The Department of Energy (DOE) under the Trump administration is changing its policy focus from combatting climate change to establishing energy independence.
Under former-President Barack Obama, the DOE subordinated energy research and development to reducing global warming. The department’s research, funding, and agenda were driven by environmental and emissions goals, rather than overall energy production and economic impact, Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette told The Washington Examiner.
“[Obama’s DOE] moved [energy research] under what was called the undersecretary of science and energy. The energy part was much less relevant to the science part,” Brouillette said. “They wanted climate science to dictate their energy policy.”
The Trump administration has since switched DOE priorities, rolling back regulations on the energy industry and aiding in an oil and gas boom that is expected to make the U.S. a net exporter of energy for the first time ever. The U.S. is also on track to overtake Russia and Saudi Arabia in crude oil output.
“Look, they had different policy objectives, and that’s what elections are all about. So, I’m not at all concerned about the direction they took,” Brouillette said. “We want to do it exactly the other way around. We think we can produce energy here in America cleanly and efficiently and responsibly.”
“We have to produce it ourselves. That’s what the president’s talking about with this energy dominance agenda. We have to do this. And I think if you look at the larger political situation, we are,” Brouillette added.
Read more at Daily Caller
Here’s some comments from some knowledgeable people”
Christiana Figueres, the U.N.’s former top climate change official, says that it’s not about the climate. It’s about redistribution of the wealth and the destruction of capitalism. In simpler terms, she intends to replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled, centralized, socialized One World government and economic control.
Papal Advisor Naomi Klein admits in her much-publicized screed that ‘Global Warming’ is all about anti-capitalism and nothing to do with science.
Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), summed up the situation quite clearly. Speaking in 2010, he advised: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
Head of the EPA Gina McCarthy admitted during a U.S. House hearing that anti-coal CO2 regulations attached to EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Plan” wouldn’t have any measurable impact on global warming. She testified, “We see it as having had enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris.”
Also mentioned was a quote from former U.S. Senator and chief climate envoy during the Clinton administration, Timothy Wirth, which shows how Democrats unconditionally stick behind climate change to forward its progressive agenda. “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue,” Wirth said. “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.”
The late Dr. Stephen Schneider’s heartfelt rationalization for climate change advocacy by invoking his stated position that climate scientists must necessarily “offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have” so as to “capture the public’s imagination” by “getting loads of media coverage” as a means to advance the cause.
Maurice Newman, the chairman of Australia’s business advisory council said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule. “The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN…. “It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”
Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.
HERE’S ANOTHER GOOD QUOTE: “Let’s get something absolutely clear about this global warming debate. (I may have mentioned this before but it’s worth restating). Anyone at this late stage who is still on the alarmist side of the argument is either a liar, a cheat, a crook, a scamster, an incompetent, a dullard, a time-server, a charlatan or someone so monumentally stupid that they really should be banned by law from having an opinion on any subject whatsoever.
And that’s just the scientists.” …James Delingpole
Why should we bother wasting money on such fake crisis like Global Warming/Climate Change always expect liberals to do so becuase their suckers anyway their fool enough to think that when their car wont start its becuase of Global Warming/Climate Change