Marita: Loves the strike down of one portion of Obama’s overall little legacy

Link to: Striking down Obama’s climate legacy has its day in court

 

Greetings!

 

This week, I knew early on what my topic would be. For the past couple years, I’ve followed the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP)—including offering public comment at one of the EPA’S “listening sessions” in Atlanta. Back in February, I wrote about the Supreme Court’s historic stay. On Tuesday,  September 27, more history was made when the full DC Appeals Court heard oral arguments regarding the CPP—from both defenders and detractors. There, history was made again: the full court engaged in the arguments for the full day.

 

Despite the historic nature of the case, few people are following it—or even knew about the CPP’s day in the Appeals Court.

 

For my weekly radio show: America’s Voice for Energy, I interviewed two of the lawyers involved in the case who were in the room for the full oral arguments. Their insights, along with news reports, resulted in this week’s column: Striking down Obama’s climate legacy has its day in court (attached and pasted-in-below).

 

Marita Noon 2015 Turquiose

Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great, Inc.

PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM, 87181

505.239.8998

 

For immediate release: October 3, 2016

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Words: 1128

 

Striking down Obama’s climate legacy has its day in court

President Obama’s flagship policy on climate change had its day in court on Tuesday, September 27. The international community is closely watching; most Americans, however, are unaware of the historic case known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP)—which according to David Rivkin, one of the attorneys arguing against the plan: “is not just to reduce emissions, but to create a new electrical system.”

 

For those who haven’t followed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule, here’s a brief history that brings us to up to date:

  • EPA published the final CPP rule in the Federal Register on October 2015.
  • More than two dozen states and a variety of industry groups and businesses immediately filed challenges against it—with a final bipartisan coalition of more than 150 entities including 27 states, 24 trade associations, 37 electric coops, 3 labor unions, and about a half dozen nonprofits.
  • On January 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied a request for a stay that would have prevented implementation of the rule until the court challenges were resolved.
  • On February 9, the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS), in an unprecedented action, before the case was heard by the lower court, overruled, and issued a stay that delays enforcement of CPP.
  • The Court of Appeals was scheduled to hear oral arguments before a three-judge panel on June 2, but pushed them to September 27 to be heard by the full court—something the court almost never does (though for issues involving “a question of exceptional importance” procedural rules allow for the case to proceed directly to a hearing before the full appeals court).

 

The court, which is already fully briefed on a case before hearing the oral arguments, typically allows a maximum 60-90 minutes to hear both sides and occasionally, with an extremely complex case, will allow two hours. The oral argument phase allows the judges to interact with lawyers from both sides and with each other. However, for the CPP, the court scheduled a morning session focusing on the EPA’s authority to promulgate the rule and an afternoon session on the constitutional claims against the rule—which ended up totaling nearly 7 hours. Jeff Holmstead, a partner with Bracewell Law, representing one of the lead challengers, told me this was the only time the full court has sat all day to hear a case.

 

One of the issues addressed was whether or not the EPA could “exercise major transformative power without a clear statement from Congress on the issue”—with the 2014 Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA determining it could not. Republican appointee Judge Brett Kavanaugh noted that the UARG scenario “sounds exactly like this one.”

 

Judge Thomas Griffith, a Bush appointee, questioned: “Why isn’t this debate going on in the floor of the Senate?” In a post-oral argument press conference, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) pointed out that the debate has been held on the Senate floor in the form of cap-and-trade legislation—which has failed repeatedly over a 15-year period. Therefore, he said, the Obama administration has tried to do through regulation what the Senate wouldn’t do through legislation.

 

“Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, one of Obama’s mentors,” writes the Dallas Morning News: “made a star appearance to argue that the Clean Power Plan is unconstitutional.”

 

Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, a Bush appointee, concluded: “You have given us all we need and more, perhaps, to work on it.”

 

The day in court featured many of the nation’s best oral advocates and both sides feel good about how the case was presented.

 

For the challengers (who call CPP “an unlawful power grab”), West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who along with Texas AG Ken Paxton, co-lead the case, reported: “We said (then) that we were looking forward to having our day in court on the merits. Today was that day. I think that the collective coalition was able to put very strong legal arguments forward, as to why this regulation is unlawful, and why it should be set aside.”

 

But the case has its proponents, too, and they, also, left feeling optimistic. In a blog post for the Environmental Defense Fund, Martha Roberts wrote about what she observed in the courtroom: “The judges today were prepared and engaged. They asked sharply probing questions of all sides. But the big news is that a majority of judges appeared receptive to arguments in support of the Clean Power Plan.” She concluded that she’s confident “that climate protection can win the day.”

 

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) summarized the session saying that stakeholders on all sides were left “parsing questions and reactions, and searching for signs of which way the judges are leaning.” U.S. News reported: “The judges repeatedly interrupted the lawyers for both sides to ask pointed questions about the legal underpinnings of their positions.”

 

The decision, which is not expected for several months, may come down to the ideological make-up of the court: 6 of the judges were appointed by Democrat presidents and 4 by Republicans. Though, according to WSJ, Obama appointee Judge Patricia Millet “expressed concern that the administration was in effect requiring power plants to subsidize companies competing with them for electricity demand.” She offered hope to the challengers when she said: “That seems to be quite different from traditional regulation.” Additionally, in his opinion published in the Washington Post, Constitutional law professor Jonathan Adler, stated: “Some of the early reports indicate that several Democratic nominees posed tough questions to the attorney defending the EPA.”

 

Now, the judges will deliberate and discuss. Whatever decision they come to, experts agree that the losing side will appeal and that the case will end up in front of the Supreme Court—most likely in the 2017/2018 session with a decision possible as late as June 2018. There, the ultimate result really rests in the presidential election, as the current SCOTUS make up will be changed with the addition of the ninth Justice, who will be appointed by the November 8 winner—and that Justice will reflect the new president’s ideology.

 

Hillary Clinton has promised to continue Obama’s climate change policies while Donald Trump has announced he’ll rescind the CPP and cancel the Paris Climate Agreement.

 

The CPP is about more than the higher electricity costs and decreased grid reliability, which results from heavy reliance on wind and solar energy as CPP requires, and, as the South Australian experiment proves, doesn’t work. It has far-reaching impacts. WSJ states: “Even a partial rebuke of the Clean Power Plan could make it impossible for the U.S. to hit the goals Mr. Obama pledged in the Paris climate deal.” With Obama’s climate legacy at stake, the international community is paying close attention.

 

And Americans should be. Our energy stability hangs in the balance.

 

 

 

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc., and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

 

 

Hillary’s Unhealthy Credibility

Posted by Chuck Ring with permission

Right Hooks

Hillary’s Unhealthy Credibility

Thomas Gallatin · Sep. 13, 2016
Print Email Bigger Smaller

As we reported Sunday, Hillary Clinton was filmed collapsing after leaving early from that morning’s 9/11 memorial tribute. The initial explanation released by her campaign was that she had become overheated. Hours later, the narrative changed as Hillary emerged from her daughter’s apartment waving and declaring that she felt great. It was then revealed that Clinton had been diagnosed with pneumonia by her doctor on Friday, two days prior to her collapse.

Before this latest episode, questions about the status of Hillary’s health had been met by her campaign with accusations of unsubstantiated “conspiracy” theories or with dismissive references to minor dehydration issues. Bill Clinton unhelpfully suggested such dehydration happened “frequently — not frequently, rarely but on more than one occasion.” In any case, what has become increasingly evident is that Clinton, similar to her responses to questions regarding her private email scandal and her involvement in Benghazi, opts for obfuscation rather than transparency every time.

Donald Trump declared that he will release his medical records and that Hillary should follow suit. But yesterday, when Hillary was questioned by CNN’s Anderson Cooper as to why she had not revealed her pneumonia diagnosis sooner, her response was once again to deflect. She said, “Well, I just didn’t think it was going to be that big a deal.” All her explanation has done is fuel speculations that she is hiding some other more significant health issue. Hillary’s instinct to cover up rather than be open and honest effectively turned a minor news incident into a major campaign problem. As Charles Krauthammer noted, “[T]his is another case of the cover-up being worse than the crime.” And her handling of this latest issue only serves as further evidence that her credibility is what’s truly unhealthy.

 “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )”

Clinton the “Congenital Liar”

Posted by Chuck Ring,  September 8th, 2016

Alexander’s Column

Clinton the “Congenital Liar”

In her Benghazi cover-up testimony, Hillary Clinton declared, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” It makes the difference between serving time in the White House or the Big House.

By Mark Alexander · September 7, 2016   Print

“If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?” —John Adams (1775)

2016-09-07-c17de38f_large.jpg

In 2001, ABC News obtained a recording between Hillary Clinton and a disgruntled former campaign donor, in which she insists she would never use email because of the trail of evidence it creates. “As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I ever want to do email? Can you imagine?”

Well, can you?

Fast forward to this week and take a guess which presidential contender accused the other of hiding critical information, declaring, “I’m going to continue to raise this because I think it is a fundamental issue in this campaign that we’re going to talk about for the next 62 days because […] clearly has something to hide. We don’t know exactly what it is, but we’re getting better guesses about what it probably is.”

Now, you’re probably thinking it was Donald Trump, given Hillary Clinton’s endless lies about concealing incriminating communications while she was secretary of state. Laughably, though, that was actually Clinton accusing Trump of hiding his tax returns.

Without missing a beat, Trump responded, “Let her release her emails and I’ll release my tax returns immediately.”

Clinton’s attempted pivot to class warfare was an effort to divert attention from the Labor Day holiday weekend FBI news dump of investigative notes taken by agents during their Independence Day holiday weekend interview with Clinton.

Despite heavy redaction, the Clinton interview provided a much better understanding of the extent of her corruption and lies. And additional information about her communications released by the State Department bolsters that understanding.

Trying to throw the media off her crooked trail, Clinton answered some handpicked reporters’ questions on her campaign plane Tuesday — the first time she has taken questions in 275 days.

Asked about her criminal handling of classified data, Clinton asserted, “I went into the State Department understanding classification. I had been on the Senate Armed Services Committee four years before I was secretary of state. I take classification seriously.”

Seriously, she said that.

Reporters continued that line of questioning, so in another diversionary attempt, Clinton suggested that Donald Trump is working with Russian hackers to undermine the 2016 election and other American institutions.

“The fact that our intelligence services are now viewing Russian activity as a potential threat against our electoral system, uh, raises further questions about Trump, and, uh, I think those are questions the American people should be asking. … The kinds of behavior that, uh, Russian intelligence has engaged in and that, uh, my opponent has, uh, applauded, he has made it clear that he does not care whether Putin or his intelligence services attack American institutions. … This is like Watergate.”

Seriously, she said that.

Maybe it is time to enact voter ID requirements nationwide…

Again came questions about the FBI report and Clinton, now agitated, responded, “The FBI resolved all of this. The report answered all the questions. The findings included debunking [Trump’s] conspiracy theory. I believe I have created so many jobs in the conspiracy theory machine factory because, honestly, they never quit, they keep coming back. And here’s another one. It’s been debunked.”

Seriously, she said that.

When it became clear that reporters were not taking the bait, Clinton then started another of her chronic coughing bouts and returned to the first class section of her plane.

Since Clinton refused to provide direct answers to questions, at the risk of “Clinton email burnout,” allow me to highlight the most significant facts in the FBI report and other findings released last weekend.

By way of context, recall that Clinton, in her Benghazi cover-up testimony before Congress, declared, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

If by “it” she meant her “web of lies” about leaving Americans to die in an al-Qa’ida attack in order to provide political cover for Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election bid, it makes the difference between serving time in the White House or the Big House. Of course, the Clinton Crime Syndicate is very adept at the art of BIG lies — and “getting away with murder,” in the figurative and perhaps literal sense.

2016-08-10-7859710d_large.jpg

I have written in detail about the motives for her Benghazi cover up. Just weeks after the 9/11 attack in 2012, I personally pleaded with Mitt Romney’s communication director to have him challenge Obama in their final debate about the cover up, writing in a memo to Romney, “You must make the case that the reason Obama is obfuscating the facts on who attacked and killed our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, is to maintain his campaign theme charade that ‘al-Qa’ida is on the run.'”

But to no avail.

Romney, thinking he had the election in the bag, soft-pitched his remarks in the last debate and virtually handed the election to Obama, who then provided Clinton plenty of cover. Cover, that is, until a former federal prosecutor (appointed by Bill Clinton), Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), took on the Clinton case. As chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, he launched an investigation into Clinton’s role in the cover up, and her web of lies began to unravel.

It was clear after the 2015 discovery of Clinton’s illegal “private” email server that she and her handlers were keeping all her communications during her tenure as secretary of state “off the grid” — in order to protect her planned 2016 presidential bid. Once discovered, Team Clinton ordered their lawyers and staff to destroy more than 30,000 “personal emails” before turning the rest over to the State Department for security evaluation.

So what did we learn last weekend?

From the sketchy FBI report, which was the result of a referral from the U.S. intelligence community inspector general, it’s notable that Clinton claimed she “could not recall,” “did not recall,” “did not remember” and “had no recollection” 41 times during the interview.

It’s also apparent that Clinton ordered her emails erased after the first reports became public that she’d been conducting State Department business via an illegal and unsecure email server. “[Redacted] indicated he believed he had an ‘oh s—t’ moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the [Platte River Networks] server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton’s emails.”

Her obfuscating attorneys, Cheryl Mills, David Kendall and Heather Samuelson, claimed they had no knowledge of Clinton’s private email server until after she left the State Department, but Clinton insisted in the FBI interview that it was “common knowledge” and that she “could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.”

When asked what criteria they used to determine which communications they would destroy, Mills, Kendall and Samuelson exercised “assertion of privilege” and declined to give investigators the email addresses and keywords on which they searched.

And is anyone surprised that one of Clinton’s Justice Department interviewers, David H. Laufman, contributed $850 to Obama’s presidential campaigns?

Clinton used at least 13 mobile devices to transmit what we now know were classified messages and pay-to-play communications regarding the Clinton Foundation — often in non-secure areas. “On [redacted] occasions while OCONUS (Outside Continental U.S.), Clinton had direct email contact with an email address for President Barack Obama,” the report reads. “Of the [redacted] emails between Clinton and President Obama, [redacted] were sent and received [redacted].”

Her chief adviser (co-conspirator and cutout), Huma Mahmood Abedin (a Muslim who grew up in Saudi Arabia), recommended the use of off-grid servers and “indicated the whereabouts of Clinton’s devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device.” At one point, her staff used hammers to destroy some of those devices, which explains why the FBI couldn’t recover them for forensic evaluation.

Clinton claimed a laptop and portable drive with a log of all her communications was “lost in the mail,” which seemed only slightly more plausible than “the dog ate it.”

Clinton claimed to have “provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related” (cough, cough).

However, among the 17,488 she thought had been erased but which the FBI managed to recover from Clinton and State Department servers, it is now clear that many of those were “work related,” including at least 30 emails about Benghazi and more about other classified national security matters. (That’s in addition to the 110 classified emails FBI Director James Comey indicated Clinton had sent.)

The FBI also confirmed that there were hacking attempts on Clinton’s servers. To that end, recall that Clinton sent an email to all State Department employees during her tenure, brazenly warning them not use private email accounts because of “information security concerns” — all while she was using private email accounts.

2016-09-07-dc08cce6_large.jpg

Regarding the classification markings on some of the communications, the report noted, “Clinton stated she did not know what the “C” meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.” Clinton said maybe the “C” meant “paragraph C” in sequence, even though there were no paragraphs “A” or “B” preceding it. An agent noted, “Email was marked as classified at the Confidential level by the FBI based on a determination by the Original Classification Authority.”

Clinton claimed she couldn’t remember State Department briefings after sustaining a serious head injury and concussion in 2012. She claimed never having received any instruction on the handling of classified information, although she signed a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement noting, “I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information.”

Perhaps the “C” meant “concussion” or “corrupt” or “contemptible” or just “confusion.” Indeed, Huma Abedin said that Clinton “is often confused.”

Clinton appeared to play implausibly dumb throughout the interview … and it would appear that, although he was inexplicably absent from the actual interview, Director Comey has determined that she is too dumb to prosecute.

Yet to come, however, are dozens of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits already underway, primarily led by the intrepid folks at Judicial Watch, and many more disclosures that await the State Department’s completion of review and redaction of classified information.

Most notably, a federal judge ordered Clinton to answer — finally under oath — 25 questions prepared by Judicial Watch lawyers regarding her corruption. The answers to those questions are due on 29 September, but expect some legal maneuver to delay her responses.

In 1996, the fourth year of Bill Clinton’s first term, esteemed former New York Times’ syndicated columnist William Safire, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, penned a prescient indictment of Hillary Clinton’s “Blizzard of Lies.” Safire wrote, “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady … is a congenital liar. Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”

He concluded, “[Hillary Clinton] is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”

That was 20 years ago. The only thing that’s changed in the last two decades is that Hillary Clinton has become much more proficient at lying.

Do any of her hardcore Socialist Democratic Party constituents care? No. But shedding light on her unmitigated corruption will keep young and moderate voters away from the polls.

Share

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

“The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )”

Marita: It isn’t fracking

Marita tells us there is a whole lot of shakin’ going on, but not from frackin’.

Greetings!

A year-and-a-half ago I was on the Off the Grid program with Jesse Ventura. He asked me about the earthquakes caused by fracking. Ever since then, I’ve kept an eye out for news stories on the topic. Last week, the Wall Street Journal published this one: Earthquake Shakes Cushing Oklahoma. It piqued my interest.

I looked up more on the increasing earthquakes in Oklahoma and was surprised to learn that Oklahoma now has more earthquakes than California. Further research netted me a priceless clip on the topic from Rachel Maddow (be sure to check it out) that gave me the fuel I needed to write this week’s column: Shaking out the lies surrounding earthquakes and hydraulic fracturing (attached and pasted-in-below). Information on last week’s “Great ShakeOut” provided me with a fun opening that also connected the Taylor Swift quote at the closing. For my readers who are in the industry, you’ll find Shaking out the lies surrounding earthquakes and hydraulic fracturing is full of links to important information that will enhance your knowledge. For my general public readers, you’ll learn why the anti-fossil-fuel crowd wants to claim that hydraulic fracturing causes earthquakes—which it doesn’t.

I think I’ve provided a factual and fun piece on a technical topic. I hope you like it!

Please post, pass on, and/or personal enjoy Shaking out the lies surrounding earthquakes and hydraulic fracturing.

Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great, inc.

PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM 87181

505.239.8998

Marita Noon 2015 Turquiose

 

 

Shaking out the lies surrounding earthquakes and hydraulic fracturing

The Great ShakeOut, the annual “PrepareAthon” that advocates earthquake readiness, took place across the globe on October 15, at 10:15 AM—10/15 @10:15. Unless you have a child in a participating school, the “Ready Campaign” may have passed without your awareness. I grew up in Southern California, where earthquakes were so routine, we paid them no mind; we didn’t have earthquake drills.

But that was then. Now, the Great ShakeOut is a global campaign. Now, Oklahoma has more earthquakes than California—and students in Oklahoma participated on 10/15 at 10:15. As if choreographed, Oklahomans had a reminder 4.5 earthquake just days before the drill.

The anti-fossil crowd has declared the cause. Headlines claim: “Confirmed: Oklahoma Earthquakes Caused By Fracking” and “New study links Oklahoma earthquakes to fracking.”

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow gleefully teased the earthquakes in Oklahoma as “the story that might keep you up at night.” On her October 16 show, she stated that Oklahoma’s earthquakes are: “The terrible and unintended consequence of the way we get oil and gas out of the ground. …from fracking operations.” Yet, when her guest, Jeremy Boak, Oklahoma Geological Survey Director, corrected her, “it’s not actually frackwater,” she didn’t change her tune.

Despite the fact that the science doesn’t support the thesis, opponents of oil-and-gas extraction, like Maddow, have long claimed that the process of hydraulic fracturing is the cause of the earthquakes. Earthworks calls them “frackquakes” because the quakes, the organization says, are “fracking triggered earthquakes.”

The anti-crowd doesn’t want to hear otherwise. If you were to fully read the two previously mentioned news reports (linked above) that declare “fracking” as the culprit, you’d see that the actual text, and the study they reference, doesn’t say what the headlines insinuate. The 2014 study they cite, blames the earthquakes “on the injection of wastewater from oil and gas operations”—which as Boak told Maddow is not “actually frackwater.” Even the Washington Post announced: “Fracking is not the cause of quakes. The real problem is wastewater.”

But the ruse goes on. CNN meteorologist Chad Myers announced: “The fracturing fluid seems to be lubricating existing faults that have not moved in recent years. The fracturing process is not creating new faults, but are exposing faults that already exist.”

Earthworks believes that states like Oklahoma are not doing enough to solve the problem. Its website says: “Despite the increasingly apparent threat posed by fracking-related earthquakes, many states are ignoring the issue.”

In fact, many scientific studies have been, and are being, done—as once the cause is determined, a remedy can be found. These studies, as the Washington Post reported, have concluded that “wastewater” is the problem.

If you don’t know what it is or how it is being disposed of, “wastewater” sounds scary. It is often called “toxic”—although it is naturally occurring. This wastewater, according to a study from Stanford researchers, is “brackish water that naturally coexists with oil and gas within the Earth.” As a part of the drilling and extraction process, the “produced water” is extracted from the oil and/or gas and is typically reinjected into deeper disposal wells. In Oklahoma, these wells are in the Arbuckle formation, a 7,000-foot-deep sedimentary formation under Oklahoma.

“Industry has been disposing wastewater into the Arbuckle for 60 years without seismicity,” Kim Hatfield told me. He is the chairman of the Induced Seismicity Working Group—which includes members from a variety of entities including the Oklahoma Geological Survey, Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Oklahoma Department of Energy and Environment, and Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association. Hatfield continued: “So, we know some level of disposal is safe. We need to figure out the exact mechanism by which this wastewater injection is triggering these seismic events and modify our procedures to prevent them.”

Addressing water quality, Hatfield explained that in the area of the seismicity, ten barrels of produced water—which contains five times more salt than ocean water—is generated for each barrel of oil.

The Stanford study, done by Stanford Professor Mark Zoback and doctoral student Rall Walsh, found that “the primary source of the quake-triggering wastewater is not so-called ‘flowback water’ generated after hydraulic fracturing operations.” Zoback, the Benjamin M. Page Professor in the School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences, states: “What we’ve learned in this study is that the fluid injection responsible for most of the recent quakes in Oklahoma is due to production and subsequent injection of massive amounts of wastewater, and is unrelated to hydraulic fracturing”—which is contradictory to the premise on which the study was launched.

Explaining the study, Walsh said: “it began with an examination of microseismicity—intentionally caused small quakes like those resulting from hydraulic fracturing,” which he referred to as their “jumping off point.” When I asked Walsh if he was surprised to find that fracking wasn’t the cause of the earthquakes, he told me: “We were familiar with the few cases where hydraulic fracturing was known, or suspected to be associated with moderate sized earthquakes. In the areas of Oklahoma where the earthquakes first started (just outside of Oklahoma City) we knew that the extraction process was predominantly dewatering, not hydraulic fracturing, which led us to suspect that produced water would be the source of the issue, even before we did the volume calculations to show it.”

Science writer Ker Than reports: “Because the pair were also able to review data about the total amount of wastewater injected at wells, as well as the total amount of hydraulic fracturing happening in each study area, they were able to conclude that the bulk of the injected water was produced water generated using conventional oil extraction techniques, not during hydraulic fracturing.” Additionally, Boak told me: “Less than five percent is actually frackwater.”

“So what?” you might ask. The distinction is important as there is an aggressive effort from the anti-fossil-fuel movement to regulate and restrict—even ban—hydraulic fracturing. The more scare tactics they can use, the more successful their efforts. They are unimpeded by truth. Remember the disproven claims about fracking causing tap water to catch on fire and those about fracking contaminating drinking water?

Now, you can add “Oklahoma earthquakes caused by fracking” to the list of untruths propagated by the anti-fossil-fuel crowd. The true headline should read: “Oklahoma earthquakes not caused by fracking.” But, that conflicts with their goal of ending all fossil-fuel use. More than ninety percent of the new oil-and-gas wells drilled in America use hydraulic fracturing. Therefore, if they can ban fracking, they end America’s new era of energy abundance and the jobs and economic stimulus it provides. Groups like Earthworks seem to hate the modern world.

Here some advice from singer Taylor Swift might be warranted. Instead of “getting down and out about the liars and the dirty, dirty cheats of the world,” after all, she says: “And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate,” her solution is: “I’m just gonna shake, shake, shake. Shake it off.”

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

Why is Congress playing with the American people

Why do we (the collective we) hesitate to condemn Planned Parenthood and their killing and rendering factories.  I can’t fathom the reason and I bet you can’t either.  There should be no doubt as to why Planned Parenthood should not be funded after folks read the following from the The Patriot Post (http://PatriotPost.US).  We should all do what we can to wake Congress from their slumber of irresponsibility.

Spending $500 Million to Deprive Children of Life

By Allyne Caan

2015-10-01-fe8ad699_large.jpg

During the five-plus hours Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards spent before a congressional hearing on Tuesday, her organization had time to kill more than 185 babies.

Unfortunately, while debating whether the abortion mill should continue to receive more than $500 million annually in taxpayer dollars, Republicans, who rightfully called the hearing, asked the wrong question: “Does Planned Parenthood really need federal subsidies?”

Instead, they should have gotten to the crux of the issue: Does the Constitution authorize spending money to deprive children of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

The correct answer is, of course, no.

Were the right question asked — and correctly answered — the hearing could have begun and ended in five minutes. But since Republicans went down the road of financial “need,” let’s take a look at those numbers.

Far from being a health clinic chain desperate for federal dollars, Planned Parenthood is a massive profit machine, grossing nearly $1.3 billion annually and holding $1.4 billion in assets. Richards herself pocketed pay of more than $590,000 in 2013, while more than 40 other Planned Parenthood execs make more than $200,000.

Richards admitted she “can’t think of a specific impact” of losing taxpayer dollars. We can think of 327,000 specific impacts.

(Incidentally, Richards also couldn’t think of any instances in which unborn children survive abortions. It’s amazing the sudden onset of amnesia a congressional hearing can spur.)

But back to funding, Planned Parenthood doesn’t “just get a big check from the federal government,” Richards said. “We, like other Medicaid providers, we are reimbursed directly for services provided.” And pulling federal funding “would deny people on Medicaid the ability to go to a provider of their choice, and many of them do go to Planned Parenthood for a variety of different reasons.”

According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, public expenditures for family planning exceeded $2.3 billion in FY 2010 — and 75% of this went toward Medicaid. It’s all part of the Title X Family Planning Program, enacted in 1970, in accordance with Article Nil, Section Nonexistent of the Constitution. This funding purportedly supports a variety of family planning and preventative health services.

Of course, for Planned Parenthood, this “variety” does not include basic women’s health services like mammograms — no matter how many times its defenders lie about that particular service.

Perhaps this is why Richards herself does not rely on Planned Parenthood for her own health care.

In fact, if Richards is to be believed (cue: sarcasm), just a teeny weeny bit of this “variety” is abortion. According to Richards, Planned Parenthood’s 327,000 annual abortions are just 3% of the health services offered by its clinics.

Hmm, that’s odd. Richards herself has said Planned Parenthood serves 2.7 million women each year. Do the math, and the percentage is closer to 12 million. Not only this, but as Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) noted during the hearing, more than 86% of Planned Parenthood’s non-government revenue in 2013 came from abortions.

Even Common Core math can’t make 86 equal anything close to 3.

Still, Richards attempted to skirt the truth, explaining that some people come to Planned Parenthood “more than once for different services.” And she pulled the famous “federal money does not go for abortions” lie, saying, “So the federal portion that we were discussing is reimbursement for preventative care services.” Perhaps in fantasyland she’s right, but saying taxpayer money doesn’t fund abortions is like saying you can pour a bucket of water in the deep end of a pool and keep it out of the shallow end. The taxpayer dollars doled to Planned Parenthood are entirely fungible — and paying for some services allows the abortion mill to divert other resources to practice its primary and deadly trade.

In truth, Richards and her corporation masked as a non-profit organization are cashing in — at the expense of taxpayers — on the blood and body parts of innocent babies. And how tightly Planned Parenthood is holding onto its rhetoric of lies shows just how much their factories of death stand to lose.

2015-10-01-018f999a_large.jpg

Is it a controversy about fact or just the plain truth

 

In a recent Republican party debate for a spot on the next Republican presidential ticket, Carly Fiorina came out with serious accusations about Planned Parenthood, abortion and the harvesting of brain tissue from a still living fetus.  The main-scream media jumped on her statements and sought to disprove them.  But, video was discovered which shows something very close to what Ms. Fiorina discussed during the debate.  While the jury may be out on all of her allegations, there remains enough evidence of horrific attitudes and actions to the extent that every one who purports to respect and glorify life should be deeply concerned.

The following is a link to a Breitbart News article:

Was Carly Fiorina right?  Please know that the videos accompanying the narrative portion of the report are very graphic.

Marita: Writes about the Pope

Greetins!

 

Even though I don’t like to write on the same topics other pundits are addressing, I assumed, that for this week, I’d write on the Pope. Some topics are just too big to ignore.

 

In this week’s column: The Pope, climate change and VW (attached and pasted-in-below), I, both, wrote on something most others aren’t and included the Pope’s visit.

 

I conducted an unofficial poll on my Facebook page in which I asked if people were following the VW scandal. Some were. Many were not. A few knew about it, but weren’t following it. Several indicated that they had no idea what I was talking about. The responses validated my premise: with all of the news coverage on the Pope’s visit, the VW scandal was under the radar for most—but, as I demonstrate in The Pope, climate change and VW, they are connected. Pope Francis is pushing for policies that promote emission reductions based on the belief that CO2 emissions are driving climate change and Volkswagen, I believe, engaged in the approach they did because of the impossible requirements to cut emissions.

 

In The Pope, climate change and VW I offer a quick overview of the VW story for those who haven’t followed it and then make the connection to the unattainable regulations and the carbon reduction policies driving them. Those who reviewed it prior to publication were very positive about the approach. One said: “Great article and exactly on point.”

 

Please post, pass on and/or personally enjoy The Pope, climate change and VW.

 

Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great, inc.

PO Box 52103, Albuquerque, NM 87181

505.239.8998

 

 

For immediate release: September 28, 2015

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Marita Noon 2015 Turquiose

 

 

The Pope, climate change and VW

While Pope Francis was shuttled around during his historic visit to the U.S. in a Fiat, he shared the news cycle with Volkswagen.

 

The pope made headlines with his calls for action on climate change. USA Today touted: “Obama, Pope Francis praise each other on climate change.” In his September 23 speech from the White House lawn, the Pope addressed President Obama saying: “I find it encouraging that you are introducing an initiative for reducing air pollution.” Addressing that comment, Business Insider added: “He praised President Barack Obama for his proposals, which aim for the US to cut emissions by up to 28% over the next decade.”

 

The core of the entire climate change agenda is the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions which proponents like to call “air pollution.” It comes from sources we can’t control: volcanoes; sources we can kind-of control: forest fires (better forest management would result in fewer fires) and human beings exhaling (reduce the population, reduce CO2 emissions); and sources we can control: the use of fossil fuels (we can virtually outlaw them as several countries, including the U.S., are trying to do).

 

The drive to cut CO2 emissions is at the root of Volkswagen’s unprecedented scandal that broke last week, resulting in the CEO’s abrupt ouster on September 23—the day that Pope Francis’ U.S. visit went into full swing.

 

With nonstop coverage of the papal activities—including his Fiat Popemobile—the Volkswagen story was likely lost on most Americans. But it is not going away.

 

On September 18, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disclosed the scandal: Europe’s biggest auto maker, with 600,000 employees world-wide and 300,000 in Germany, utilized software on some VW and Audi diesel-powered cars to manipulate the results of routine emissions tests—allowing them pass strict emissions standards in Europe and the U.S. The “defeat devices” have reportedly been fitted to more than 11 million vehicles since 2008 and may cost Volkswagen up to $18 billion in fines in the U.S. alone. Owners of the impacted vehicles will need to have a heretofore unavailable “fix” installed and may have to provide a “proof of correction certificate” in order to renew their registration and will suffer “loss due to the diminished value of the cars.” As a result of the scandal, Volkswagen’s stock price and reputation have both fallen precipitously, and class-action lawsuits are already taking shape. Fund managers have been banned from buying VW’s stocks and bonds. Tens of thousands of new cars may remain unsold. USNews stated: “Whoever is responsible could face criminal charges in Germany.”

 

The question no one seems to be asking is: what would drive Europe’s biggest auto maker to make such a costly decision, to take a risk, from which it may be impossible to recover, and tarnish the “made-in-Germany brand”?

 

While the question isn’t asked, Reuters coverage of the story offers the answer: “Diesel engines use less fuel and emit less carbon—blamed for global warming—than standard gasoline engines. But they emit higher levels of toxic gases known as nitrogen oxides.”

 

In short, the answer is the drive to lower CO2 emissions and the policies that encourage reduction.

 

In BloombergView, Clive Crook offers this excellent explanation:

Beginning in the mid-1990s, mindful of their commitments to cut carbon emissions, Europe’s governments embarked on a prolonged drive to convert their car fleets from gasoline to diesel. With generous use of tax preferences, they succeeded. In the European Union as a whole, diesel vehicles now account for more than half of the market. In France, the first country to cross that threshold, diesel now accounts for roughly 80 percent of motor-fuel consumption.

 

What was the reasoning? Diesel contains more carbon than gasoline, but diesel engines burn less fuel: Net, switching to diesel ought to give you lower emissions of greenhouse gases. However, there’s a penalty in higher emissions of other pollutants, including particulates and nitrogen oxides, or NOx. Curbing those emissions requires expensive modifications to cars’ exhaust systems. To facilitate the switch, Europe made its emission standards for these other pollutants less stringent for diesel engines than for gasoline engines. The priority, after all, was to cut greenhouse gases.

 

If anyone could solve the dilemma, one would expect it to be the Germans, who excel in engineering feats. It is Germany that is touted as the world leader in all things green. The reality of achieving the goals, however, is far more difficult than passing the legislation calling for the energy transformation.

 

Addressing German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s push for de-carbonization, BloombergBusiness Points out: “Merkel has built a reputation as a climate crusader during a decade as Chancellor.” She “has straddled between pushing to reduce global warming while protecting her country’s auto industry.”

 

Merkel is, apparently, bumping up against reality. After shutting down its nuclear power plants, Germany has had to rely more on coal. BloombergBusiness continues: “She successfully helped block tighter EU carbon emissions standards two years ago.” Those tighter emissions standards would have hurt Germany’s auto industry, which accounts for 1 in 7 jobs in the country and 20 percent of its exports. At last week’s Frankfurt Auto Show Merkel said: “We have to ensure politically that what’s doable can indeed be translated into law, but what’s not doable mustn’t become European law.”

 

Evidence suggests the issue “could be industry-wide.” CNBC reports: “several major companies having exposure to the same diesel technology.” BMW’s stock price plunged, according to BloombergBusiness: “after a report that a diesel version of the X3 sport utility vehicle emitted more than 11 times the European limit for air pollution in a road test.” The Financial Times quotes Stuart Pearson, an analyst at Exane BNP Paribas, as saying: VW was “unlikely to have been the only company to game the system globally.” And an October 2014 study, cited in BloombergBusiness, claims that “road tests of 15 new diesel cars were an average of seven times higher than European limits.”

 

The VW emissions scandal is more than just a “‘bad episode’ for the car industry,” as Germany’s vice-chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, called it. It provides a lesson in the collision of economic and environmental policies that strive to reach goals, which are presently technologically unachievable—a lesson that regulators and policy makers have yet to learn.

 

The Los Angeles Times (LAT) reports: “Regulators have ordered Volkswagen to come up with a fix that allows vehicles to meet environmental regulations.” If it were that easy, even economically possible, the much-vaunted German engineering could have solved the problem instead of developing technology that found a way around the rules. LAT concludes: “automotive experts believe any repair will diminish the driving dynamics of the vehicles and slash fuel economy—the two major characteristics that attracted buyers.”

 

The fact that, while waving the flag of environmental virtue advocated by Pope Francis, those, with the world’s best engineering at their fingertips, had to use the expertise to develop a work-around should serve as a lesson to policymakers who pass legislation and regulation on ideology rather than reality.

 

 

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.