katie tubb

sonali 2nd FF ceo 2/8

everywhere around us there is evidence of climate change, from the increase in winter storms such as New England’s late January blizzard, to California’s recent record-breaking winter heat wave. Meanwhile, the world’s biggest oil and gas companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP, whose products directly fuel global warming, have done little to counter the disastrous trend. While they have made promises that sound constructive on the surface, a cursory examination reveals them to be hollow. Perhaps worried about their deception being exposed, the executives and board members of these fossil fuel companies snubbed members of Congress at a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing on February 8, 2022.

The hearing was entitled “Fueling the Climate Crisis: Examining Big Oil’s Climate Pledges.” Lawmakers were interested in whether companies were actually enacting their widely touted climate actions and were following up from a :{:{hearing:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: last fall organized by the same committee which focused on the corporate cover-up of the climate crisis. The top oil executives did show up to that hearing in what was considered a historic appearance, and were subjected to a :{:{rare level of interrogation:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: during which they generally refused to take responsibility for their actions.

We can only assume they did not want a repeat of such harsh scrutiny at the February hearing. Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) in her opening statement that these companies “have spent millions to advertise these plans [to combat climate change] and greenwash their images.” Surely, they would want to publicize the work they were supposedly doing to mitigate the climate crisis. But, according to Maloney, “when the committee invited board members of these companies to come in today and explain their pledges, they declined to appear on the date we requested.” She added, “[n]one of them showed up today. Not a single one.”

For decades, oil and gas companies engaged in :{:{outright denial:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, saying there was no such thing as global warming. ExxonMobil in particular was caught having :{:{buried:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: its own internal research. Now that the game is up, the company has recast itself as a leader on the climate by :{:{claiming to support the Paris Accord:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: and embracing the idea of “net-zero emissions.”

To promote the fantasy of how it will curb climate change, ExxonMobil launched a slick-looking :{:{website:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: featuring a quote by CEO Darren Woods, saying, “We respect and support society’s ambition to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and continue to advocate for policies that promote cost-effective, market-based solutions to address the risks of climate change.” This sentence could only have been written by a committee of lawyers and public relations experts.

First, in Woods’ worldview, society is aiming for reduced emissions, not his company, which apparently sees itself as above society.

Second, “net-zero emissions” is a pie-in-the-sky goal that looks really good on paper, until it becomes apparent that it is based on entirely :{:{unproven, untested, emerging technologies:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: that may or may not work. The idea is akin to saying that it’s okay to litter all over your neighbourhood if you also pick up trash elsewhere in the future because the net amount of trash you will have thrown onto the street will someday be zero. Oh, and the technology for picking up trash is only now being invented, so we just have to wait and see if it works.

Third, Woods says that ExxonMobil wants “cost-effective, market-based solutions”—this in spite of the fact that the predictable outcome of a cost-effective, market-based solution to meeting energy demands was climate change. Why would a market-based solution give us anything different this time around?

Fourth, the CEO says he is interested in “solutions to address the risks of climate change,” not to actually ensure that the climate doesn’t change. He also doesn’t specify whose well-being is at risk (ours) and who is risking our well-being (ExxonMobil).

Woods’ entire statement can be summed up as “net-zero” logic, spewing enough sincere-sounding fallacies about fixing climate change while balancing them out with just enough vagueness so as to provide legal cover for doing absolutely nothing.

It was this sort of trickery that the recent congressional hearing was aimed at exposing. Since the oil and gas executives were too chicken to show up and face the music, the committee instead invited climate experts such as :{:{Dr. Michael Mann:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, a professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University, and :{:{Tracey Lewis:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}:, climate and energy policy counsel with Public Citizen, to answer questions about the climate pledges. Over the course of three hours, lawmakers including Ro Khanna of California and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan delved deep into the various euphemisms that companies like ExxonMobil employ to gloss over their inaction.

The most egregious example was revealed to be ExxonMobil’s :{:{accounting trick:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: to hide its carbon footprint. Not only is the idea of net-zero emissions an unrealistic diversion, but the company also wants to apply it only to the production side of its operations, not to the oil and gas it sells. Representative Khanna it was “like an automaker pledging to eliminate emissions from their manufacturing but doing nothing to improve their cars’ fuel efficiency.”

Conservatives have risen to the defense of fossil fuel companies. Although oil and gas company executives were absent (by their own choice), Republican lawmakers such as Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and a witness named :{:{Katie Tubb from the Heritage Foundation:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: were eager mouthpieces for the industry. The only defenses left in the face of certain climate catastrophe are couched in imperialist thinking—such as, “the industry’s health is a measure of American prestige, and curbing it will mar the U.S.’s global standing”—and false equivalencies, like, “given all the beneficial outcomes of oil and gas products, curbing fossil fuels will destroy civilization.” Congresswoman Foxx and Ms. Tubb employed both.

Foxx raised the favorite Republican idea of the United States achieving “energy independence” or “energy freedom,” which is code for gobbling up fossil fuel resources more quickly and cheaply than competitor nations, no matter what the consequences.

And Tubb bizarrely cited how her contact lenses that are made from fossil fuel products are a gift:{. She }:{, “I’m very thankful for that; it’s improved the well-being and productivity of my life,” as if to say that if we want the convenience of contact lenses, we need to embrace ExxonMobil’s profit-driven desire to destroy our planet. In Tubb’s view, if it’s her lenses or life on earth, she chooses lenses.}:

This is exactly the logic employed by former President Donald Trump, who deftly relied on his supporters’ ignorance of how wind energy works when he :{:{claimed:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: that the television wouldn’t work as soon as the wind died down.

There was a time when the likes of Trump, Foxx and Tubb simply cast doubt on the science of climate change. Now that that doesn’t work—given how :{:{apparent:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}::(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: the change is to most of us—the response has morphed into a version of “So what? Should we live like barbarians?”

The pro-fossil fuel view is that if we want to embrace Western living standards, climate catastrophe is the price we must pay. Otherwise, we relegate ourselves to living like those unfortunate residents of third world nations who routinely live without electricity or contact lenses.

off bs

Tubb is a senior policy analyst for energy and environmental issues in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Tubb researches and writes on subjects such as nuclear energy, climate change policies, and the benefits of free market environmentalism.

Tubb writes and contributes research to Heritage’s Issue Briefs and Backgrounder policy papers.She is a regular contributor to the think tank’s multimedia news organization, The Daily Signal.

Her work also is featured in other national outlets such asThe Washington Times, National Review, National Journal, Nuclear Townhall, and Real Clear Energy.

Tubb joined Heritage in 2012 as a research assistant in the Roe Institute. She previously was an intern there as well as in the office of then-Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

Tubb holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Grove City College in Grove City, Pa. Born into an Air Force family, she currently resides in Virginia.

2nd pro nuke vid titan of nuclear

Katie Tubb joins Bret on the latest episode of Titans of Nuclear.

:{1) Katie Tubb discusses her journey into the nuclear energy sector, from an intern who admitted to know nothing about where energy comes from to to an advocate for innovative energy and environment policy.

2) Katie Tubb shares her passion for nuclear technology, the issues with the nuclear industry assuaging people’s fears without educating them, and what the Heritage Foundation is doing to educate America on the nuclear industry.

3) Katie Tubb discusses the Blue Ribbon Commission’s report and the fundamental errors in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and how Finland has used consent-based siting successfully.

4) Katie Tubb shares her optimistic outlook on the future of nuclear waste in the United States.}:

Find more episodes on iTunes, Spotify, and on our Titans of Nuclear YouTube. You can follow us on Twitter at @NuclearTitans.

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/different-perspective-global-warming

no lnx IN ORIG, NO CITES

kEY TAKEAWAYS

Climate trends don’t support rapid economy-altering responses, and areas of uncertainty in our scientific understanding caution for humility in policymaking.

Too many politicians have assumed the answers and ignored nuance. The reality is, there is considerable uncertainty.

As we continue to improve our scientific understanding of climate, skepticism about climate policy is merited.

We have grown accustomed to climate change being talked about in a certain way. Usually, it involves words and phrases like “dangerous,” “catastrophe,” “red zone,” “one minute to midnight.” Equally dramatic are the policies proposed by many in Washington to force a transition away from conventional energy to more politically preferred options. These admittedly painful changes, we are told, are urgently needed “for the common good.”

However, climate trends don’t support rapid economy-altering responses, and areas of uncertainty in our scientific understanding caution for humility in policymaking.

The UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently reported that the earth has warmed 1.1 degrees Celsius since 1850. It noted increasing trends in heat waves, heavy precipitation, and some kinds of drought. Sea level has been rising at roughly 16 inches per century. It also found downward or no trends for hurricanes, winter storms and extreme cold, floods, tornadoes, or thunderstorms. So, Florida may be dealing with flooding, but not necessarily from global warming.

Get exclusive insider information from Heritage experts delivered straight to your inbox each week. Subscribe to The Agenda ]

The IPCC’s most extreme scenario for emissions and warming—the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, which has fueled the media’s apocalyptic “code red” reporting—was downgraded to “low likelihood.” That was good news for scientific integrity more than anything else, as this alarmist scenario assumed such implausibilities as coal consumption per capita increasing sixfold by 2100.

>>> Climate Change Report Isn’t a Blank Check for Green Policies]

The IPCC report begs a number of fundamental questions which should be the focus of meaningful scientific and political debate. For example, what is the nature of global warming—is it a net positive change, negative, or some mix in between? What is the pace of future warming, and do we have trustworthy tools to make educated guesses? Why is the climate pre-1850 so preferred such that policies by global warming catastrophists point to it as a target for policy? What is the “ideal” temperature?

Too many politicians, with a helping hand from media eager to sell bad news have assumed the answers and ignored nuance. The reality is, there is considerable uncertainty. Just three, broad examples:

Climate models thus far have run “too hot” and been unable to faithfully replicate observed historical temperatures. There remains great uncertainty about just how much warming an increase in greenhouse gas emissions induces (called the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”). This reduces confidence that these computer models can accurately project future conditions.

Climate emissions scenarios have mis-framed policy discussions about how to respond. Far too many politicians, academics, financial institutions, and nonprofits continue to base their work on the IPCC’s worst and most unrealistic scenario (the RCP8.5 mentioned earlier). NOTE NO CITES? EG

Third, our understanding of an incredibly complex, dynamic climate is always changing and busting previous notions of scientific “consensus” (which is itself more a political term than a scientific one). For example, a recent review by 23 scientists, who themselves have diverse opinions, expressed concern that the IPCC’s low-ball assumptions about thesun’s impact on global surface temperatures were “prematurely concluded”by forcing a consensus voice. The answer to that question alone will have major implications for policymakers, whose efforts to tamp down manmade greenhouse gas emissions might be as good as spitting in the wind.

Noting deficiencies in our understanding of climate is not to dismiss science, but rather to illustrate how much more work needs to be done.

As scientific debates continue, history provides an interesting perspective even if it can’t answer questions about the future.

What happened in this past century of warming?

>>> Climate Change Is Best Countered by Economic Freedom

Extreme poverty—the norm for most of human history—plummeted 80 percent, thanks to economic growth and access to energy. Global crop yields of grains increased over 200 percent. Deaths from climate-related disasters decreased 96 percent. As a percent of global gross domestic product, damages from natural disasters have actually declined since 1990. Air pollution in the U.S. (not to be confused with greenhouse gases) has declined 73 percent since 1980.

It’s important to acknowledge that many are concerned about global warming because they are concerned for their grandchildren and for the beautiful places we enjoy today. But history is riddled with stories of great harm done in the name of good intentions. As we continue to improve our scientific understanding of climate, skepticism about climate policy is merited and serves as an antibody to flawed assumptions and preconceptions.

This was originally appeared in Naples News

no lnx

https://www.notesfromtheroad.com/roam/katie-tubb.html

Open Letter to Katie Tubb

on Climate Change

Notes from the Road urges Heritage Foundation author to walk back indefensible climate change claims. Includes new sketches by author Erik Gauger.

Iwas dismayed to read your December 2021 opinion piece, “A Different Perspective on Global Warming.” The article is laced with dangerous deceptions and dubious logic.

You preface your piece by stating that, “climate trends don’t support rapid economy-altering responses, andareas of uncertainty in our scientific understanding caution for humility in policymaking.”

This single sentence contains two separate egregious errors. You suggest that uncertainty about the science of anthropogenic climate change persists, and that decisive international action to curb greenhouse gases and sequester carbon is not necessary.

Let’s address both separately.

Katie Tubb, climate Change science is not uncertain

Climate change threatens biodiversity, the essential ingredient of human civilization.

The science of climate change is rock solid, meaning the mechanisms of climate change and the impacts of anthropogenic climate change are beyond a shadow of doubt. In your opinion piece, you stated that, “scientific debates continue,” although this is patently false.

This is literally the first sentence of the 3,949 page 2021 IPCC report: “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.”

It’s impossible to predict with absolute certainty the precise impacts in a complex system, even though we are confident in the range of outcomes. Uncertainty about outcomes of some predictions is normal in science, especially in a system as complex as our planet’s biosphere.

But when you double down by saying, “The reality is, there is considerable uncertainty,” you are not explaining to your audiences (who are under-educated on scientific issues) that these uncertainties are not relevant to a broader discussion of climate change. This sleight-of-hand tricks the reader into believing that significant doubt remains about a well-understood range of possibilities for the planet if we do not curb greenhouse gasses and sequester carbon quickly.

In the past, right-wing think tanks would try to discredit the theory of evolution, which critically underpins the biological sciences, by stating that there were still big gaps in the fossil record. You do not need a complete fossil record to have a comprehensive understanding of the history of life on Earth. Similarly with climate change, you do not need certainty on every predictive variable to know that the range of possible outcomes, should we fail to address the issue, are all bad. With climate change, a range of uncertainty on some aspects of predicting and modeling does not put into doubt the reality of the threat of climate change.

Katie Tubb, this is no time for humility in climate policymaking

Your unfounded assertion about uncertainty leads you to your conclusion that policymakers should delay action, even though it is well understood—unequivocal—that anthropogenic climate change, without bold action globally to draw down greenhouse gases and sequester carbon—will have severe consequences for life on Earth. No credible source dispute this. If two scientists disagree about which species is likeliest to succumb to climate change first - Formica exsecta or Simopelta minima, that in no way puts the overall theory into question.

Katie Tubb and Altenative Energy

Alternative forms of energy are here now, and the free market is already engineering a climate-friendly future.

Let’s create an allegory.

Let’s say that I am the First Citizen of a walled city-state in a foggy kingdom, surrounded by green mossy and grassy slopes, and a dependable flock of sheep, which can almost always be seen grazing the steep slopes. My commander is responsible for the defense of the city, and in a sudden emergency, I have summoned her - you, Katie Tubb - to the court.

“Commander Tubb”, I say, “It’s not looking good. Our military advisors have received a report from our advance scouts. There is an encampment of 20,000 of our most feared enemy in the woods to the north, and a further 5,000 are perched on the promontory to the southwest. They appear to be constructing twenty trebuchets and what appears to be a battering ram in the meadows beneath. Furthermore, a dozen of their triremes are blocking the river mouth.”

Commander Katie Tubb says, “Apparently, with a helping hand from your scouts eager to sell bad news, you have assumed the worst and ignored nuance. The reality is, there is considerable uncertainty about whether these so-called enemies of ours are really that bad."

"I don't understand! We know these people are deceitful and dangerous! They literally ripped off the limbs of our children and raped all the women. There is vast evidence of this, not only from our own direct observation, but this carnage is well documented by our own military advisors!"

Commander Katie Tubb says, "I don't know, what would be the nature of a successful siege by these people on our city state—is it a net positive change, negative, or some mix in between? What is the pace of our understanding of whether they have maybe become good, and do we have trustworthy tools to make educated guesses?"

First Citizen Erik replies, "Commander Tubb, do you have a working strategy to defend this city or not?"

"Let's be clear," says CommanderTubb. "There is not sufficient evidence of a coming siege, and so I don’t support rapid economy-altering responses, and areas of uncertainty in our understanding of our enemy caution for humility in policymaking."

"We have a matter of hours to act!"

"And this is why there is the phalanx. Phalanx shields are produced in abundance by the free market. Homes and businesses can defend themselves independent of the state!"

"Commander Tubb, the phalanx was a great offensive military formation a hundred years ago. A siege is a complex military offense that requires a multi-faceted plan. Where is yours?"

Commander Tubb replies. "What happened in these past years of successive attacks and sieges by our sworn enemy? Extreme poverty—the norm for most of the history of our city state—plummeted 80 percent, thanks to economic growth and access to watermills. Our grain storehouses increased over 200 percent. This is evidence that attacks by our enemies are not all that bad!"

"Commander Tubb, you are dismissed," I say and call in the Second-in-command.

"I need our defensive plan now!" I exclaim.

"Of course," says the Second-in-command. "It's important to note that the following plan is based on the collaboration of scholars, entrepreneuers in the free market, and military historians who have worked effortlessly with our military advisors to respond to such a threat. We cannot predict exactly how our enemy will respond, but this plan represents the boldest strategy in this existential threat to our beloved city state. We will assemble twenty trebuchets on the north wall. The remaining 5 will be disassembled and rebuilt into long-range boulder catapults, which we believe can reach the camps beneath the promontory. I have already made the decision to send five scouts to plead with our allies in Ochilmore, and a further five to Cappataggle to negotiate a naval response to the triremes. We will assault the siege camp on the promontory with cavalry and stage a longbow offense from the fields of Killure."

"Good work Second-in-command, the fate of our city state is in your hands!"

Any short description of the policy positions of your employer includes the mention that the Heritage Foundation supports increased national defense spending, basically bigger government, which could be misunderstood by some to be contradictory to your other primary objective, which is arguing that free market solutions are always better than government ones.

National defense is what we call a public good, meaning that it is more efficient when led by the state versus the individual.

But a strong climate change defense is really the same as a strong military defense. If we let individuals run our military, our defense would be at best haphazard neighborhood militias, armed with handguns and cans of bear spray. The Heritage Foundation's belief in strong state presence for the military tautologically demonstrates that aspects of climate change mitigation cannot be left to the individual, the family, the neighborhood or Wall Street. Climate change mitigation will depend first and foremost on international treaties, and federal mandates and spending will rest neatly below those treaties - it does not matter what The Heritage Foundation says about the role of federal government when by definition some aspects of climate can only be addressed by the state. Climate change mitigation has a role for the free market, the individual, the family, the neighborhood, the town, the institutions and the press, but also federal government.

A robust global conversation about strategies to tackle climate change already exists

Throughout the world, free markets, venture capital, engineers, scholars, scientists, entrepreneurs, policymakers and visionaries are collaborating and competing on the policies, the agreements and the technology that will allow us to draw down and sequester greenhouse gases in order to protect our biosphere and future generations.

The marketplace and policy debates are fascinating - and they are taking place without the involvement of the Heritage Foundation, which has no credibility on the topic. While there may be a range of tactics and strategies to address climate change, some of which may be favored by those who see the marketplace or government action as the primary instigators of change, the reality is that the world already understands the framework of what needs to be done - and there is general agreement on the actions that need to be taken by nations to reverse climate change trends.

While you use words like, "alarmist" and "catastrophist" to dismiss bold action against climate change, the walled city-state allegory shows how such words aren't necessary - we know we have a matter of years to keep global temperatures at or below 1.5 degree celsius increase.

Let's describe, at a broad level, what needs to happen in order for humanity to secure our fate. These are not 'alarmist' reactions, but practical solutions that, combined together, will slow the threats of climate change.

Here is what we need to do. We also know roughly the cost, the savings and the resulting impact on greenhouse gasses of everything we can do. A great starting point to learning about a global climate change solutions plan is Project Drawdown.

Sequester Carbon

The Heritage Foundation is funded by petroleum industry interests, and so naturally when you and other Heritage Foundation authors write about climate change, it is almost solely through the perspective of petroleum versus alternative energy. I am not aware of any of your writings or speeches delving into the other aspects of mitigation. But in fact, the act of sequestering greenhouse gasses; of removing them and storing atmospheric greenhouse gasses, is perhaps the most critical aspect of climate change mitigation. Here are some of the primary methods we will employ to sequester carbon:

Permanently conserve fifty percent of the world's land and sea. Here is the global database of how much is protected now.

Global reforestation, proforestation and aforestation

Climate-friendly grazing practices

Conservation Agroforestry practices

Tree intercropping

Mangrove and wetland restoration and protection

Promote bamboo forests and farms

Protect and restore all existing peatlands

Restore degraded farmland

Reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions

The world already has the technology to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gasses. Today, for example, wind power and solar power compete as the cheapest forms of energy around the world, crushing coal and natural gas.

Wind power

Solar power

Geothermal power

Wave and Ocean power

Electrification of everything fueled by petroleum

"Net-Zero" Efficient buildings and homes

Grid flexibility

Green roofs and cool roofs

Seaweed for Cattle

Trucking, aviation and shipping efficiencies

Promote walkable cities, green cities, bicycles, electric bicycles and scooters.

Are these solutions alarmist or catastrophist? Or do they represent a critical evolution in our global infrastrusture and relationship to the biosphere that needs to begin now?

Katie Tubb, suggesting anthropogenic climate change may be beneficial to humanity is patently dangerous

You question whether the effects of climate change are even dangerous as you write, "For example, what is the nature of global warming—is it a net positive change, negative, or some mix in between?"

The negative effects of climate change on the biosphere are well understood, and there is no scenario in which the positives outweigh the negatives.

This summary from Skeptical Science provides a good summary of why there is no scenario in which anthropogenic climate change is beneficial to humans and the biosphere:

"Once we surpass the 2°C limit, the impacts listed above are exacerbated, and some new impacts will occur.  Most corals will bleach, and widespread coral mortality is expected ~3°C above late 19th Century temperatures.  Up to 30% of global species will be at risk for extinction, and the figure could exceed 40% if we surpass 4°C, as we continue on the path toward the Earth's sixth mass extinction.  Coastal flooding will impact millions more people at ~2.5°C, and a number of adverse health effects are expected to continue rising along with temperatures."

Petroleum Industry and Katie Tubb

While the Heritage Foundation hopes to slow the pace of change towards renewable energy and the electrification of coal, oil and gas power, the future is already here, and the petroleum engine's era is coming to an end.

Katie Tubb, no, we are not making educated guesses. We have a high degree of understanding about the range of future Warming.

You write, “What is the pace of future warming, and do we have trustworthy tools to make educated guesses?”

A scientific theory is not the same as an educated guess. In my lifetime as a travel writer, I have had the luxury of communicating with scientists, conservationists and climate entrepreneurs, and I have had the luxury of seeing animal and plant populations change over time, and I have had the luxury of seeing some ecosystems decline over the course of my lifetime. Direct observations supplanted by education and literacy are very valuable - and should not be dismissed - when thinking about and evaluating the topic of climate change. However, your use of the phrase, 'educated guesses' when describing the theory of anthropogenic climate change is the absolute wrong phrase to describe the science. Established theories are not educated guesses.

You question whether we have trustworthy tools to understand what future warming will bring. We have both diverse and precise tools. I encourage you to explore the fabric of interconnected tools scientists use to advance the theory of climate change. I have had the joy of joining climate scientists while banding birds, studying changes in flora on small islands, studying bleaching corals and more.

But one climate change tool puts me in awe every time: the majestic white NOAA ships with their state-of-the-art technology as they come into Newport harbor to resupply.

Petroleum Industry and Katie Tubb

I saw the Ka'imimoana docked in Newport several years ago. This NOAA ship specializes in studying climate - ocean temperatures, atmosphere, currents, in the tropical Pacific. Seeing the huge amount of instruments, gadgets and devices on this ship was a sight to behold. hat the world is misframing policy discussions

You incorrectly relate the economic, institutional, environmental and scientific successes of the twentienth century with climate change warming

You write, "What happened in this past century of warming?Extreme poverty—the norm for most of human history—plummeted 80 percent, thanks to economic growth and access to energy. Global crop yields of grains increased over 200 percent. Deaths from climate-related disasters decreased 96 percent."

This well-known climate-denialist trope confuses the economic health successes of our recent past with the consequences of growing global populations and economies. With the growth of economies comes new responsibilities, and we are up to the challenge of addressing those responsibilities.

You misrepresent the role of climate change on natural disasters

You deduced incorrectly from the 2021 IPCC Report that scientists have not found an explicit relationship between rising natural disasters and climate change. Without citing or quoting any specific section of the 2021 IPCC report, you write that it “found downward or no trends for hurricanes, winter storms and extreme cold, floods, tornadoes, or thunderstorms.” From there, you dismiss the IPCC’s reporting on climate-induced natural disasters by concluding, “So, Florida may be dealing with flooding, but not necessarily from global warming.”

But the IPCC states clearly, “Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since the Fifth Assessment Report.”

According to the 2021 IPCC report, climate change is affecting these natural disaster and extreme weather events.

Warm spells and heat waves are increasing.

Heavy precipitation events are increasing.

More intense droughts are increasing.

Flooding and frequency of flooding is increasing globally.

Coastal high water is increasing.

Large landslides are increasing.

The intensity of cyclones, hurricanes and other major storms is increasing.

Forest fires are increasing.

Shrinking glaciers.

Thawing permafrost.

Furthermore:

Other natural disasters, linked to climate change abound. I would consider the following to be extreme natural disasters. Do any of these climate-fueled disasters not directly affect human economies and have a direct impact on the integrity of the biosphere both today and tomorrow?

54% of coral reefs are lost or degraded beyond repair.

30% of North American birds have vanished.

Global insect populations are declining by 2.5% per year.

Ocean fish populations have declined by 50% since 1970.

The acidity of the oceans has increased by 30% since industrialization.

Scientific consensus is a scientific, not political term

You said, “our understanding of an incredibly complex, dynamic climate is always changing and busting previous notions of scientific “consensus”, which is itself more a political term than a scientific one.”

This is not true. Scientific consensus is foundational to science, and the existence of consensus on anthropogenic climate change is also a powerful tool in communicating a challenging subject to the public. Skeptical Science describes the scientific consensus this way:

“So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.”

It’s not just about grandchildren and beautiful roses

You say, dismissively that, “It’s important to acknowledge that many are concerned about global warming because they are concerned for their grandchildren and for the beautiful places we enjoy today.”

This sleight-of-hand, which uses wordplay to downplay why seventy-percent around the globe consider climate change a global emergency, underserves what the threat of climate change actually means: an existential threat to human civilization and the health of the biosphere which provides everything essential for economies, wealth, health, free-markets and freedom. There is a big difference between decreased beauty for our grandchildren and the end of civilization.

You discount science journalists, experts in their field

You said, “Too many politicians, with a helping hand from media eager to sell bad news have assumed the answers and ignored nuance.”

You provide no evidence to back up this wild claim.The science journalists who interpret and report on climate change news are among the most educated on Earth. They are often embedded among scientists, have formal training, are respected by their peers and by scientists, and have links to the free-market industries which are working to solve the puzzles of climate mitigation. As agents of their own reputation, science journalists are held to high standards, and their careers are made or broken by their credibility and precision.

In fact, these science journalists, on the whole, correctly communicate the range of predictions. If there were a pattern of science journalists threatening their credibility and reputation by miscommunicating the science of climate change, wouldn't they be endangering their journalistic careers? And wouldn't you, on account of your working for the Heritage Foundation, have an inherent incentive to call out those miscommunications? If you don't have specific examples, how do readers know you are you telling the truth?

Climate change science is not being busted, new findings support initial theories

You said, “our understanding of an incredibly complex, dynamic climate is always changing and busting previous notions of scientific consensus.”

This is absolutely incorrect. The science is not changing, rather, it is strengthening. Scientists have already confirmed the mechanisms of climate change and are now at work on more details that strengthen the rock-solid theory. The next Albert Einstein or Rachel Carson or Leonardo Da Vinci is out there, but he or she will not upend the theory of climate change. Rather, he or she will invent a new wind turbine, or advance fusion energy, or invent micro hydroelectricity bands that sustainably draw energy from the currents of small rivers.

Invention and engineering creates heroes, but the hero of basic science is collaboration and evidence.

Reputation, Credibility and Authority Matter

Carl Sagan, in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark cautioned against the idea that the authority of a particular scientist was critical to the scientific method. "Arguments from authority carry little weight – authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts."

This is because in science, progress is made according to the evidence, not by those who advanced the evidence.

But in the world of science journalism, where professional journalists report on and interpret the complexities of climate change science, reputation does matter, a lot.

Science journalists advance their reputation through education, science degrees, consistent publication of strong journalistic pieces, a curiosity for the subjects the journalist is embedded with, objectivity and neutrality. The journalistic institutions which employ them also depend heavily on reputation. Scholarly science journals and more mainstream science publications like Scientific American or Nature rely heavily on a strong reputation among peer-reviewed scientists and the educated audiences that consume them. The press, and journalism, and this relationship between a reputable institution and a critical audience - the marketplace of ideas - are foundational to the fabric of society in our country.

You do not work for a journalistic institution. Rather, you work for a right-wing political industry group that seeks to sway public opinion on the issues associated with your donors. The Heritage Foundation, a competitor to reputable journalism, has ties to the petroleum industry and to the tobacco industry, and lo and behold advocates against reforms or limits on these dangerous industries. The Heritage Foundation has no need to maintain credibility or reputation, because its opinion pieces serve to placate its corporate and retail donors. Those retail donors represent an extreme minority in the United States of the truly under-educated and ignorant.

By stating mistruths and making dubious claims about the IPCC report and climate change, you build a foundation of low credibility and lengthen a breadcrumb trail of dubious claims.

If you doubt whether your own claims are dubious, if you believe what you are writing, why not answer these questions?

How did studying history at a conservative Christian college, known for preparing its graduates to work in the right-wing politics industry, prepare you for communicating about complex science?

Where else have you advanced your science education? Are you embedded with climate entrepreneurs? Can you describe your relationships with those working in climate science, policy or entrepreneurialism?

What climate scientists do you communicate with and interview? How do they view your work?

Why don't you cite sources or specifics in your writings?

When you read the IPCC report, are you consuming a report that you are qualified to understand, or are you scanning overviews for nuggets to cherrypick?

Does cherrypicking qualify as a form of expertise or analysis?

When laymen on the Heritage Foundation social media sites respond to your articles with ridiculous anti-science claims, why do you not correct them?

Does your work sound like it adheres to the 5 pillars of climate science denial as described in this article by The Conversation?

https://theconversation.com/the-five-corrupt-pillars-of-climate-change-denial-122893

Why has your work been ignored by the mainstream? Why does it generate no buzz and little interest in circles outside of a core fan base?

There is another way. You can reverse your positions on climate change, seek credibility, seek journalistic integrity, find joy in the discovery of science and in working with the brightest minds to resolve our greatest challenge. Ultimately, you can walk away from the Heritage Foundation, and seek a better path.

ref

no lnx many

The Conversation

The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial

November 28, 2019 8.00am EST

Author

Mark Maslin

Professor of Earth System Science, UCL

Disclosure statement

Mark Maslin is a Founding Director of Rezatec Ltd, Director of The London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and a member of Cheltenham Science Festival Advisory Committee. He is an unpaid member of the Sopra-Steria CSR Board. He has received grant funding in the past from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, Royal Society, DIFD, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust and British Council. He has received research funding in the past from The Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.

Partners

University College London

The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change - where none exists. The latest estimate is that the world’s five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies spend about US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy.

Their hold on the public seems to be waning. Two recent polls suggested over 75% of Americans think humans are causing climate change.School climate strikes, Extinction Rebellion protests, national governments declaring a climate emergency, improved media coverage of climate change and an increasing number of extreme weather events have all contributed to this shift. There also seems to be a renewed optimism that we can deal with the crisis.

But this means lobbying has changed, now employing more subtle and more vicious approaches – what has been termed as “climate sadism”. It is used to mock young people going on climate protests and to ridicule Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old young woman with Asperger’s, who is simply telling the scientific truth.

Anti-climate change lobbying spend by the five largest publicly-owned fossil fuel companies. Statista, CC BY-SA

At such a crossroads, it is important to be able to identify the different types of denial. The below taxonomy will help you spot the different ways that are being used to convince you to delay action on climate change.

Do experts have something to add to public debate?

1. Science denial

This is the type of denial we are all familiar with: that the science of climate change is not settled. Deniers suggest climate change is just part of the natural cycle. Or that climate models are unreliable and too sensitive to carbon dioxide.

Some even suggest that CO₂ is such a small part of the atmosphere it cannot have a large heating affect. Or that climate scientists are fixing the data to show the climate is changing (a global conspiracy that would take thousands of scientists in more than a 100 countries to pull off).

All these arguments are false and there is a clear consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change. The climate models that predict global temperature rises have remained very similar over the last 30 years despite the huge increase in complexity, showing it is a robust outcome of the science.

Read more: Five climate change science misconceptions – debunked

[grapf] Model reconstruction of global temperature since 1970. Average of the models in black with model range in grey compared to observational temperature records from NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, Cowtan and Way, and Berkeley Earth. Carbon Brief, ]

The shift in public opinion means that undermining the science will increasingly have little or no effect. So climate change deniers are switching to new tactics. One of Britain’s leading deniers, Nigel Lawson, the former UK chancellor, now agrees that humans are causing climate change, despite having founded the sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2009.

It says it is “open-minded on the contested science of global warming, [but] is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated”. In other words, climate change is now about the cost not the science.

2. Economic denial

The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by spending 1% of world GDP. Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy are taken into account. But if we don’t act now, by 2050 it could cost over 20% of world GDP.

We should also remember that in 2018 the world generated US$86,000,000,000,000 and every year this World GDP grows by 3.5%. So setting aside just 1% to deal with climate change would make little overall difference and would save the world a huge amount of money. What the climate change deniers also forget to tell you is that they are protecting a fossil fuel industry that receives US$5.2 trillion in annual subsidies – which includes subsidised supply costs, tax breaks and environmental costs. This amounts to 6% of world GDP.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that efficient fossil fuel pricing would lower global carbon emissions by 28%, fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46%, and increase government revenue by 3.8% of the country’s GDP.

3. Humanitarian denial

Climate change deniers also argue that climate change is good for us. They suggest longer, warmer summers in the temperate zone will make farming more productive. These gains, however, are often offset by the drier summers and increased frequency of heatwaves in those same areas. For example, the 2010 “Moscow” heatwave killed 11,000 people, devastated the Russian wheat harvest and increased global food prices.

Geographical zones of the world. The tropical zones span from the Tropic of Cancer in the North to the Tropic of Capricorn in the South (red shaded region) and contains 40% of the World population. Maulucioni/Wikipedia, CC BY-SA

More than 40% of the world’s population also lives in the Tropics – where from both a human health prospective and an increase in desertification no one wants summer temperatures to rise.

Deniers also point out that plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to grow so having more of it acts like a fertiliser. This is indeed true and the land biosphere has been absorbing about a quarter of our carbon dioxide pollution every year. Another quarter of our emissions is absorbed by the oceans. But losing massive areas of natural vegetation through deforestation and changes in land use completely nullifies this minor fertilisation effect.

Climate change deniers will tell you that more people die of the cold than heat, so warmer winters will be a good thing. This is deeply misleading. Vulnerable people die of the cold because of poor housing and not being able to afford to heat their homes. Society, not climate, kills them.

This argument is also factually incorrect.In the US, for example, heat-related deaths are four times higher than cold-related ones. This may even be an underestimate as many heat-related deaths are recorded by cause of death such as heart failure, stroke, or respiratory failure, all of which are exacerbated by excessive heat.

US weather fatalities for 2018 alongside the ten- and 30-year average. National Weather Service, ]

4. Political denial

Climate change deniers argue we cannot take action because other countries are not taking action. But not all countries are equally guilty of causing current climate change. For example, 25% of the human-produced CO₂ in the atmosphere is generated by the US, another 22% is produced by the EU. Africa produces just under 5%.

Given the historic legacy of greenhouse gas pollution, developed countries have an ethical responsibility to lead the way in cutting emissions. But ultimately, all countries need to act because if we want to minimise the effects of climate change then the world must go carbon zero by 2050.

[graf Per capita annual carbon dioxide emissions and cumulative country emissions. Data from the Global Carbon Project. Nature. Data from the Global Carbon Project]

Deniers will also tell you that there are problems to fix closer to home without bothering with global issues. But many of the solutions to climate change are win-win and will improve the lives of normal people. Switching to renewable energy and electric vehicles, for example, reduces air pollution, which improves people’s overall health.

Developing a green economy provides economic benefits and creates jobs. Improving the environment and reforestation provides protection from extreme weather events and can in turn improve food and water security.

5. Crisis denial

The final piece of climate change denial is the argument that we should not rush into changing things, especially given the uncertainty raised by the other four areas of denial above. Deniers argue that climate change is not as bad as scientists make out. We will be much richer in the future and better able to fix climate change. They also play on our emotions as many of us don’t like change and can feel we are living in the best of times – especially if we are richer or in power.

But similarly hollow arguments were used in the past to delay ending slavery, granting the vote to women, ending colonial rule, ending segregation, decriminalising homosexuality, bolstering worker’s rights and environmental regulations, allowing same sex marriages and banning smoking.

The fundamental question is why are we allowing the people with the most privilege and power to convince us to delay saving our planet from climate change? grafs

2 22

At one point during the hearing last fall, Maloney accused Exxon CEO Darren Woods of lying to the committee. Woods had said he believed comments made by his predecessor, Lee Raymond, in 1997 casting doubt on climate science “aligned with the consensus of the scientific community” at the time (Greenwire, Oct. 28, 2021).

During an exchange with Khanna yesterday,Mann said Raymond’s statement was “inconsistent with internal reports from Exxon Mobil’s own scientists in 1977 in 1982.”

“We believe in redemption in this country, and I would encourage them to become part of the solution,” Mann said.

GOP: ‘No smoking gun’

[ pix Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), ranking member of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, on Capitol Hill yesterday. | Francis Chung/E&E News

Republicans, as they did during the October hearing, came to the industry’s defense. Instead of asking about the companies’ emissions goals, GOP legislators steered conversation toward high gas prices and the Biden administration’s cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline.

It made for a spectacle of contrasts, with Democrats haranguing the companies and threatening additional legal action and Republicans directing questions mostly to Katie Tubb, the minority witness and a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Ranking member James Comer (R-Ky.) said the four companies, as well as the U.S. Chamber and API, have already turned over more than 400,000 pages of documents.

“Even after producing hundreds of thousands of documents and answering questions all day, Democrats issued subpoenas after the prior hearing,” Comer said. “Why did they do this? Because their investigation hasn’t turned up anything. No smoking gun because there is not one.”

At one point, Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) got into a heated exchange with Mann. Graves noted that his state has lost more than 2,000 square miles of land over the last century, then blasted California’s energy policies and finally highlighted U.S. emissions reductions under former President Trump.

“I’ve been working with your data for decades now, and it is amazing to me to think that you would come before this Congress,” Graves said to Mann. “You’ve crossed so far over from science into political theater. It really undermines your credibility.” Graves did not cite any data that he considered erroneous.

Graves, the top Republican on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, does not sit on Oversight but was authorized by the panel to participate yesterday.

Mann later responded during an exchange with Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), calling California a “model” for other states on climate policy.

“I also found it ironic that the congressman from Louisiana, whose people are facing the brunt of the impacts of climate change, would be so dismissive or that [he] would try to point blame at California, which is actually growing their economy and reducing carbon emissions at the same time,” Mann said.

last week, President Biden _{signed an Executive Order}_ encouraging U.S. leadership in the clean car sector with a goal of half of all new car sales in the U.S. being zero-emission by 2030. It took them a few days, but deniers seem to have assembled their response by cobbling together a mix of old lies, new misrepresentations, and bizarre logical fallacies.

:{

For example, a response that in any sane outlet might be praise for Biden’s plan was published in the Koch-funded RealClearEnergy as an attack: _{President Biden’s Electric Car Future is Union Made}_. Bruce Yandle, a fellow at the Koch-funded Mercatus Center at George Mason University, is upset that Biden invited three major U.S. car companies to attend the announcement because they were the largest employers of workers in the United Auto Workers union, and didn’t invite non-American companies with non-union workers to his event promoting good American jobs.}:

By Climate Denier Roundup

Obviously, it’s no surprise that a Koch crony is anti-union and anti-EV, unless you confuse organized labor with organized denial.

Speaking of organized denial, while the _{once-Koch-funded}_ Daily Caller has since _{basically given up}_ on regular climate denial reporting, and its IPCC story was _{a straightforward rip-off}_ of the _{AP’s “code red” coverage}_ (sans any Koch-network denial quote, because no-pay, no-play, we assume). The Caller still occasionally publishes guest opinion pieces and _{ran one from Charlotte Whelan}_ of the (_{pro-Covid}_) Independent Women’s Forum andSteamboat Institute (which is hosting _{Marc Morano and a slate of other rightwing pseudostars at an upcoming festival}_).

Whelan is also upset the White House invited union workers to its pro-union-jobs event, and adds (with a deliberately misleading citation) the claim that “it could take more than 15 years to recoup the upfront extra costs in fuel savings. The average American certainly can’t wait that long to ‘make back’ the additional upfront cost” But the work cited (_{an NRDC post}_ based on _{a peer-reviewed study}_) doesn’t even measure how long it would take to recoup the upfront cost of an EV with cheaper charging and a more efficient propulsion system. The study did, however, use 15 years as the unit of measurement for a car’s life. So the calculations show that over an average 15-year lifespan of ownership, it can be almost $15,000 cheaper to go with an electric car.

Over at theKoch-funded Heritage foundation’s media arm, their policy analyst _{Katie Tubb makes a similar claim}_ about EVs being for rich people, which we’ve addressed before as part of _{their propaganda campaigns}_, as well as the _{old racist dog whistle about China}_.

Finally, we get to a new name to us, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, who wrote that Biden’s move was “costly and counterproductive” in the _{industry-funded}_ Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.

After a column _{defending the auto industry from 5G in January}_, and another in March with the phrase “nothing beats personal vehicles for social distancing.” Furchtgott-Roth makes similar points to the other professional disinformers in her most recent City Journal piece, but she also _{a:{dds a particularly baffling claim:(style="background-color:#ffff33;"):}:}_ that because “the United States has achieved energy security by becoming a net exporter of oil and natural gas,” then “mandating sales of electric vehicles would weaken that security.”

But if exporting oil makes us stronger (by her logic) then wouldn’t having more of it to export because our own cars are using less of it be a good thing, that would make us stronger?

Why would someone write something so inane and illogical, despite a byline that includes “former deputy assistant secretary for research and technology at the U.S. Department of Transportation” and “adjunct professor of economics at George Washington University?” Those are both legitimate organizations, not industry-funded disinformation operations!

Well it turns out that the DOT appointment was made by notoriously-bad-hiring-manager Donald Trump, and prior to that, _{Furchtgott-Roth was an economist for the American Petroleum Institute}_, _{proving once again}_ that _{when someone says something stupid about EVs}_, it’s _{probably on purpose}_.

(Originally appeared at DailyKos.)

ref BS signal

President Joe Biden issued an executive order Aug. 5 calling for half of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be zero-emission vehicles by 2030.

A president can’t exactly force Americans to buy an electric vehicle, and Biden largely meant his executive order as a messaging tool to fuel enthusiasm for his climate agenda. But it threatens to ignore customers along the way.

Electric and alternative fuel vehicles arrived on the scene in the past two decades, yet only accounted for 2% of car sales in 2019 despite generous federal and state subsidies.So far, electric vehicles and other alternative fuel vehicles have generally been the lifestyle choice of well-off Americans and urbanites.

Studies from the Congressional Research Service and the University of California at Berkeley show the vast majority of tax credits for buying an electric vehicle have gone to corporations and to Americans in top income brackets.

Buying an electric vehicle is a perfectly acceptable choice, but we shouldn’t pretend that electric vehicles, such as they are now, are the “all-American vehicle.”

Nor should we pretend that they don’t come with trade-offs. All transportation options require compromises, because there’s no perfect vehicle or energy resource. For example, if more Americans are driving electric vehicles in the next decade, as Biden wants, when and where you recharge them matters.

High electricity demand equals high stress on grid infrastructure, as Californians and Texans have found out with rolling blackouts and calls to reduce consumption.

Another electric vehicle trade-off is the manufacturing of (and eventually disposal of) batteries. A typical electric vehicle needs six times the mineral inputs as manufacturing a conventional car,according to the International Energy Agency. The vast majority of those minerals are mined in China, with its far more lax labor and environmental protections.

Trade-offs are also exactly why the relationship between customers and businesses is so important. As companies strive to understand the diverse needs, priorities, and preferences of customers, they must innovate to get ahead.

Customers benefit from robust competition and innovation, whether that’s between traditional vehicles, electric vehicles, alternative fuel vehicles, or the “next thing” in transportation that hasn’t even been imagined yet.

EPA Along for the Ride

As mentioned earlier, the president can’t make you buy an electric vehicle. But he can make it very difficult for car companies to manufacture and sell alternatives.

The same day Biden issued his executive order on electric vehicles, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed new regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars and trucks.

Acting under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is proposing to require model year 2023 cars to average 55 miles per gallon and trucks 38 miles per gallon. That’s about a 10% increase from model year 2022. The standards would tighten almost 5% annually to 2026, topping out at an average of 63 miles per gallon for cars and 44 miles per gallon for trucks.

In short, the standards would make it that much harder to build and sell a traditional gasoline-fueled car or pickup truck in the U.S. Effectively, they serve to box out the competition for electric vehicles.

The standards, if finalized, would almost certainly raise costs for customers, as previous standards under the Obama administration did.

There’s also a sordid and complicated backstory behind how those numbers were arrived at, the long and short of it being caballing between the state of California, big business,and the EPA, which does not bode well for either customers or representative democracy.

Even so, environmental activists are now saying that’s still not enough.

The Bigger Climate Picture

The president’s executive order and the EPA’s proposed car regulations are all in service of Biden’s commitment as part of the Paris Agreement to halve U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 in an effort to reduce global warming. But that isn’t even good climate policy.

There’s a temptation in the U.S. to take a myopic approach to climate policy; that is, to not consider domestic policy in the global context of climate change.

Two-thirds of all carbon dioxide emissions come from emerging and developing nations. China emits twice as much as America. Even John Kerry, the president’s special climate envoy, has said on several occasions that industrialized nations could eliminate all greenhouse gases and it would have no impact on global temperatures by the end of the century.

Biden’s electric vehicle aspirations and the EPA’s aggressive proposed vehicle emissions standards ignore those realities. And they make Americans poorer (death by a thousand regulatory cuts), which harms their ability to be resilient and adapt to change or adversity, from wherever it comes.

It also forgets a reality Americans should be very proud of. Over the past 40 years, air pollution has declined more than 70%, even as more Americans are driving more miles than ever before.

Air quality in the U.S. is **among**the best in the world. We have a lot to celebrate.

The federal government should not be the locus of supply and demand for cars. That kind of centralized control isn’t good for customers—who, as we noted, have diverse needs, priorities, and preferences—and it narrows the scope of innovation to government-preferred ends.

But that’s not how Biden and many of his allies see things, and it’s time Congress took back the wheel.

YAHOO NEWS

2ND REBUTT

The Florida Times-Union

Guest column: Yes Katie, there is scientific consensus on climate change

Chris HIldreth

January 8, 2022

Regarding the climate change editorial by Katie Tubb on Dec. 22, The Heritage Foundation was created in 1973 and has received a significant percentage of its funding from the oil, gas, chemical and financial industries. By its own admission it is a conservative-government-free enterprise think tank.

So, it is no surprise the foundation and Ms. Tubb would like us to believe that there is no consensus in the science community regarding climate change. Doing something about climate change will hurt these powerful institutions.

The fact is the vast majority of climate scientists wholeheartedly agree that climate change is real and is caused by human activity. In a 2013 study of actively publishing climate scientists that included 12,000 abstracts and 4,000 peer-reviewed papers, 97 percent of the work came to the conclusion stated above. In the other 3 percent, the conclusions were unable to be replicated or contained dramatic errors.

The Department of Defense believes in climate change as well. Not just the current administration's DOD but every iteration of the department going back to at least the 1990s, including —wait for it — the most recent former president. Pope Francis believes in climate change and wrote an Encyclical on it in 2015. Major international corporations based in our country and others across the globe believe in it as well.

Finally, a significant number of donors to the Heritage Foundation believe in it but have chosen to deny this belief and attempt to sabotage reasonable efforts to reduce the negative effects that are coming. Ms. Tubb's column is one such example (sowing the seeds of doubt) that this community employs.

Ms. Tubb wonders “Why is the climate pre-1850 so preferred such that policies by global warming 'catastrophists' point to it as a target for policy?" While I'm sure she really knows why — she has a BA in American History after all — she should know that it was the advent of the Second Industrial Revolution.

The Second Industrial Revolution was, in large part, responsible for all those wonderful statistics she enumerates later in her column. There's no doubt that many were raised up during that time; however, climate change was not yet a factor.

What she didn't mention was the Second Industrial Revolution is primarily responsible for the release of the carbon dioxide that deeply concerns a majority of climate scientists. Why are they concerned? Because all that trapped gas will, relatively soon, create an irreversible threat to the globe.

She also admonishes "… politicians, academics, financial institutions and nonprofits that continue to base their work on the IPCC's worst and most unrealistic scenario ..." when planning for possible responses to the threats created by climate change.

Well, why wouldn’t anyone in charge of planning consider worst-case scenarios in their thinking? Look what happened to New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina. The Army Corps of Engineers planned for a Category 3 storm and got a Category 5. Look what happened to the Mayor of Chicago in 1977, when not enough salt was purchased for the epic snow fall that year.

Ms. Tubb goes on to state that "History is riddled with stories of great harm done in the name of good intentions." I submit that more stories exist of great harm done in the name of avarice and greed.

Chris Hildreth is a retired printing executive with a degree in American History. He lives in Avondale.

This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: Guest column: Yes Katie, there is scientific consensus on climate change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TumvQdE-nsM

INTERN AT HERITAGE

IECNOMIC INST AT HERITAGE JEFF SENSER?

Check out this interview with Katie Tubb, a senior policy analyst for energy and environmental issues in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Katie researches and writes on subjects such as nuclear energy, climate change policies, and the benefits of free market environmentalism. In this episode of the Right Voices interview series, C3 Solutions VP of Public Policy and former Heritage Foundation energy policy economist Nick Loris speaks with her about nuclear energy and more.

2 22 not all?

https://www.dailysignal.com/author/katie-tubb/

Katie Tubb

Contributor

Katie Tubb is a policy analyst for the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research.

VIEW ALL AUTHORS

Articles by Katie Tubb

ENERGYCOMMENTARY

Biden’s Many Anti-Energy Policies Are Hurting Producers, Consumers Alike

Katie Tubb / December 17, 2021

When Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm addressed theNational Petroleum Council on Tuesday, she announced that the administration would not impose a ban on crude oil… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARYclimate change

A Different Perspective on Global Warming

Katie Tubb / December 09, 2021

We have grown accustomed to climate change being talked about in a certain way. Usually, it involves words and phrases like “dangerous,” “catastrophe,” “red zone,”… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARY

Biden’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve Sale Is Shoddy Shortcut, Not Needed Course Correction

Katie Tubb / November 23, 2021

While President Joe Biden seems to have no qualms about advancing regulations and policies that will increase energy prices for Americans, he clearly does not… Read More

COMMENTARYEPA Supreme Court

Supreme Court Takes Up Challenges to Near Limitless Power of EPA

Katie Tubb / November 18, 2021

This term the Supreme Court will hear four consolidated cases challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. That… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARYelectric vehicle

Proposed Electric Vehicle Tax Credits Benefit Unions, Wealthy Individuals—Not Environment

Katie Tubb / October 21, 2021

True to the image of a stereotypical car salesmen, President Joe Biden and congressional leadership are pitching a multitrillion-dollar spending package that they say won’t… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARY

Costly Energy, Climate Policies in Democrats’ Spending Bill Lack Transparency

Katie Tubb / September 22, 2021

Unprecedented is an understatement to describe what’s happening in Congress right now. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., are… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARYClimate Change

Climate Change Report Isn’t a Blank Check for Green Policies

Katie Tubb / August 27, 2021

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently published the first major installment of its Sixth Assessment Report. It’s a big deal, but it’s not… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARY

High Gasoline Prices and Biden’s Confusing OPEC Request on Oil Production

Katie Tubb / August 16, 2021

In the face of persistently high U.S. gasoline prices this summer, national security adviser Jake Sullivan announced last week that the Biden administration was “engaging… Read More

ECONOMYCOMMENTARY

What You Need to Know About Biden’s Ill-Conceived Executive Order on Electric Vehicles

Katie Tubb / August 09, 2021

President Joe Biden issued an executive order Aug. 5 calling for half of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be zero-emission vehicles by… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARYNuclear Power

Why Climate Activists and Environmentalists Should Support Nuclear Power

Katie Tubb / August 06, 2021

For environmentalists and climate activists who are serious about realistic energy options to reduce pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power is a compelling option…. Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARY

Energy and Climate Policies, Cronyism Don’t Belong in Bloated Senate Infrastructure Bill

Katie Tubb / August 03, 2021

The infrastructure package being debated in the Senate this week weighs in at a whopping 2,702 pages and $1.1 trillion. While the layman might think… Read More

ECONOMYCOMMENTARYinfrastructure

9 Things to Know About Senate’s$1.1 Trillion Infrastructure Bill

David Ditch / August 03, 2021

The Senate unveiled its long-awaited $1.1 trillion infrastructure bill on Monday. In a textbook example of Washington dysfunction, members and the public will only have… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARYEnergy

Congress, Don’t Let Liberals Shoehorn Harmful Energy Policies Into Budget and Infrastructure Bills

Katie Tubb / July 21, 2021

President Joe Biden has made it the policy of his administration to decarbonize the electricity sector fully by 2035 and to reach economy-wide net zero… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARY

Regifting the Nuclear Bailout

Katie Tubb / June 22, 2021

Americans across the political spectrum didn’t take it well in 2018 when the Department of Energy tried to coerce them into buying electricity from nuclear… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARYChina Paris climate carbon

It’s Time for Climate Realism When It Comes to China

Katie Tubb / May 27, 2021

The Biden administration has made much of its new commitment to the Paris climate agreement, marrying it with trillions in climate spending and regulatory proposals… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARY

Biden’s Hypocrisy on Keystone XL vs. Nord Stream 2 Pipelines

Katie Tubb / May 24, 2021

When President Barack Obama rejected a presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, he concluded that “America is now a global leader when it comes… Read More

SECURITYCOMMENTARYColonial Pipeline

2 Actions US Must Take in Wake of Colonial Pipeline Crisis

Dustin Carmack / May 14, 2021

Could the hack that took down a pipeline, leaving Americans in several states with gas shortages, happen again? Absolutely. Policymakers and business leaders need to… Read More

ECONOMYCOMMENTARY

Devil’s in Details in Biden’s ‘30×30’ Conservation Plan

Katie Tubb / May 10, 2021

The Biden administration on Thursday released its preliminary report on the president’s so-called 30 by 30 conservation initiative. Initiated in Executive Order 14008, President Joe… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARY

Federal Spending Alone Can’t Buy Energy Innovation

Katie Tubb / April 14, 2021

Committees in the House and Senate are scheduled Thursday to hold hearings on energy innovation. The hearings come in the wake of the American Jobs… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARYTexas

What Sweeping Power Outages in Texas Tell Us (and Don’t Tell Us) About Its Electricity Market

Katie Tubb / February 17, 2021

Snow, ice, and negative temperatures in the Lone Star State—what in the world is happening in Texas? And for that matter, in the greater Southeast?… Read More

LAWCOMMENTARY

Executive Order Seesaw on Environmental Rules Inflicts Vertigo on Economy

Katie Tubb / January 25, 2021

In his first week in office, President Joe Biden swept through a series of environmental policy actions. You’d be forgiven if most of it sounded… Read More

POLITICSCOMMENTARY

Second House ‘Minibus,’ With $1 Trillion Onboard, Careens Off Road Into a Fiscal, Policy Wreck

David Ditch / July 29, 2020

The House of Representatives will likely vote later this week on H.R. 7617, a 1,165-page behemoth that would spend more than $1 trillion in taxpayers’… Read More

ECONOMYCOMMENTARY

House Appropriations ‘Minibus’ Bill Stuffed With Problematic Policies, Overspending

David Ditch / July 21, 2020

The House is expected to vote later this week on H.R. 7608, a “minibus” bill that covers fiscal year 2021 spending for the departments of… Read More

ECONOMYCOMMENTARY

Why National Environmental Policy Act Reform Matters for National Parks

Katie Tubb / April 01, 2020

One of the hidden blessings of the coronavirus pandemic is the chance to social distance at national parks, free of admission. This doesn’t make it… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARY

Standalone Nuclear Interim Storage Amendment Sidesteps Solutions, Creates Problems

Katie Tubb / March 09, 2020

As the Senate debates an expensive and wasteful new energy bill, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has proposed an amendment to launch a pilot program for… Read More

ECONOMYCOMMENTARY

Congress Shouldn’t Put This Conservation Spending on Autopilot

Katie Tubb / March 05, 2020

Buyers (aka taxpayers), beware: The Land and Water Conservation Fund is not what you might think. Some on Capitol Hill have floated the idea of… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARY

A Misguided Approach to Nuclear Power in ‘Energy Innovation’ Bill

Katie Tubb/ March 01, 2020

Being “well intentioned” isn’t the same as doing well. Look no further than the recently introduced American Energy Innovation Act. The bill proposes an extensive… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARY

Senate’s ‘Energy Innovation’ Bill Wasteful, Redundant

Nicolas Loris / February 28, 2020

When you think of the word “innovation,” what comes to mind?  Maybe it’s something new and inventive—or something cutting edge, original, and creative. Or, if… Read More

ENERGYANALYSIS

Trump’s Invitation to Restart the Conversation on Yucca

Katie Tubb / February 07, 2020

Addressing nuclear waste policy is one of the most important things Congress can do to improve the competitiveness of the US nuclear industry, protect taxpayers,… Read More

ENERGYCOMMENTARY

Omnibus Spending Bill Misses Mark on Nuclear Energy Leadership

Katie Tubb / December 17, 2019

Don’t get me wrong. I love nuclear energy and think it has the power to change the world for the better. But Congress is working its… Read More

heritage

Inflation: Policymakers Should Stop Driving It and Start Fighting It

Jan 20, 2022 Over an hour read

COMMENTARY

Biden’s Many Anti-Energy Policies Are Hurting Producers, Consumers Alike

Katie Tubb Dec 17, 2021 5 min read

COMMENTARY

A Different Perspective on Global Warming

Katie Tubb Dec 9, 2021 3 min read

REPORT

37 Expected Biden Administration Regulations that Americans Should Know About

Dec 8, 2021 Over an hour read

COMMENTARY

Biden’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve Sale Is Shoddy Shortcut, Not Needed Cours...

Katie Tubb Nov 29, 2021 5 min read

COMMENTARY

Fact-Checking Biden’s Excuses for Rising Energy Prices and Empty Shelves

Nov 23, 2021 5 min read

COMMENTARY

Supreme Court Takes Up Challenges to Near Limitless Power of EPA

Nov 19, 2021 5 min read

COMMENTARY

Were Biden’s Claims at COP26 Climate Change Summit Accurate?

Nov 9, 2021 8 min read

COMMENTARY

What’s in Democrats’ $1.75 Trillion Spending Bill

Nov 1, 2021 36 min read

COMMENTARY

Proposed Electric Vehicle Tax Credits Benefit Unions, Wealthy Individuals—Not...

Oct 22, 2021 4 min read

PaginationCurrent page1 Page2 Page3 Page4 Page

Articles by Katie Tubb | The Daily Signal Journalist ...

Search domain muckrack.comhttps://muckrack.com › katie-tubb › articles

Articles by Katie Tubb on Muck Rack. Find Katie Tubb's email address, contact information, LinkedIn, Twitter, other social media and more.

Katie Tubb | CNSNews

Search domain cnsnews.com  https://cnsnews.com › index.php › author › katie-tubb

Katie Tubb Katie Tubb is a policy analyst for the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. My Articles What Sweeping Power Outages in Texas Tell Us (and Don't Tell Us) About Its Electricity Market. 02/18/2021 - 11:09. Nuclear Accident at 'Three Mile Island' Wasn't All It's Cracked Up to Be ...

Katie Tubb | The Heritage Foundation

Search domain heritage.orghttps://www.heritage.org › staff › katie-tubb

Katie Tubb is a senior policy analyst for energy and environmental issues in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Tubb researches and writes on...

Katie Tubb - Daily News

Search domain dailynews.comhttps://www.dailynews.com › author › katie-tubb

Power plants close for a variety of reasons, economic as well as technical. But California has come up with a new rationale: "We just don't want it."

Letters to the editor for Friday, December 31, 2021

Search domain news-press.comhttps://www.news-press.com › story › opinion › 2021 › 12 › 31 › letters-editor-friday-december-31-2021 › 9046197002

The Dec. 19 Naples Daily News had an article from Katie Tubb, a senior policy analyst for energy and environmental issues at The Heritage Foundation. In her article she reports on what she says is...

Katie Tubb - Pasadena Star News

Search domain pasadenastarnews.comhttps://www.pasadenastarnews.com › author › katie-tubb

Power plants close for a variety of reasons, economic as well as technical. But California has come up with a new rationale: "We just don't want it."

Guest column: Yes Katie, there is scientific consensus on ...

Search domain yahoo.comhttps://www.yahoo.com › entertainment › guest-column-yes-katie-scientific-100020736.html

January 8, 2022, 2:00 AM · 3 min read. Regarding the climate change editorial by Katie Tubb on Dec. 22, The Heritage Foundation was created in 1973 and has received a significant percentage of ...

Los Angeles Daily News

605 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 100

Monrovia, CA 91016

818-713-3000

https://www.dailynews.com/author/katie-tubb/

MEDIANEWS GROUP

Diablo Canyon shutdown last chapter for clean nuclear power in California

JANUARY 25, 2018 AT 7:00 P.M.

Power plants close for a variety of reasons, economic as well as technical. But California has come up with a new rationale: “We just don’t want it.” The Public Utility...