in the Paris Agreement.

At the 15th U.N. Climate Conference in 2009, rich countries pledged to provide $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020 to assist developing nations fight climate change. This target was said to have been achieved for the first time in 2022, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Having the world’s largest economy, the United States was expected to support a large portion of the Green Climate Fund  (GCF), which resulted in a promise of $1 billion.

GCF claims to be the “world’s largest dedicated climate fund” with a portfolio valued at $12 billion, or $45 billion when co-financing of projects is included. According to the GCF website, the fund delivers “transformative climate action in 140 countries” to keep “average global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius.”

To which one might respond: Poppycock! No “climate action” will have a significant effect on temperatures, and the 2 degrees cited hardly matter environmentally in any case. Climate policies “will have a trivial effect on temperature but disastrous effects on people worldwide,” concludes a recent paper by Prof. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Prof. William Happer of Princeton University.

Besides, contrary to doomsday predictions, the Earth is flourishing in many ways. Global poverty has decreased  dramatically over the past few decades, and agricultural yields have increased significantly partly, because of higher levels of atmospheric CO₂. Natural disasters — often cited as evidence of climate change — are causing fewer deaths than ever before, despite population growth and development along coastlines and other vulnerable areas.

The outrage of having taxpayer money poured down the climate rat hole is compounded by the fact that recipients of GCF grants include China and India, the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases that are rapidly expanding consumption of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the bone-headed policy of the United States is to reduce the use of these affordable and abundant fuels to the detriment of household budgets, business profitability, electric grid reliability and national security.

So, instead of pouring billions into international climate projects, the United States should prioritize its own energy security. This means developing its oil, coal and natural gas and strengthening partnerships with reliable allies like Canada.

The United States’ vast reserves of natural gas have been made available through advanced extraction technologies such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, making the country one of the world’s leading producers. This abundance can ensure a reliable and cost-effective energy supply for other nations and reduce U.S. dependency on foreign sources, enhancing national security.

The intermittent nature of wind and solar power — both GCF darlings — necessitates backup power sources or massive battery storage systems that come with their own environmental and economic costs. The materials needed for batteries, for instance, are often mined in regions with poor environmental records or by using child labor.

By contrast, modern fossil fuel extraction in the United States and Canada is subject to some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world. Ironically, by outsourcing energy production to less regulated countries in the name of “going green,” the United States causes more environmental harm globally.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent energy crisis in Europe starkly illustrated the dangers of energy dependence. European countries, having underinvested in fossil-fuel infrastructure and a reliance on Russian gas, found themselves in a precarious position.

This example alone is enough for the United States to reset its priorities. Promotion of failed and mostly unwanted “green” policies should be replaced with aggressive development of fossil fuel resources, as well as nuclear power and building robust energy partnerships with allies.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

By Nick Pope

Energy-focused organizations called on lawmakers to scrap the Biden-Harris administration’s electric vehicle (EV) “mandate” in a Thursday letter.

More than two dozen energy groups sent the letter to every lawmaker in Congress, urging them to push through Congressional Review Act (CRA) proceedings against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) tailpipe emissions standards for light-duty vehicles. The CRA enables legislators to effectively overturn federal regulations provided a resolution targeting a specific rule can pass both chambers of Congress and gets signed by the president, or if lawmakers can manage to override a presidential veto, according to the Congressional Research Service.

“This EPA rulemaking is clearly beyond the scope of the regulatory power granted to the agency by Congress,” the letter states. “While this overreach will be litigated in the courts, a positive CRA decision now would ensure that consumers are protected today, rather than wait years for the issue to work its way through the court system.” CRA Tailpipe Coalition Letter Final by Nick Pope on Scribd

Specifically, automakers could come into compliance with the EPA’s rules if EVs make up 56% of their new car sales by 2032, with an additional 13% of sales being plug-in hybrids, according to The Associated Press. While the Biden-Harris administration maintains that the regulations are not an EV mandate, critics say that the rules will effectively force manufacturers to increase EV production to such an extent that they amount to a de facto mandate.

The Biden-Harris administration has set a target of having 50% of all new car sales be EVs by 2030 as part of its broader green energy and climate agenda. Despite billions of dollars of spending and stringent regulation, American consumers remain hesitant to switch over to all-electric models while manufacturers are losing large amounts of cash on their EV product lines and starting to back off of ambitious short-term production goals.

“In a move that shocks no one, the Biden-Harris EPA has once again overstepped its authority with their EV mandate. By prioritizing politics over personal freedoms, this Administration is destroying the cornerstone of our economy — consumer choice,” Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, said. “What the Biden-Harris Administration is trying to do with his mandate is deceptive, ill-advised, and a gross overreach of power. While it will undoubtedly be litigated by those who stand on the side of consumer choice and economic freedom, passage of the CRA resolution will ensure consumers are protected today.”

Beyond the American Energy Alliance, other signatories include Americans for Prosperity, the Western Energy Alliance, Heritage Action, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Always On Energy Research.