6 Ways Repealing The EPA’s Intrusive ‘Endangerment Finding’ Will Make Americans’ Lives Better
The Endangerment Finding is the foundation enabling climate rules like mandating electric vehicles or causing coal fired power plant closuresThe Endangerment Finding is the foundation enabling climate rules like mandating electric vehicles or causing coal fired power plant closuresThe media’s Great Barrier Reef hoax is bigger than the reef
The coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef is as expansive now as it has ever been recorded, with coverage nearing 40%. In fact, the coral cover has nearly tripled in the past dozen years. Despite this record expanse of coral off the coast of Australia, the climate community and mainstream media outlets unrelentingly push the narrative that the Great Barrier Reef is dying.
For example, CBS News ran one of its periodic pieces on the reef a few months ago with this terrifying headline: “Parts of Great Barrier Reef dying at record rate, alarmed researchers say; ‘worst fears’ confirmed.”
Reports of the Great Barrier Reef dying or being in peril are false, dishonest, and deliberately misleading.
The Guardian has been relentless in its apocalyptic coverage of the reef’s supposed imminent demise. More than a decade ago, the outlet essentially delivered the reef’s last rites, insisting that only a drastic reduction in carbon emissions could save it. A 2014 article, headlined “Great Barrier Reef damage ‘irreversible’ unless radical action taken,” warned: “The Great Barrier Reef will suffer irreversible damage by 2030 unless radical action is taken to lower carbon emissions.” Since that article was published, global carbon dioxide emissions have risen roughly 30%.
A coral apocalypse?
Despite the Great Barrier Reef doubling in size since then, the Guardian has doubled down on its doomsday narrative. Since the coral has not died as predicted, “coral bleaching” has emerged as the new man-made catastrophe in its reporting. These stories get distributed throughout the climate community and widely disseminated throughout its advocacy networks.
In January, the Guardian published this headline: “Catastrophic: Great Barrier Reef hit by its most widespread coral bleaching, study finds.” Just a few days ago, it followed up with, “Ningaloo and Great Barrier Reef hit by ‘profoundly distressing’ simultaneous coral bleaching events.”
From these headlines, one might assume the reef is dying. However, bleaching does not equate to death. Coral bleaching does not create a chunk of white, dead coral sold at a beach town shell shop. Instead, it occurs when the coral has lost the algae living on it, often due to a variety of stressors, including fluctuations in light or changes in water temperature. This process causes the living coral to turn white but does not necessarily kill it.
Misleading statistics
With record-high coral cover, it is mathematically probable that there will be more instances of bleaching simply because there is more coral overall. If a farmer triples the size of his apple orchard from 100 to 300 trees, and the number of trees suffering from blight triples from five to 15, that does not indicate a catastrophic increase in blight. Blaming climate change for an expected proportional increase in blight would be misleading. Yet, when it comes to coral, the media and climate activists ignore this logical correlation.
It is worth noting that when “the imminent death of the Great Barrier Reef” became a major climate story a dozen years ago, the reef had indeed shrunk dramatically. Some areas saw up to 85% of the coral cover disappear — not due to overheated ocean waters or excessive CO2, but rather due to a natural occurrence: a tropical cyclone.
A Queensland, Australia, map shows that the Great Barrier Reef runs parallel to the northeast coast. In 2009, Tropical Cyclone Hamish took a path parallel to the coastline. Instead of crossing the reef perpendicularly, it churned directly over it, causing immense damage. A few months after Hamish, the Australian Institute of Marine Sciencepublished research on the extent of the damage:
Damage ranged from "exfoliation," where the reef matrix was removed along with all that grew on it, leaving bare limestone, to "scouring" that essentially stripped all living tissue from living corals, to coral breakage in which massive coral heads as well as more delicate branching corals broke off.
Nature’s recovery
That 2009 analysis stated that it could take up to 15 years for the Great Barrier Reef to regrow to its pre-Hamish level of cover. The climate community dishonestly blamed the loss of coral cover following the cyclone on global warming, predicting a continued decline and an inevitable death. Fortunately, the reef has avoided any significant cyclone damage since 2009 and has not only returned to its prior coverage level but has continued to grow.
Reports of the Great Barrier Reef dying or being in peril are false, dishonest, and deliberately misleading.
The Paris climate agreement is dead — time to bury it for good
The Paris climate agreement was doomed to fail from its inception. It is long past time for all parties involved, as well as the media, to acknowledge this fact.
The mainstream media has lamented the Paris agreement’s fate since President Donald Trump’s re-election. Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement during his first term and vowed to do so again after Joe Biden rejoined it. While Trump’s withdrawal was a public rebuke that undermined the pact’s “effectiveness,” the agreement was effectively dead before the ink on the last signature was dry.
China’s rising emissions since 2015 all but guarantee that global CO2 levels will continue climbing through 2030 and beyond, no matter what other nations do.
The structure of the agreement itself ensured that it would be ineffective in preventing greenhouse gas emissions from rising.
As I noted shortly after its completion in 2015, even the architects of the Paris agreement quietly admitted that the emissions pledges made by signatory countries would fall short of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. At the time, their own estimates showed that if every nation fulfilled its commitment, the combined result would still account for less than half the greenhouse gas reductions needed to meet the 2-degree goal.
By 2017, the United Nations confirmed this shortfall. Its report projected that even if every country fully complied with its Paris agreement targets — an optimistic scenario — global temperatures would still rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2100.
The agreement’s prospects have only worsened since. As the BBC has reported, several countries openly acknowledge that they will not meet their commitments. Nations such as Argentina, Indonesia, South Africa, and South Korea — all signatories that previously pledged to curb fossil fuel use — now plan to increase the production of coal, natural gas, and oil. Many also hope to import additional fuel from the United States.
These nations are now blaming Trump for their decision, but the data shows that every single country now seeking more fossil fuels had already increased its use long before Trump was re-elected and withdrew from the Paris agreement. In fact, no country that set specific emissions reduction targets in the first Paris commitment period has made significant progress toward meeting its goals.
What’s more, of the nearly 200 countries that signed the agreement, only 10 submitted their updated carbon reduction commitments by the deadline — meaning 190 nations failed to comply. Even the 10 countries that submitted their updated commitments failed to meet their previous targets.
Two of the world’s three largest carbon dioxide emitters — China and India — have made no firm commitments under the Paris agreement. Instead of pledging to reduce emissions, both countries offered vague assurances that they expect emissions to peak eventually. If carbon dioxide truly drives climate change, China’s rising emissions since 2015 all but guarantee that global CO2 levels will continue climbing through 2030 and the 2050, no matter what other nations do.
As Thomas Hobbes wrote, “Covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.” Every climate agreement to date has embodied that idea — unenforceable promises with no mechanism to guarantee compliance.
The fact is that the Paris agreement was never a binding treaty. Countries set their own emissions targets, but the agreement included no international enforcement. Unless countries pass laws domestically to formalize their pledges, those goals remain legally meaningless — even within their own borders.
Ultimately, the Paris agreement demands long-term sacrifice without any clear or measurable benefit. Politicians focused on re-election hesitate to adopt policies that visibly harm their constituents today in exchange for hypothetical rewards decades after they’ve left office. That political reality is why the Paris climate agreement was doomed from the start. Now is the time to acknowledge its failure — without regret. The trillions already spent are sunk costs, but at the very least, we can stop wasting more.
8 MILES of Amazon rainforest DESTROYED so elites can attend 2025 climate summit
Every year a group of global elites gather at the COP30 United Nations Climate Change Conference to discuss the impending doom our world faces if drastic measures aren’t taken to address the climate crisis. And every year, the normies scream hypocrisy because these elites fly to their exclusive summit in their private jets, while condemning commercial airlines as a climate sin. “Carbon footprints” don’t apply if you’re rich and powerful, apparently.
This year, however, their hypocrisy doubled when it was discovered that eight miles of rainforest in Brazil is being cleared to build a four-lane highway called Avenida Liberdade (Liberty Avenue) in time for the summit, which will take place in November 2025 in Belém, Brazil, a city smack in the middle of the country’s Amazon region.
Tens of thousands of acres of trees have already been cut down following the greenlighting of the project, which has been stalled for over a decade by environmentalists. That is, until more important “environmentalists” needed a road.
It’s almost humorous when you think about it.
Stu Burguiere, BlazeTV host of “Stu Does America,” certainly thinks so, which is why he brought comedian and BlazeTV host of “Normal World” Dave Landau onto the show to discuss the incredibly ironic situation.
“As you know, our greatest existential threat [is global warming]. The only way to solve it is with, you know, electric cars and solar panels, unless Elon Musk makes them because then they're evil,” says Stu.
“We also know the only way to stop it is these big climate summits they have around the world where all the people who say climate change is bad fly into a city … and then they all talk to each other because it's not obviously possible to talk to each other across long, large expanses,” he continues, displaying an image of the recent forest clearing.
“They're like, ‘I've never seen that [animal] before,’ and they're like, ‘yeah, it's the last one of them; anyway, shoot it, we have to lay some road,’” Dave jokes.
“I mean, in some ways, it helps their cause, right? Because then they could say … ‘just since we arrived, there's been three species that have gone extinct,'” laughs Stu.
“It's so hypocritical, and it's always on such a funny level,” says Dave.
To hear more of their conversation, watch the clip above.
Want more from Stu?
To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com