DV Journal

Who decides what you hear about climate change? The United Nations wants to be the arbiter of what you are told is “true” on this crucial issue. The more that we examine this proposition, the scarier the concept gets.

The UN has launched a global initiative called the “Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change” designed to promote the publication of “verified” climate change information by media outlets and on social media. This move comes just when social media companies like Meta are reversing their years-long policy of “fact-checking” climate change policy debate—which Meta admits resulted in censorship.

But it gets worse. The UN’s goal is not to highlight basic things like the broad scientific consensus that climate change is real. No, its intention is to “boost support for urgent climate action.” What this translates to is the UN using its global might to push for policies like sweeping new climate taxes, along with a race to net-zero, extremist, economy-punishing policies, wealthy countries paying poor countries huge sums for climate reparations, and ending fossil fuels entirely within 25 years.

Already, the UN has started setting out its supposed “facts on climate”—and these show even more reason for concern. One such “fact” is the contention that climate change is a major threat to human health because fossil fuel-caused air pollution causes some 8.7 million deaths a year. Bizarrely, this figure is more than twice what the UN’s own World Health Organization estimates. In misstating the threat to life, the UN ignores the fact that deaths from climate-related catastrophes have declined 97.5% over the past century—and that far more people die from cold than heat. And in focusing on air pollution, the UN deliberately confuses climate policy which cuts CO₂ with the real solution, which is using scrubbers on smokestacks and catalytic converters on cars to cut air pollution.

Another “fact” the UN is promoting: the idea that sea level rise could submerge small islands like Kiribati. This claim is often repeated by activists, but that doesn’t make it true: even the New York Times acknowledges the vast scientific literature showing Kiribati and almost every atoll is stable or increasing in size.

The UN also claims, wrongly, that “solar panels and wind turbines make good use of land” (in reality, solar and wind are some of the most land-intensive energy forms) and that the transition to clean energy will create millions of jobs. The latter is an economically illiterate mistruth: in the US, solar employs 35 workers to produce the same amount of energy that one natural gas worker can produce, meaning natural gas is much more efficient because 34 workers can be freed to do other important work, increasing social welfare.

And the UN repeats the oft-told lie that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels. They gloss over this mistruth by measuring the cost only when the sun is shining or the wind blowing, ignoring the costs of intermittency and unreliability. The fact is, no country with significant solar and wind has low electricity costs — indeed, on average, electricity costs are two or three times higher than for countries with little solar and wind.

All this can only be described as propaganda. The fact is that there are complex, important, and ongoing debates taking place among climate scientists and economists. The UN would pretend no such uncertainty exists on issues like how much the world would warm from a doubling of CO₂. And it would entirely ignore the contributions from climate economists that show that most of the “urgent climate action” policies do little for the climate at great cost.

An example of what it would likely call “disinformation”: the most recent research on the costs and benefits of net-zero climate policies that shows average annual benefits of $4.5 trillion over the 21st century and much larger costs of $27 trillion per year.

What this means is that the UN is actively trying to shut down debate and promote just one policy approach. Consider if it did the same thing on the migration debate, picking one extreme policy position of completely open (or closed) borders everywhere, and declared that anything not aligned with this policy was wrong.

 The notion that US taxpayers should spend hundreds of trillions of dollars on poor climate policies is surely worth discussion and debate.

Especially as it comes under a microscope from the Trump Administration, the UN should think twice about trying to suppress discussion. The UN and other multilateral organizations need to return to their roots of helping humanity to navigate the world for peace and prosperity. Now is the time to sharpen the focus on peace and prosperity through sound, data-based advice.

Did Bucks County Democrats try to sneak their nuisance lawsuit targeting major oil companies past county voters?

That’s the allegation made, not by the lawyers, but by Bucks County Judge Stephen A. Corr during a hearing on the case Monday.

Across the country, Democrat-run states and cities have been filing complaints in local courts targeting global energy companies, claiming they violating local ordinances when selling gasoline or marketing their products. The Bucks County lawsuit was filed with great fanfare in March 2024. Commissioners Diane Ellis-Marseglia and Bob Harvie, who make up the Democrat majority, held a press conference, along with Republican Gene DiGirolamo, touting their legal action.

The lawsuit accuses major oil companies like BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil, Shell — along with the American Petroleum Institute — of violating the county’s nuisance laws, as well as failing to warn Bucks County consumers of the dangers of climate change. The county is pursuing a massive payout,

“This suit is our tool to recoup costs and fund public works projects like bolstering or replacing bridges, retrofitting county-owned buildings and commencing stormwater management projects, all of which will put us in the best possible position to weather what is certain to come,” Ellis-Marseglia said.

Frederick P. Santarelli, a lawyer for Chevron, asked Corr to dismiss the suit, saying the Bucks County commissioners had violated the state Sunshine Act by the method they used to approve their decision to file it. He said that instead of letting the public know their intentions to file a lawsuit against big oil companies, they buried an item authorizing unspecified “environmental litigation” in a consent agenda in January 2024, hiding it from voters.

That sleight-of-hand was “undemocratic,” Santarelli said.

Corr asked Santarelli about the 30-day rule to file a lawsuit under the Sunshine Act. Santarelli said since the case was not filed until March, they had no notice within 30 days that they were defendants.

“It’s absolutely absurd,” he said. He noted that Harvie had exchanged emails with the Center for Climate Integrity, a nonprofit promoting the national litigation effort, before the suit was filed.

Corr also noted DiGirolamo withdrew his support for the lawsuit soon after it was filed.

Bucks Deputy Solicitor Jaclyn Grieser argued the county had followed the Sunshine Act requirements.

“You’ve got to be kidding me,” Corr responded. “Why don’t you want the public to see what you’re doing?”

Corr said he used to be on a school board and knows how the Sunshine Act should be employed. With the county commissioners approving the lawsuit by an obscure item in a consent agenda, “How can the public ask an intelligent question? You go out there and tout transparency…Why are you hiding this?”

“It’s a sneaky way of doing it,” Corr said, asking Grieser if there was any way a member of the public could have known in January what the commissioners were doing without filing a right-to-know request.

Rather than deny the allegation, Grieser attempted to argue that the commissioners did nothing wrong.

“It’s not required by law,” he said.

In rebuttal, Santarelli said county officials were doing “mental gymnastics” and “catch me if you can.”

Ted Boutrous, of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, counsel for Chevron Corporation, told DVJournal after the hearing that the lawsuit should never have been filed.

“Virtually identical lawsuits have been dismissed by multiple federal and state courts across the country, including in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and California. The claims are based on interstate and international emissions and, therefore, are precluded and preempted by federal law under clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

“As the New Jersey Superior Court held in dismissing New Jersey’s similar lawsuit, ‘the leading and most persuasive case supporting dismissal is the Second Circuit decision in City of New York. There, the federal appeals court rejected the availability of state tort law in the climate change context.’”

In court, Boutrous pointed out that while the lawsuit is allegedly about product liability, the county itself knowingly uses the products — namely oil and gas. And, he added, if the climate change issue was well-known by 2019, why did county officials wait until 2024 to bring suit?

Boutrous also argued Common Pleas Court is the wrong venue since air and water are issues governed by federal courts.

“It’s bigger than this little old judge in Bucks County?” Corr joked.

Boutrous responded, “It’s not that.”

“It’s a jurisdictional issue,” Corr replied.

Boutrous said there are “a number of jurisdictional issues here. It doesn’t hang together, and courts have rejected it for that reason.”

Dan Flynn, a lawyer for the county, said the defendants misconstrued the county’s “straightforward” case.

Flynn said the oil companies knew for years that their product was harming the climate. Instead of letting people know so they could come up with alternatives, they engaged in a “disinformation campaign” and “totally manipulated the market.”

“The defendants knew they were losing the battle,” said Flynn. “Then they made it seem like they were part of the solution.”

He said Bucks County is not suing to stop climate change but for the funds needed to deal with increased floods and other adverse weather events it causes. “If you decide for the defendants, Bucks County is left footing the bill.”

Corr said there are 1,700 oil and gas companies and asked why they are the defendants. Flynn responded, “Because they knew.”

“In the 1980s, fossil fuel knew there was a fork in the road.  We could have done something about it. It was the defendants that steered the market (with advertising),” he said.

“What about me?” asked Corr. “I drive a car that burns gas.”

“The court was not telling everybody to go burn gas,” said Flynn. “The defendants were.”

Corr said, “We’re talking about emissions from all over the world.”

And while many courts dismissed similar cases, Flynn said those in Honolulu, Boulder, Colo. and Minnesota have allowed cases against the oil companies to proceed.

Corr took the matter under advisement and will issue a written ruling.

Climate finance is big business, padding the pockets of big banks and trapping developing countries in debt that locks them out of global markets. The least developed countries spend twice as much servicing debt as they receive in climate finance — which amounted to just 3 percent of the total pot. Development banks and global climate funds are supposed to provide lifelines, but they often tie up funds in red tape. Credit ratings dissuade the former from lending to high-risk countries, and the latter are notorious for lengthy lending processes, taking years. But the problem isn’t nefarious lenders or opportunist billionaires; the problem is a broken system — a money-go-round that profits the rich and plunges the poor further into crises.

The failures of climate finance play out again and again, having far-reaching implications, from avoidable climate crises to mass migrations and hasty land grabs. Last year when Nigeria’s Alau Dam broke, nearly half a million people were displaced, and damage was in the hundreds of millions. The dam broke just weeks before the World Bank was expected to approve a $500 million loan to improve dam safety across the country. Residents of Antiqua and Barbuda have been engaged in a bitter battle over land rights since Hurricane Irma ravaged the islands in 2017, increasing debts that made the country vulnerable to land grabs like the contested Barbuda Ocean Club. With the United States pulling out of the Paris Agreement, climate finance faces greater uncertainty. The system is on the verge of transformational shift — led by agile actors and defined by savvy investors.

Enter the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), a lesser-known UN agency changing the game — swapping debt traps for market opportunities; fast-tracking funds to the most vulnerable; and working directly with local communities to create bridges with private investors.

“A big problem with development finance, including climate finance, is that private capital doesn’t go into risky markets. UNCDF was created to absorb that risk and clear a path for the flow of private capital. We make it safer for banks to lend money, companies to set up shop, and for investors to turn a profit. We work with countries to create sustainable marketplaces, and more markets benefit everyone,” said Pradeep Kurukulasuriya, who took the helm of UNCDF as Executive Secretary earlier this year.

Where that finance flows, opportunities replace crises. In Tanzania, the agricultural region of Tanga spent a decade trying to access climate funds. The project was awarded money for design but not implementation — time and money wasted.

That’s when Tanga UWSA began working with UNCDF to launch East Africa’s first green bond. “The bond let us do something big that we couldn’t have done with commercial loans that depend on our financial status,” said Geofrey Hilly, Managing Director of Tanga Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Authority (UWSA).

“It was a wakeup call for the government; we’ve pioneered the use of these bonds, and the country is learning for to fix their financial structure,” said Hilly.

Meanwhile, in Zimbabwe, half the population is without energy. According to Davies Musoso, Head of Alternative Investments at Old Mutual Investment Group Zimbabwe, that gap is an opportunity. Last year, with help from UNCDF, Old Mutual launched a $100 million private equity fund focused on renewables. Since September, they’ve raised over $20 million locally. Now, they’re courting international investors.

“Support from UNCDF was important,” said Davies. “They helped open doors … meetings with the World Bank, the U.S. Embassy … This attracted government funding, interest from the development finance institutions, and the private sector. They lowered the investment risk profile.”

“You need success stories to attract more investors,” said Nitin Garg, co-founder of FLOW, an African Fintech company expected to triple in value this year. UNCDF was their first investor. The loan was only $20,000, but it gave FLOW the proof of credit they needed to attract international impact investors.

Fixing climate finance doesn’t just deliver clean water and energy; it opens markets to investors who are increasingly deterred by new and volatile U.S. policies, which are hostile toward renewables — one of the fastest growing global markets.

Risk will always be a defining factor, and this is where UNCDF shines.  “Someone needs to be first in and change the risk profile in these countries, and that’s what we’re uniquely designed to do. “We’re creating opportunities,” says Kurukulasuriya. “We need to focus on those least developed and fragile countries. A more prosperous world benefits everyone.”

New York just passed a law to “fine” oil and gas companies $75 billion over the next 25 years for the damages caused by climate change. New York is joining two dozen cities and states in suing, claiming the oil and gas companies knew that climate change was occurring in the 1970s and did nothing about it.

There are several reasons New York’s law and these lawsuits have no basis and should be immediately thrown out.

First, how do you determine how much those cities and states are being damaged?  Because every storm, flood, fire or drought is blamed on climate change.

Obviously, that is false; such events have occurred since the beginning of time. Further, none of the plaintiffs acknowledge the benefits of fossil fuels — the underappreciated workhorse that brought us out of the dark ages. The fires in Los Angeles are a catastrophe, with billions in homes and infrastructure being destroyed. To the extent that carbon energy is to blame for the fires, you must acknowledge that the infrastructure would not have been there without carbon energy.  Further, carbon energy, which underpins our life as we know it, has not ruined the environment but has helped preserve it. The nastiest living conditions with the lowest life expectancy on the planet are where people have little, if any, access to energy.   

Second, since New York and most other plaintiffs produce virtually no oil or gas, which companies are responsible for their emissions?  New York’s emissions did not occur because Exxon produces oil and gas in Texas or elsewhere; those emissions came because their citizens continue consuming the fuels crucial to running their lives.  

To illustrate, New York banned fracking in 2015, even though it sits over the prolific gas reserves of the Marcellus Shale. It continues to consume 1.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas annually, the same as before the ban. Instead of producing its gas, New York imports the fuel from neighboring Pennsylvania, to whom it has exported the economic benefit of the capital, royalty and taxes. What it did not export was the emissions associated with consumption, which will not go away until there is a viable alternative.

This brings us to the most crucial point — there is not yet a viable alternative.

Had Exxon acknowledged in the 1970s that carbon-dioxide emissions were an issue, what was Exxon and the rest of the world supposed to do about it? Vice President Al Gore raised the alarm in 1993, and soon thereafter the world went into a panic to “transition” from fossil fuels. For the last 30 years, the United States has spent billions, and the world has spent trillions on the energy transition, yet in 2023, 82.5 percent of U.S. energy and 84 percent of the world’s energy still came from fossil fuels. 

New York is a perfect example.  In 2007, 69.6 percent of its energy came from oil and natural gas.  However, because of reductions in coal and nuclear energy production, in 2021, 72.5 percent of its energy came from oil and natural gas. 

How is the oil and gas industry responsible for its emissions? It is clear that had the supposed “energy transition” started in the 1970s vs. the 1990s, it would have made no difference. No matter how much money you pour into them, wind, solar and batteries do not replicate the convenient, abundant, affordable, and reliable energy from oil and natural gas.

New York’s law and these lawsuits are disingenuous efforts to place blame on energy producers versus energy consumers for the effects of fossil fuels.  Ironically, none of those cities or states are clamoring for more nuclear energy, which is the only honest answer to a carbon-free future.  

If New York believes it is being irreparably damaged by oil and natural gas, the state is welcome to quit using them whenever it wishes.   

Environmental progressives encountered a Pennsylvania-sized setback this week after the Democrat candidate for attorney general said he wouldn’t support unilateral legal action against oil and gas companies.

“That is not a direction I am looking to go,” said Eugene DePasquale during a PA Chamber of Business and Industry candidate forum.

Anti-fossil-fuel activists have been filing lawsuits in state and local governments hoping to use nuisance ordinances and other local laws to punish global energy companies over global warming. The argument is that selling oil or natural gas in Belgium, Bangledesh or Belize results in damage in Bucks County, Pa.

And indeed, eight months ago, Bucks County commissioners authorized a lawsuit against the world’s largest oil producers over climate change.

“We’re already seeing the human and financial tolls of climate change beginning to mount, and if the oil companies’ own data is to be believed, the trend will continue,” Democrat Commission Chair Diane Ellis-Marseglia said at the time.

She portrayed the suit as a way to fund public works projects like retrofitting county-owned buildings to withstand powerful storms. “All of which will put us in the best possible position to weather what is certain to come,” asserted Ellis-Marseglia.

The lawsuit encountered issues almost immediately.

Barely a week after Bucks County announced the plan, Republican Commissioner Gene DiGirolamo said he was backing out. DiGirolamo gave no reason for the change of heart.

Oil companies fought back.

Court documents filed over the summer accused Bucks County commissioners of failing to advertise and vote at a public meeting on the suit. The county was also accused of attempting an end-around previous federal court rulings by filing suit in Pennsylvania court.

“[Bucks County] seeks to impose liability based on the theory that [oil companies] caused – through alleged deception and failure to warn consumers – emissions to enter the worldwide atmosphere at a level that [commissioners believe] to be injurious,” wrote Frederick Santarelli, the attorney for Chevron Corporation.

He added federal and state courts have said “state law cannot be used to obtain relief” for climate change. That included Delaware and Maryland courts that dismissed suits because they went beyond state law.

Chevron and other energy corporations have said the suits aren’t legal because they seek to redress grievances made by interstate and worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. They argue Bucks County wants to use Pennsylvania law against alleged violations in China and Africa – locations that are hundreds of thousands of miles away from the Keystone State. That can’t happen because federal jurisdiction trumps the states, specifically the Clean Air Act.

“[Bucks County wants the court] to impose liability and damages on a selected group of energy companies under Pennsylvania law because of their – and many others’ – global production, promotion, and distribution of those lawful products,” wrote Santarelli.

At the same time, Santarelli suggested the Bucks County government ignored the benefits of oil and gas. He pointed to the use of oil and gas in not only powering homes, but also vehicles so people can go to and from work. That’s not allowed by Pennsylvania or federal law.

Pennsylvania law may not allow so-called nuisance suits, where companies are targeted for the actions of third parties. The Commonwealth Court ruled in 2007 that the ‘nuisance’ term covers “the unreasonable use by one person” of personal or real property. Santarelli argued there’s a clear boundary between nuisance and product liability that “must be respected” to avoid a flood of liability suits.

Energy advocates argue Bucks County’s suit ignored the fact American carbon emissions have plummeted since 2005 largely due to the pivot to natural gas to fuel power plants. Carbon emissions are down 15 percent, according to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.

Kurt Knaus with the Pennsylvania Alliance for Energy told DVJournal there’s no evidence the lawsuits will do anything but line the pockets of out-of-state attorneys.

“Pennsylvanians want energy development that is safe and responsible, while preserving jobs and keeping prices affordable. The more our leaders embrace these facts and smart policy, the better off Pennsylvania residents and businesses will be,” he said.

Now, Democratic attorney general candidate DePasquale describes these anti-fossil-fuel efforts as a policy initiative, indicating it should be left to the Governor’s Office, the General Assembly, or Congress to decide.

More significantly, DePasquale endorsed an all-of-the-above strategy combining renewable and traditional energy sources to power the grid and fight climate change. “Simply punishing companies [for oil and gas] isn’t going to get us there,” he said.

(For an alternate viewpoint see:  “Counterpoint: The Economy, Threats to Democracy Are Top Issues”)

As the 2024 presidential election approaches, a critical issue remains largely unaddressed: the alarming deficiencies in the U.S. military.

Political debates about the extent of our engagement in foreign conflicts — whether in support of Ukraine, Israel or the defense of Taiwan — assume that the United States has the necessary hard power. This hard power comprises manpower and equipment — two areas where the U.S. military is falling short.

The manpower shortage is stark. Over the past three years, the U.S. military has consistently faced recruitment shortfalls across several branches. In 2022, the Army fell short of its recruiting goal by 15,000 active-duty soldiers, 25 percent below its target. This deficit compelled the Army to reduce its planned active-duty end strength by 10,000. In 2023, the Army recruited 54,000 soldiers, falling short of its target of 65,000. This year, the recruitment goal has been adjusted to 55,000, a significant reduction from last year’s target.

The Army is on its way to meeting its abbreviated goals, with much credit given to the new recruitment campaign, which shifted away from the cartoonish efforts in 2022 and 2023. Making what was old new again, the Army returned to the “Be All You Can Be” slogan and stylized ads that debuted to great success in the 1980s.

While the Army has touted its “downsize” as predominantly a reflection of necessary changes in force structure and a shift toward air defense capabilities, it feels more like an exercise in expectation management. At a time of perilous global insecurity and increased operational rotations in Europe and the Pacific, the harsh reality is the primary U.S. land force is experiencing a nearly 7 percent reduction when it really can’t afford it.

The Army is not alone in its struggles. Although other services met their recruiting goals in 2022, this was mainly due to the acceleration of their delayed-entry applicants This success was not repeated in 2023. In 2023, the military collectively missed recruiting goals by 41,000 recruits.

These trends reflect broader issues, with the number of young Americans eligible to serve at a catastrophic low of 23 percent. Factors contributing to this crisis include a decline in the desire to serve, exacerbated by negative perceptions of military life and service. Only 9 percent of American youth desire to join the military. This devastatingly low number undermines the sustainability of the all-volunteer force.

This decline is compounded by increasing physical and mental health issues among potential recruits, including rising obesity rates and psychological distress. Worse, declining patriotism and confidence in the military have contributed to the recruitment crisis, necessitating efforts to rebuild trust and inspire future generations to serve.

Concurrently, the U.S. military industrial base is facing severe challenges. The military industrial base comprises government-owned and private factories, shipyards and ammunition plants that produce military equipment. It includes businesses and institutions of all sizes, from large prime contractors to small component manufacturers and tech innovators, supported by a skilled workforce.

Historically, U.S. industrial might ensured military strength, with manufacturing underpinning the economy. During crises like World War II, industry met demand with extraordinary output by establishing the War Production Board and rapidly converting manufacturing plants to military production.

Today, this would be nearly impossible. The U.S. economy has shifted to a more services-based economy, with a decades-long decline in manufacturing leading to poor supply chain resilience. This shift means that the military cannot rely on industrial capacity. Despite recognizing the deficiencies, Congress and the executive branch have not significantly increased military funding or reallocated spending to bolster this capability. As a result, there are significant gaps in the production of critical munitions and weapon systems and shipbuilding.

Moreover, the Biden administration has prioritized climate change as a primary national security threat, which appears disconnected from the immediate and tangible needs of revitalizing industry and manufacturing.

The combination of these manpower and equipment deficiencies poses a severe threat to national security, as the foundation of any military engagement lies in having a capable and well-equipped force.

These systemic issues, which are not receiving adequate attention in political discourse, compromise the U.S. military’s ability to engage effectively in global conflicts. Without a comprehensive and strategic approach to address these deficits, discussions about supporting international allies or defending against adversaries like China become moot.

As we head toward the presidential election, candidates must address this issue head-on with clear and actionable plans to restore the strength and readiness of the U.S. military.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

(This article first appeared in Broad + Liberty.)

The nonprofit trying to persuade local governments to sue “Big Oil” producers for damages allegedly caused by climate change has been making steady advances to Chester and Delaware counties, according to an email provided to Broad + Liberty.

The revelation comes just two months after the Bucks County Board of Commissioners announced it would sue major oil producers like BP, Chevron, Exxon, and others, arguing that the companies knew for decades that their products would cause climate change yet took no action. Several days after the announcement, the only Republican on the three-person board, Gene DiGirolamo, withdrew his support for the suit.

Indeed, it appears as if the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) was eager to use its success with Bucks County as a springboard.

Bucks County became the first local government in the commonwealth to take up the kind of suit that first began to sprout up about a decade ago. For example, in 2016, San Francisco and some other California municipalities sued longtime oil producers. Bucks County is being represented by the law firm DiCello Levitt on a contingency basis, meaning the county does not pay the lawyers unless the lawyers win the case.

In an email sent March 18, 2024, a senior political associate for CCI emailed Delaware County Councilmember Christine Reuther, and cc’d Bucks Commissioner Bob Harvie, both Democrats.

“My name is David Zeballos and I’m with the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), a nonprofit that helps elected officials and their communities hold oil and gas corporations accountable for the massive costs of climate change. I’ve met with a number of folks who have told me about the southeast PA regional call that you are now leading! That includes Council Member Elaine Schaefer, Commissioner Bob Harvie, Commissioner Josh Maxwell, and Commissioner Marian Moskowitz, who all expressed support about the work CCI does,” Zeballos wrote.

“Do you have any availability for a 30 min Zoom meeting to talk about our work in Pennsylvania and areas for collaboration?” Zeballos wrote later in the email.

The Center for Climate Integrity is a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit that says its mission is to “educate communities and elected officials about the role of polluters in causing climate change and the need to hold polluters accountable for their actions.”

A spokesperson for Chester County said no action is imminent, but noted that could change.

“Chester County is not considering a similar lawsuit at this time,” spokesperson Michelle Bjork said. “However, we will continue to monitor any developments in Bucks County’s case and will reevaluate as needed.”

“Chester County’s commitment to protecting the environment and our residents is demonstrated by our efforts to preserve more than 30 percent of the County as permanently protected open space and we will continue to explore all avenues to safeguard our community,” Bjork said.

Requests for comment to Delaware and Bucks counties were not returned. A request for comment to CCI was also not returned.

Delaware County already has something of an established relationship with CCI. County Council Chair Monica Taylor (D) is listed as a member of CCI’s “leaders network” and recently participated in the press roll out of a major CCI study.

In November, Taylor rattled her rhetorical sword about the need to punish oil producers in a Politico article.

“I agree that it’s not fair for this burden of addressing climate change to fall only on our residents,” Taylor said. “Polluters should and must pay.”

Yet the politics of oil are very different between Bucks and Delaware counties. In Delaware, thousands of people are employed in the industry at places like the Marcus Hook LNG terminal.

Counties do receive annual payouts from Pennsylvania’s “Act 13” of 2012, commonly known as the “impact fee” imposed on “unconventional” gas wells and distributed to counties and municipalities to help them maintain the environment, or to offset the wear on infrastructure from oil and gas drilling.

For example, for the five years from 2019 to 2023, Bucks County received $2.76 million from the impact fee, even though there are no active wells in the county. Delaware County took in $2.45 million over the same period, according to a state website devoted to Act 13 revenues and disbursements.

The impact fee delivered $179 million across all governments in the commonwealth in 2023.

In Western Pennsylvania, CCI gave a presentation in April on “climate accountability” to an environmental subcommittee of the Allegheny County Council. At the time, a council member said it would be premature to assume the county would sue oil producers.

Some of the initial lawsuits against Big Oil have already failed. In 2019, a New York judge ruled in Exxon’s favor, but as is often the case, the message of the ruling was nuanced, with Justice Barry Ostrager of the New York State Supreme Court writing, “this is a securities fraud case, not a climate change case.”

Other cases remain in progress, and, “[t]he number of climate-related cases against Exxon continues to grow,” the Wall Street Journal recently reported.

“In February, the city of Chicago sued Exxon and other major oil companies alleging they deceived Chicagoans about climate change. In March, Bucks County, Penn., filed a similar suit. The Center for Climate Integrity, an environmental group the Rockefeller charities helped create, swayed officials in both places to bring the suits.”

IRS filings show CCI is predominantly funded by the Rockefeller Family Fund, the philanthropic endeavor established by the legendary New York family whose business pursuits in the earliest parts of the 20th century produced Standard Oil, the petroleum monopoly whose most prominent corporate successor is Exxon.

The Journal also reported that the Rockefeller Family Fund “influenced President Biden’s decision in January to pause approval of new liquefied natural gas exports,” — a decision that touched off bipartisan condemnations in Pennsylvania, the nation’s largest LNG exporter.

“While the immediate impacts on Pennsylvania remain to be seen, we have concerns about the long-term impacts that this pause will have on the thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania’s natural gas industry,” Democratic U.S. Senators Bob Casey and John Fetterman said in a joint statement. “If this decision puts Pennsylvania energy jobs at risk, we will push the Biden Administration to reverse this decision.”

Numerous other politicians, including many Republicans, and associations also heavily criticized the Biden LNG “pause” — something that could easily become an issue in the presidential election this year if circumstances continue to make Pennsylvania a crucial battleground state.

The email cited in this story was obtained via the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law by the nonprofit organization Government Accountability and Oversight. A database search of nonprofit tax filings did not reveal any significant grant donations to GAO in order to be able to characterize its funding.

For an alternate point of view see: Counterpoint: Climate Change Fear-Mongering Isn’t Working Anymore

The  Colorado State University Tropical Weather and Climate team made a news splash on April 4, forecasting a disturbingly above-average number of storms expected in this year’s hurricane season. The forecast was also notable in that it was announced earlier in the year than ever by the hurricane forecasting team at CSU, which has been making annual forecasts of the year’s expected hurricane activity for 39 years.

The Colorado team is considered among the two most trusted and sophisticated forecasting groups, and the other is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Other forecasters that use complex models to predict hurricane activity, such as AccuWeather, concur with the CSU and NOAA predictions.  AccuWeather expects this year’s hurricane season to be “super-charged.”

Notwithstanding the methodological rigor and success record of the forecasters — who incorporate into their models 70 years of historical data on factors including sea surface temperatures, sea surface pressure, and wind shear — conspiracy-peddling voices will politicize the issue of how many hurricanes are expected. Such bearers of misinformation maintain that NOAA intentionally amplifies its forecasts of hurricane activity to drive a climate change agenda.

One such voice is that of conservative commentator Matt Drudge, who once infamously maintained NOAA’s Hurricane 2017 Matthew forecast was intentionally inflated. Another was Rush Limbaugh, who declared, without evidence, “It’s in the interest of the left to have destructive hurricanes because then they can blame it on climate change, which they can desperately continue trying to sell.” Commentator Tucker Carlson also joined the conspiracy caucus, declaring the government hypes warnings about hurricanes because private interests profit from sales of water and batteries.

Yet another voice, emanating from a think tank, states that there “has been no long-term trend in the strength or frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, U.S. floods and drought.” This flies in the face of R Street Institute research. Observing that pronouncements on natural catastrophes too often were politically influenced, we undertook a fact-based, data-based project to compile conclusions on natural catastrophe frequency, severity and attribution reached by 18 noted meteorologists, climate researchers and data scientists. Our published study found the 18 sources t largely agree that catastrophe frequency and severity have increased.

As for what we are facing now, the CSU unit forecasts 23 named storms for the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, spanning June 1 to November 30. This is significantly higher than the average of 14.4 between 1991 and 2020. It forecasts 11 hurricanes this season, up from the historical average of 7.2. It expects five of the 11 to reach major hurricane strength (category 3, 4, or 5), with sustained winds of 111 mph or more.

The CSU forecasters found that the combination of conditions in 2024 (sea surface temperature, sea level pressure, vertical wind shear (change in wind direction and speed) and the El Niño effect (water warming in the central and eastern tropical Pacific) resemble those in past years with active Atlantic hurricane seasons: 1878, 1926, 1998, 2010 and 2020.

Misinformation promulgated by the likes of Limbaugh and Carlson can be dangerous. To the extent people in harm’s way ignore warnings about the threat of coming dangers they face from destructive storms, lives may be lost. Another source of dangerous misinformation is random postings on social media platforms by people lacking subject matter expertise.

In January 2024, an actress posted a warning, spreading panic, of an apocalyptic approaching California rainstorm, which did not exist. This recalled the “Sharpie hoax” of 2019 when then-president Donald Trump displayed a map of the expected path of Hurricane Dorian. The map included an extension of the path hand-drawn with a Sharpie indicating that the storm would strike Alabama, breaking a law prohibiting the publication of a falsified official weather forecast.

The 2024 Atlantic hurricane season will likely not include exactly 23 named storms and 11 hurricanes. There is, however, a high degree of confidence that the model-driven forecast will be directionally correct. After all, as the British statistician George E.P. Box once said, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

Storms have consequences. Mighty winds care not a whit about the ideology of those whose houses they destroy. So beware this year of conspiracists soft-pedaling threats that are all too real.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

For an alternate point of view see: Point: Counting Hurricanes in a Post Truth World

The adage that “nothing is certain except death and taxes” ought to be updated for our modern times to: nothing is certain except death, taxes, and government-generated climate alarmism.

In late May, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that the “coming Atlantic hurricane season is expected to have above-normal activity due to a confluence of factors, including near-record warm ocean temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean.”

Specifically, “NOAA is forecasting a range of 17 to 25 total named storms … including 4 to 7 major hurricanes.”

Of course, NOAA points to “human-caused climate change” as the primary culprit for its apocalyptic hurricane season warning. According to NOAA, “human-caused climate change” is solely responsible for “warming our ocean globally,” “melting ice on land,” and “sea level rise.”

In 2022, NOAA issued a very similar hurricane season prediction, which was way overblown. “Overall, the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season featured near normal activity in terms of the number of named storms and hurricanes, but was slightly below average in terms of the number of major hurricanes,” notes the National Hurricane Center.

Just because NOAA was wrong in 2022 does not mean that its 2024 prediction will be wrong, too. However, more important, the entire narrative about hurricanes becoming more frequent and more intense due to anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is not true.

Consider.

In 2012, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated, “Many weather and climate extremes are the result of natural climate variability (including phenomena such as El Niño), and natural decadal or multi-decadal variations in the climate provide the backdrop for anthropogenic climate changes. Even if there were no anthropogenic change in climate, a wide variety of natural weather and climate extremes would still occur.”

In 2014, the National Climate Assessment stated, “There has been no significant trend in the global number of tropical cyclones nor has any trend been identified in the number of US land-falling hurricanes.”

Moreover, in 2018, the IPCC reported that there is “only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.”

In 2019, a peer-reviewed report in the American Meteorological Society stated, “The majority of authors had only low confidence that any other observed tropical cyclone changes were beyond what could be attributed to natural variability.”

In 2020, the World Meteorological Organization acknowledged that “any single event, such as a severe tropical cyclone, cannot be attributed to human-induced climate change, given the current status of scientific understanding.”

Perhaps Steven E. Koonin, the undersecretary for science in the Department of Energy in the Obama administration, put it best when he said, “Pointing to hurricanes as an example of the ravages of human-caused climate change is at best unconvincing, and at worst plainly dishonest.”

Over the past century, the number of hurricanes on a per-decade basis making landfall in the United States has declined. For instance, in the 1850s, well before humans harnessed fossil fuels as a viable energy source, 20 hurricanes made landfall, including six “major” storms. In the 1940s, 24 hurricanes made landfall, including 10 significant storms.

Obviously, the experts at NOAA can read graphs that illustrate the frequency and severity of hurricanes striking the United States have not increased over the past several decades.

So, why does NOAA, along with so many other government-affiliated organizations, continue to engage in public fearmongering regarding hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes and so forth? They need to create panic and instill fear to justify their very existence. It is self-preservation.

Like it or not, climate change is big business. Over the next decade, the United States will spend at least $500 billion to “combat” climate change. To keep the money flowing, the government needs an endless list of scary predictions to keep the alarmist narrative going.

The good news is Americans are beginning to realize that they are being lied to about climate change. More and more, polls show that Americans no longer automatically believe that climate change is an existential threat. Because they are starting to lose their hold, the alarmists are resorting to even more desperate measures.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Liquefied Natural Gas, or LNG, has been at the forefront of the global discussion on climate policy, energy, and emissions for decades. Natural gas advocates say it is an environmentally safer alternative to traditional, emissions-heavy fossil fuels such as coal and heating oil.

The Biden administration, which just two years ago called for more production of natural gas in efforts to blunt the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has now pivoted away from it. In January 2024, the administration announced a temporary ban, or “pause,” on new LNG export licenses to suppliers to assess the greenhouse gas impact of LNG in global supply chains. Administration officials, under pressure from climate activists, have rallied against LNG’s purported eco-friendliness vis-a-vis other fuel sources. They also argue the pause is necessary to incorporate LNG’s climate impact in the “public interest” when determining the approval or rejection of LNG export projects.

But what does the science say?

A new study published by Berkeley Research Group (BRG), a leading economics and industry research firm, represents a watershed moment for emissions-based data collection. Its findings clarify the contentious dialogue surrounding LNG in the United States and around the world and show its true impact on the environment.

By comparing the greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy output of U.S. LNG, pipeline natural gas, and coal in 13 international markets in Europe and Asia, the study found that U.S. LNG is cleaner in its lifecycle than coal and cleaner than Russian pipeline natural gas in every case studied. Importantly, by analyzing emissions from production, processing, shipping, and ground transportation, the study captures the complete value chain of each fuel type.

The data also shows that American LNG produces less than half of the resulting emissions of coal-generated electricity in international markets in Europe and Asia. In fact, if U.S. LNG replaced coal-generated power in these 13 markets for just one year, it would save the emissions equivalent of 153 million to 397 million cars (or 170,000 – 440,000 kilotons of carbon dioxide equivalent).

This remarkable finding conclusively shows that LNG is a dramatically safer, cleaner alternative to burning coal. This should not be overlooked because global coal use is not decreasing. On the contrary, electricity generation and exports from coal hit record highs just last year.

The environmental advantage of U.S. LNG also holds true when compared to piped natural gas in foreign export markets.

Put simply, American LNG is now among the least emission-intensive sources of energy in the world.

These findings are enormously important to understanding global environmental realities. They should inform dialogue and relevant policy decisions in energy security and climate policy within the Biden administration.

For years, experts on energy policy and American LNG producers have urged federal officials to continue to approve new LNG export licenses because LNG is the best way to secure our energy independence and reliability, while still minimizing the overall risk to our communities and environment. Now they have reinforced scientific evidence to support those claims.

Today, people around the globe rely on natural gas to generate electricity, heat, and fuel in homes and businesses. In one of the most remarkable sources of strength, American LNG is helping our allies push back against Vladimir Putin’s Russia. American natural gas is protecting democracy now and in the future. Without it, the alternative is greater reliance on Putin and other authoritarians.

The results are in: American LNG is the safest, cleanest option we have to power our economy through increasingly uncertain global market forces, while ensuring that we act responsibly and use energy like natural gas that makes for a cleaner and greener country and world. The Biden administration would be wise (and would receive due credit) to reverse the LNG pause and harness the potential of American natural gas.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal