From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Paul Driessen

Donald Trump and JD Vance have a mandate on energy, economic, immigration and other issues that won them 50% of popular, 58% of electoral and 82% of US county votes.

On January 20 they will begin tackling the numerous problems bequeathed them by the Biden-Harris Administration and Washington Deep State: illegal immigration of criminals, terrorists and opportunists; outrageous government spending by bloated federal agencies; wars and crises across the globe; and federal and state politicians and bureaucrats determined to slow or stymie their every move.

Mr. Trump will let the DOGE out, to cut government waste. Pundits and political pros are offering advice across the board. My suggestions center on the “climate crisis” and the destructive policies it has justified.

1. First and foremost, withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris climate straitjacket. Its terms and subsequent agreements require that the USA and other industrialized nations switch from fossil fuels to “clean renewable” energy and de-modernize agricultural and other practices, to eliminate “greenhouse gas” (GHG) emissions. That would bring blackouts, de-industrialization and job losses.

It would also mean now-rich nations must pay developing countries $300 billion per year for climate damage “compensation” and renewable energy financing. But China, India and other developing countries need not cut emissions and will continue using coal, oil and natural gas in ever-increasing quantities, to modernize, create vibrant economies and lift more people out of poverty. That would mean even zero fossil fuel use by Western nations would not reduce global atmospheric GHG levels at all.

Better yet, send the Paris document to Congress for Article II Senate advice and two-thirds consent. President Obama’s sly move of calling this accord a mere “agreement” that required no Senate “treaty” review cannot be countenanced. Paris was among the most far-reaching, impactful agreements in US history. It affects our energy, economy, jobs, living standards, healthcare, national security and more. It’s a treaty and should be treated as such.

2. Equally important, eliminate the institutionalized junk science, assertions and fearmongering that fossil fuel use has caused an existential climate crisis for people and planet. Begin by re-examining the 2009 Obama Environmental Protection Agency “Endangerment Finding” that carbon dioxide “pollution” threatens the American people’s health and welfare.

Fossil fuels provide 80% of America’s energy; raw materials for thousands of petrochemical products; and the foundation of our economy, health and welfare. Their emissions certainly contribute to the 0.04% CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, but this miracle molecule enables and spurs plant growth, thereby feeding the animal kingdom and making nearly all life possible.

EPA’s convoluted finding defied science and reality. It allowed the Obama and Biden Administrations to justify biased climate “research,” anti-fossil fuel regulations, sprawling wind and solar installations, and the transformation of America’s entire energy system and economy.

The Endangerment Decision was likely the most “major federal action” in US history, yet it has no real statutory basis. It clearly defies the Supreme Court’s decisions in West Virginia v. EPA, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council and Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc., v. Raimondo.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin should direct the agency to formally and publicly reexamine the secretive process that EPA employed to ensure its “endangerment” decision – with no contrarian science, evidence, questions or public hearings permitted to challenge its preordained edict. A fair, balanced, scientific review would demolish the faulty Finding and bring the agency into compliance with SCOTUS rulings.

The President-elect’s appointment of energy and environmental “czars” and National Energy Council will build on those important steps, help restore reality and common sense to America’s energy and climate policies, rein in other Biden-era regulations and executive actions, and advance Mr. Trump’s promise of US energy dominance and economic resurgence.

Other actions the new Administration and Congress should take include the following.

3. Utilize the Congressional Review Act to reverse eleventh-hour Biden-Harris regulatory sprees – such as its ban on further coal leasing in the Powder River Basin.

4. Open all US non-National-Park areas for no/low impact evaluation and exploration, to identify prospects warranting more detailed assessments for critically needed metals and minerals. Most of these public land areas were deliberately made off-limits to such evaluations by Congress, courts and the Deep State, making it impossible to weigh surface values against potential for world-class subsurface deposits.

China’s recent ban on exports of several vital metals and minerals underscores yet again why America must not rely on adversaries for raw materials critical for US defense, aerospace, battery, AI, wind, solar and other industries – especially when those materials could be found and developed in America, under the world’s best pollution control and environmental protection rules, technologies and practices.

5. Reopen the Delaware-sized “coastal plain” of Alaska’s South-Carolina-sized Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas leasing, exploration and drilling. Congressional legislation in 2017 explicitly allowed those activities, but President Biden unilaterally cancelled all leases and permits in 2023.

6. Require that applicants for climate change research and modeling grants demonstrate that their previous models and studies have been confirmed by actual temperature, drought and extreme weather data and evidence; and provide computer codes and analyses so that reviewers can view and evaluate their work.

7. Define “sustainability” to reflect complete global life-cycle raw material requirements, mining and processing needs and impacts, energy required to produce raw materials and manufacture energy and other systems, and land, air and water pollution resulting from all those activities. This will ensure that wind, solar, battery, electric vehicle and other technologies are not classified as “clean, renewable and sustainable” merely because they don’t emit CO2 or pollution after they start operating.

8. End subsidies and fast-track permitting for wind and solar installations – especially offshore wind, where raw material requirements and costs are many times higher than for onshore turbines and far more excessive than that for combined-cycle gas generators.

9. Require that wind and solar projects, and associated backup battery and transmission line projects, meet the same environmental review standards and requirements as required for oil, gas, coal and metals mining, and nuclear projects, regarding local, regional and global air and water pollution, land and habitat destruction, wildlife disturbance and loss, and post-project equipment removal and land reclamation.

Even better, cancel the entire offshore wind program. Its electricity is weather-dependent and ultra-expensive, threatens wildlife and fisheries, and requires unjustifiable amounts of raw materials.

10. Expand and streamline programs to bring new nuclear power plants online, especially small modular reactors – to meet rapidly expanding needs for abundant, reliable, affordable electricity for data centers, artificial intelligence, and increasingly electrified households, technologies and industries.

11. Terminate Diversity Equity Inclusion, Environment Social Governance, and Environmental and Climate Justice programs, offices and funding. They only serve as twisted justifications for arbitrarily selecting preferred companies and communities that are often less qualified to serve public health and safety.

There is much more to be done. But this is a solid beginning for reducing or eliminating needless, excessive and harmful pseudo science, grants, policies, practices and regulations – and restoring government of, by and for the People.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Quesnel

Winnipeg City Council’s War on Natural Gas Shows the Need to Counter Special Interests

Some members of the Winnipeg City Council are determined to continue their reckless war on natural gas in buildings in Canada’s coldest city.

The latest move occurred at City Council when the City’s Standing Policy Committee on Water, Waste and Environment considered a motion to discuss options for moving away from not using natural gas heating in existing and new residential, commercial and industrial buildings. The lack of action placed the motion in limbo.

It ought to remain in limbo forever. Winnipeg City Council should instead enshrine energy choice. Winnipeggers who favour energy choice and sensible policy can take heart from the experience of other Canadian cities. More cities are fighting these natural gas bans. Vancouver City Council ended a natural gas ban in new buildings this summer after a group of councillors pushed back. They raised housing affordability concerns because homeowners and landlords are subject to costly retrofits with a ban on natural gas heaters, gas furnaces and gas boilers.

Unfortunately, a recent tied vote defeated the policy reversal. This organized opposition, however, shows what is happening at ground level: Average people pummeled by inflation and higher energy costs are finally fighting back.

Opponents of energy choice make exaggerated claims regarding the influence of the energy lobby in these debates, while they are tone-deaf about the actual organized interests at play. Environmental organizations such as the Pembina Institute are well-funded and always present at protests. They also funnel misleading information to local activists and politicians.

Manitoba Hydro has spoken out against natural gas bans for years. In 2021, the Crown electric utility said moving the province from natural gas to electricity as a home-heating source was unrealistic. Despite abundant hydropower, Manitoba does not have the generating capacity to support this switch. Manitoba Hydro said the grid cannot serve peak demand without natural gas. Meeting our energy needs without natural gas would require doubling the province’s generating capacity. This is the province’s utility saying this based on a simple analysis of the evidence, not a ‘right-wing’ economist.

The problem with these debates is that ideologically driven environmental organizations drown out reasonable voices. These groups are often behind local campaigns to deny energy choice. They are well-funded special interests ‒ often using foreign funding or even funding from our governments.

Individuals and organizations committed to energy choice must become active and counter these well-funded voices. Pro-energy choice voices must refute the misinformation spread by environmentalist interests. In municipal elections, they should promote candidates and even electoral slates that respect energy choice and sensible policy.

In the United States, some Republican-led states have successfully prevented localities from banning certain hydrocarbon-based heating infrastructure. However, their efforts are limited because a change in state-level politics could reverse the move to limit local governments.

Strong citizen-led local movements are the answer. They should always watch for policies that oppose energy choice. Such movements must be active in local politics, opposing these elitist environmental special interests. Reasonable Winnipeggers ‒ right and left ‒ must defend reasonable energy policies. This is not a partisan issue. It is never too late to stand up for sanity in the local fight for energy abundance and freedom for all.

Joseph Quesnel is a Senior Research Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.