Steven Capozzola

Green activists like to talk of “carbon pollution,” and they lament the callous “carbon footprint” of those who dispute the theory of man-made climate change.

The Interior Department’s Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is out with a broad new “stream rule” that could potentially designate as much as two-thirds of U.S. coal reserves off-limits to mining. In fact, a study of the rule suggests that at least one-third of America’s remaining coal jobs could be put at risk due to the restrictive nature of the rule.

Scott Pruitt, who has led Oklahoma’s challenge against President Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” (CPP), could guide the EPA back to its core mission of environmental protection, rather than continue its recent obsession with reducing industrial carbon dioxide emissions.

As candidate Obama grasped in 2008, the United States possesses bargaining power when it comes to trade negotiations. And so, not only has President Obama failed to utilize such an advantage during his own presidency, but he’s now preemptively weakening the hand of the incoming president.

With the plight of coal communities suddenly factoring in a tight election, however, the Obama Administration made a curious announcement: it will ring up “nearly $28 million in investments to grow the economy in the nation’s coal-impacted communities.” The new package is intended to complement a previous $38.8 million package for coal communities announced in August.

A CNBC story says: “Renewable energy moved past coal in 2015 to become the biggest source of global electricity capacity.” The key word there is “capacity.”

Part of what makes First World living so easy by comparison to the Third World is ready access to electricity. Food is refrigerated, houses are heated. Faucets deliver clean, treated water. Waste and sewage disappear through underground plumbing.

The presumption seems to be that as long as one actively embraces and promotes the theory of man-made global warming, that person is absolved of guilt in the matter. Such people have shown themselves to be loyal to the climate cause. They can rest easy because they’re involved, they’re doing something.

Sheldon Whitehouse’s Rhode Island constituents are currently benefiting from these same fossil fuels. In recent Facebook posts, Whitehouse has been quick to celebrate the shipping, construction, and manufacturing projects that are now bringing good-paying jobs to Rhode Island. It appears, however, that Whitehouse either doesn’t recognize, or willfully disregards, the obvious linkage between fossil fuels and these industrial achievements.

The City’s Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) Commissioner Julie Menin explained that many businesses open their doors during the summer to “lure customers inside with cool air.” Benin says the practice adds a “harmful cost to our city’s environment” and is “a waste of money for the business.”

Under his authority as chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Lamar Smith has chosen to investigate the research methods of the taxpayer-funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

What to do if you don’t believe that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing a global warming catastrophe? Here are some ready-made responses, the next time someone questions you.

In the actual study in question, only one-third of the 11,994 academic papers studied could be construed as arguing for man-made warming. The other two-thirds may have focused on other factors, perhaps the unprecedented increase in solar activity seen over the past century.

There seems to be a sentiment that only “scientists” can credibly weigh-in on the subject of global warming. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) suggested as much last week, during a fiery Senate committee exchange with Alex Epstein, author of “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.”

Hillary Clinton recently vowed to “put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” It wasn’t a nice thing to say, considering the many thousands of hard-working men and women whose livelihoods are tied to the U.S. mining sector.

Notably, Trump’s campaign website prominently states that a Trump administration would declare China a “currency manipulator” on day one in office. This is logical and commendable— and it’s exactly what Mitt Romney vowed in 2012. It also reflects the earnest promises that Barack Obama made in April 2008 at a forum held by the United Steelworkers union. (Yes, Obama promised tough action on China’s currency during the 2008 campaign. But he never followed through.)