Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Drilling: Trump Parks His Tanks on Sierra Club’s Lawn

Protest
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty

There was a lot of good news in President Donald Trump’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) — the document which finally told the truth about climate change: that green activists pose a bigger threat to U.S. security than anything the climate can manage.

But nothing in the NSS is likely to provoke quite so much fury among environmentalists as one of the clauses buried among another of the Trump administration’s recent reform measures: the bit in the tax-reform package which permits part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be opened to oil exploration.

Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has long been a Sacred Polar Bear for environmental campaigners. It’s their line in the snow: the ne plus ultra of pristine wilderness, majesty, and loveliness to be preserved at whatever cost. Democrats have been fighting to prevent it being developed for oil since the 1970s.

So Trump’s announcement that soon oil companies will be allowed to explore there is about as a big a provocation as if he’d turned up to the Sierra Club’s summer vegan barbecue, spit roasted a baby manatee, and served it up with a snail darter reduction and spotted owl sauce.

 

But nothing in the NSS is likely to provoke quite so much fury among environmentalists as one of the clauses buried among another of the Trump administration’s recent reform measures: the bit in the tax-reform package which permits part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be opened to oil exploration.

Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has long been a Sacred Polar Bear for environmental campaigners. It’s their line in the snow: the ne plus ultra of pristine wilderness, majesty, and loveliness to be preserved at whatever cost. Democrats have been fighting to prevent it being developed for oil since the 1970s.

So Trump’s announcement that soon oil companies will be allowed to explore there is about as a big a provocation as if he’d turned up to the Sierra Club’s summer vegan barbecue, spit roasted a baby manatee, and served it up with a snail darter reduction and spotted owl sauce.

The Washington Times reports:

House and Senate Republicans late last week unveiled a final tax-reform package that includes a controversial provision allowing a section of ANWR — which has been one of the highest-profile battlegrounds in the energy vs. environment debate since the 1970s — to be opened to oil exploration. ANWR drilling was left out of the House’s original tax legislation but was included in the Senate’s, and now has found its way into the final version of the bill hashed out by the chambers’ conference committee last week.

Green groups are well aware that drilling in ANWR would represent a major blow to their agenda, and they’re pressuring lawmakers publicly and behind the scenes in the hopes of getting a last-minute change to the tax bill. Top environmental organizations also used public-relations moves to galvanize public opinion on their side of the debate.

The greenies are getting so desperate, they’ve even wheeled out Robert Redford.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Trump’s Embrace of Fossil Fuels Is Making America Great Again

Getty Images

Donald Trump’s U.S.A. is winning the global energy war by rejecting climate change nonsense and unapologetically embracing fossil fuels.

Here are some of its extraordinary achievements:

Gas

Thanks to fracking the U.S. has become the world’s largest producer (and consumer) of natural gas.

According to the International Energy Agency’s latest report:

The United States – the world’s largest gas consumer and producer – will account for 40% of the world’s extra gas production to 2022 thanks to the remarkable growth in its domestic shale industry. By 2022, US production will be 890 bcm, or more than a fifth of global gas output. Production from the Marcellus, one of the world’s largest fields, will increase by 45% between 2016 and 2022, even at current low price levels, as producers increase efficiency and produce more gas with fewer rigs.

While US domestic demand for gas is growing, thanks to higher consumption from the industrial sector, more than half of the production increase will be used for liquefied natural gas (LNG) for export. By 2022, the IEA estimates that the United States will be on course to challenge Australia and Qatar for global leadership among LNG exporters.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Gaia Beats Mars: How Our Military Are Being Turned into Green Eco-Wussies

Yes. That makes sense. Clearly one of the main priorities in any war of attrition should be to do everything possible to protect your enemies’ lives, wellbeing and resources.

Some might argue that a merciless death cult which now controls swathes of Iraq and Syria and a population of around 10 million, which makes $2 billion a year from oil and extortion, which rapes and enslaves girls as young as eight, tortures and kills prisoners, chucks gay men off buildings, and is committed to the destruction of Western civilisation, ought not to be treated with kid gloves.

But wiser souls in the Obama administration and at higher levels of the US military have clearly taken a more enlightened, eco-sensitive position: yes, Islamic State may behave inappropriately on occasion, but that is definitely no excuse to engage in tactical bombing operations which may cause serious damage to infrastructure, make the sand in the area all oily and black and sticky for miles around, and release into the atmosphere particles which not only could give nearby jihadis asthma attacks but could also drastically increase the Syria region’s carbon footprint, possibly causing global warming to increase by 0.0000000000000000000000001 degree c by the end of the century.

If only the Allies had applied a similarly enlightened policy in World War II we’d all be in a much better place I’m sure.

It would have meant, for example, that there would have been no environmentally insensitive bombing of oil refineries like the ones in Romania. Some Germans – including fighter ace Adolf Galland; head of the Luftwaffe Hermann Göring; and armaments minister Albert Speer – believed that without the Oil Campaign Hitler might have won.

But in environmental terms, perhaps a Nazi victory would have been for the best. Apart from modern day California, Nazi Germany was almost certainly the most eco-friendly state on earth: the first to ban smoking on public transport; the first to take animal rights seriously (Göring once threatened to send people found guilty of animal experimentation to the death camps); the first to pass national environmental laws; the first to champion organic food and vegetarianism.

Nazi Germans also put a great deal of thought about what to do with the population problem – and, at Wannsee, how to solve it. They really cared about open spaces and overcrowding (Lebensraum).

And they weren’t afraid to put their money where their mouth was, either: if the Germans had won the war, you can bet your bottom Reichsmark that there would be no pussy-footing around at next week’s Paris eco-summit. It would be a case of reduce your carbon emissions, schnell – or off to the death camps.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Evil Oil-Guzzling Bastard Immortalised in Art

Damien Hirst, Grayson Perry, James Delingpole: all winners of major art prizes. I was awarded mine last week by Anglia Ruskin University (formerly Anglia Polytechnic) which I think is a bit like Cambridge (it’s in the same town), though bizarrely its excellence has yet to filter through to the official UK uni rankings, where it’s rated 115th out of a list of 123.

Anyway, the point is, I won. Sort of. I ‘won’ this extremely important prize in the way that Michael Mann, the shifty climate scientist, has been known to claim he ‘won’ the Nobel prize when it was awarded to the IPCC. That is, the prize wasn’t handed to me personally but I did play my part.

What happened was this. Anglia Ruskin staged a ‘Sustainable Art’ competition and the winning entry was a 6ft high mock stone slab (made out of plywood) engraved with the names of six notorious ‘climate deniers’ including me, Christopher Booker and Lord Lawson, no less.

It’s a handsome piece of art, clever too because in ingenious installation-y style a continual stream of symbolic engine oil cascades down the face of the slab, which bears the legend ‘Lest we forget those who denied.’ But I think what probably clinched it wasn’t the design or the technical skill but the impeccable correctness of its politics.

The piece’s creator, a third-year fine art student called Ian Wolter, clearly knows how to please a sustainability prize judging panel. He declared: ‘With this work I envisage a time when the deliberate denial of climate change will be seen as a crime because it hinders progress towards a low-carbon future.’

So young, so certain. I wonder what deep background research led him to form this considered view. Actually, no I don’t, because it’s obvious. He’ll have got it from his science and geography teachers at school; from BBC nature documentaries and news reports; from comedians like Dara Ó Briain and Marcus Brigstocke; from celebrity mathematician Simon Singh, whispery-voiced gorilla-hugger David Attenborough and pouty-mouthed astronomer Brian Cox; from every other article in the Guardian; from the Science Museum in London; from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth; from his fellow students and university professors; from the ‘97 per cent’ of scientists who, so legend has it, say the science on global warming is settled… .

Never once, in all likelihood, will young Ian ever in his entire life have been put in a position where he has been given intellectual permission even to consider the possibility that the sceptics might have a point. Like a member of the Hitler Youth who knows that Jews are bad because, well everyone knows they are, Ian can scarcely be blamed for thinking as he does. He’s just another helpless stooge of the prevailing culture.

‘Ah but things will change,’ I expect many of you breezily imagine. ‘Sooner or later, we’ll come up with the killer piece of evidence that decides the issue either way. And then we’ll all know exactly where we are and what to do.’

But this isn’t going to happen. The reason I know it’s not going to happen is that that killer evidence is already in, lots of it in fact. We know for certain that despite almost all the computer models’ predictions there has been no global warming for more than 18 years; we know — this is currently the subject of a major investigation by the Global Warming Policy Foundation — that the raw data has been so heavily tampered with that all those ‘hottest year ever’ claims are utterly bogus; we know that ocean acidification is just another myth, that the ‘97 per cent’ figure is a fraud, that all the predictions about species extinction, resource depletion and other green fantasies have been wildly exaggerated.

Yet the green caravan trundles on regardless. I saw this in Rome last week, where I’d gone to cover a visit by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who had come to the Vatican to persuade the Pope that he should join the war on ‘climate change’. A rival conference had been staged by a delegation from the free-market think-tank the Heartland Institute, which wanted to make the counter-argument: that catastrophic man-made global warming theory is unsupported by real-world evidence; that the measures being taken to deal with it, far from helping the world’s poor, are immiserating and impoverishing them still further.

The contrast between the two events could scarcely have been greater. At the Vatican, a hefty international press contingent religiously noted down every word, even though nothing of any interest was said — just the usual pieties about ‘sustainability’ and the urgency of the crisis and the needs of ‘future generations’.

At the Heartland event, on the other hand, a series of fascinating, erudite mini-lectures was delivered by a team including a meteorologist, a physicist, an ex-Nasa man who’d helped devise the landing gear for the Apollo project, and a theologian. But it was all utterly wasted on those few journalists who’d bothered to turn up. They weren’t going to allow a few inconvenient facts to get in the way of the real story: ‘Koch–funded cranks roll in to Rome to try to stop His Holiness saving the world.’

Postscript: since writing this piece I have discovered that Ian Wolter, far from being a pre-pubescent art student with no life experience or intellectual foundation is, in fact, even more depressingly, a mature student with a long, distinguished career in business behind him. Oh dear.

This article originally appeared in The Spectator

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: James Randi forced to recant by Warmist thugs for showing wrong kind of scepticism
  2. Climategate goes uber-viral, Gore flees leaving evil henchmen to defend crumbling citadel
  3. Climategate: the official cover-up continues
  4. Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions

 

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations