We are Winning (Parts 1 & 2)
credit to the CO2 Coalition
Shell Wins Court Case (We are Winning Part 1)
Oil giant Shell has won a landmark case at The Hague court of appeal, overturning an earlier ruling requiring it to cut its carbon emissions by 45%.
Earlier this year, the CO2 Coalition prepared and filed an expert opinion in this case, recommending a rejection of the claims of great harm caused by Shell’s CO2 emissions.
Renowned physicists Drs. Richard Lindzen, Steve Koonin and William Happer wrote in the filing that:
· Contrary to what is commonly reported, CO2 is essential to life on earth. Without CO2, there would be no plant food and thus no human or animal life.
· “Net zeroing” CO2 will reduce the amount of food available for all people worldwide, especially the poor. Without fossil fuels, there will be no nitrogen fertilizer, and thus mass starvation, and no low-cost energy.
· “Net zeroing” will undermine human rights with which the Climate Case is concerned, crippling the realization of the first three U.N. sustainable development goals: eradication of poverty, elimination of hunger and achieving universal good health and wellbeing.
· The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose conclusions served as a basis for the action against Shell, is government controlled and thus provides government opinions, not science. Thus, the IPCC provides no scientific basis for the Court’s opinion.
· Science demonstrates that fossil fuels and CO2 will not cause “dangerous” climate change and extreme weather.
Read More:
Part 2
Court Erases 50 Years of Environmental Law
(We are Winning Part 2)
On November 12th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit summarily erased 46 years of Federal environmental regulations. Writing in a case called Marin Audubon Society, et al v. FAA, et al, the majority of a three-judge panel ruled that the Council on Environmental Quality had illegally used the Federal Register to publish guidance, thereby giving citizens, agencies, and even the courts the impression that their internal guidance had the authority of law.
The court goes on to detail how an advisory body with no regulatory authority was able to write environmental regulations for the entire United States for nearly a half-century just because it decided it could.
Read More of Part 2: