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 Robert Schmad

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters on Wednesday declined to make an endorsement in the 2024 presidential election just hours after releasing internal polling data showing that the workers it represents strongly favor former President Donald Trump.

Among rank-and-file members of the major union, 59.6% surveyed said they believe the Teamsters should endorse Trump, compared to just 31% voicing support for Vice President Kamala Harris, a more than 25-point gap that remained more or less unchanged after the union ordered a subsequent survey after the Sept. 10 presidential debate. Despite the poll results, the union refused to make an endorsement as there was “no majority support” for Harris and a lack of “universal support” for Trump, it revealed on Wednesday.

A Teamsters spokesperson did not immediately clarify why the union had different standards for the two candidates. 

“The Teamsters thank all candidates for meeting with members face-to-face during our unprecedented roundtables,” Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien said. “Unfortunately, neither major candidate was able to make serious commitments to our union to ensure the interests of working people are always put before Big Business. We sought commitments from both Trump and Harris not to interfere in critical union campaigns or core Teamsters industries — and to honor our members’ right to strike — but were unable to secure those pledges.”

The union cited Trump’s refusal to commit to vetoing right-to-work legislation as part of its reasoning for not issuing an endorsement.

The Teamsters, which have historically supported Democrats and often donate to left-of-center causes, made an effort to court Republicans this election cycle. The union made a donation to the Republican National Committee, met with Trump, and O’Brien was even invited to speak at the Republican National Convention. Some on the right have resisted the union’s attempt to ingratiate itself among conservatives, like the Center for Union Facts which put up billboards outside the Republican National Convention calling the Teamsters “two-faced” over its history of liberal spending.

While Republicans were generally open to the Teamsters, the Democratic National Convention snubbed O’Brien by not allowing him to speak at the event, according to The Associated Press.

Harris is considerably less popular among rank-and-file Teamsters than President Joe Biden, who only trailed Trump by about 8 points in a survey ordered by the union prior to his withdrawal from the race. Union leadership met with Harris for a roundtable discussion on Monday, The Hill reported.

“We represent everybody from airline pilots and zookeepers, and we don’t just represent registered Democrats,” O’Brien said to reporters.

The Teamsters’ endorsement could have had a significant impact if it went to either candidate given the concentration of its members in the swing states of Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania, according to Reuters.