The New York Analysis of Policy and Government begins a two-part review of how environmental debates will change in the Trump era.
Environmental discussions within Washington may become more science-based as the political influence of the Obama White House and the Democrat left vanishes. For the past eight years, federal agencies were directed by the White House to provide data influenced more by ideology than science. Funding within those agencies, NASA and the EPA in particular, was a lever used to ensure that research assets were geared towards producing pre-ordained results. In some cases, external political organizations with no official status were given undue influence over agency agendas.
For over eight years, an interconnected group of those who have profited from environmental extremism and those politicians who have profited from their support have exerted political pressure over federal agencies, and the politicians who provide their funding An E&E news report notes that, according to Tom Pyle of the American Energy Alliance, “…the Democratic Party and the Democratic establishment has a very, very cozy and comfortable relationship with the more strident in the environmental community and that the Democrats are funded heavily by folks who are involved in that group. They have an unusual, I would argue, level of access to folks in power.”
Prominent Democrats, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have made significant fortunes from their efforts. The British newspaper Telegraph notes that “Since he quit mainstream politics, Mr Gore’s personal fortune has risen from £1.2 million to an estimated £60 million. He has made significant investments in environmentally friendly projects like carbon trading markets, solar power, biofuels, electric vehicles, sustainable fish farming and waterless lavatories. He has also invested in non-climate change related investments, including putting money into Google and Apple.”
The political impact of groups advocating more environmental activism is significant, due to their financial muscle. Climate Change Dispatch notes that Counting only private money, environmental groups massively outspend their opponents. Opposition to global warming activism only raises $46 million annually across 91 conservative think tanks, according to analysis by Forbes. That’s almost six times less than Greenpeace’s 2011 budget of $260 million, and Greenpeace is only one of many environmental groups. The undeniable truth is that global warming activists raise and spend far more money than their opponents.
It does not have any relation with the realism.Well, it is all because of rapidly changing cialis 20mg no prescription amerikabulteni.com life. Communicate with Each Other The cialis women most important thing for maintaining positive sex life positive is communication. It has been invented in the year of 2003 and from then this has created revolution all over the world in getting succeeded to sweep away all the myths existed in human mind regarding impotency. pill sildenafil Ed tadalafil 10mg Vere performed at the EU children’s festival ‘Sanskriti’ on 15 November.
The influence of leading environmental extremists has caused questions to be raised about their role within federal agencies. The Washington Free Beacon reported in 2016 that “The business arm of billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer’s political advocacy network worked behind the scenes with senior administration officials to undermine a study by a federally commissioned group that criticized environmental regulations, internal emails show. Advanced Energy Economy (AEE), a Steyer-funded trade association, briefed senior administration officials on ways to preemptively debunk an anticipated study questioning EPA regulations’ impacts on the U.S. power grid.”
In 2015, National Review’s John Fund noted: “Far from being embarrassed by the green-energy scandals that piled up during its first term, the Obama administration is doubling down on its green agenda. It has dismissed Solyndra, the politically connected solar-panel maker that wasted $535 million of taxpayer money and got President Obama to promote its wares, as an aberration. But the Washington Post reported in 2012 that Solyndra was hardly an anomaly, given that under Obama “$3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama-administration staffers and advisers.”
President Obama frequently insisted that the man-made climate change debate was over, and that the scientific community was united in its beliefs. He intentionally ignored the vast extent of contrary viewpoints. The significance of that disagreement by numerous scientists is represented by the fact that 31,072 American scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, signed a petition opposing the views of those who claim human factors have altered the climate.
The Report concludes tomorrow.