Marita Noon, Advocate for sound energy policies and factual science, not computer models, based evaluation of CO2 from fossil fuels: On April 22, 2016 in a high-level celebration at the United Nations headquarters in New York, the Paris Climate Agreement of December, 2015 will officially be signed. Thirty days after its signing, the agreement will take effect—committing countries to establishing individual targets for emission reductions. Bureaucratically administered mandates, taxes, and special interest subsidies will drive family incomes down by thousands of dollars per year, drive up energy costs, and eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs. All of these costs would be incurred to achieve only trivial and theoretical impacts on global warming.
Holman Jenkins, WSJ - A defective radiation-risk standard holds back our most important low-carbon energy source - nuclear power. What keeps nuclear costs high? The “linear no-threshold” model of radiation risk has become the world’s go-to standard for nuclear safety, source of repeated (and unfulfilled) forecasts of thousands of cancer deaths from Chernobyl or Fukushima. LNT is why nuclear plants shoulder artificially huge costs not to protect against accidents, but to protect against trivial emissions.
President Barack Obama, John Holdren, Director of Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology - The White House said that heat wave deaths in the U.S. could worsen by 2030 due to climate change, killing over 10,000 in a single summer. John Holdren, Obama's senior science adviser, said steps the world agreed to in Paris last year to curb emissions through 2030 can help fight the risks to health. "We will need a big encore after 2030 ... in order to avoid the bulk of the worst impacts described in this report," he said.
Bjorn Lomborg - The Obama administration released a new report this week that paints a stark picture of how climate change will affect human health. Higher temperatures, we’re told, will be deadly—killing “thousands to tens of thousands” of Americans. The report is subtitled “A Scientific Assessment,” presumably to underscore its reliability. But the report reads as a political sledgehammer that hypes the bad and skips over the good. It also ignores inconvenient evidence—like the fact that cold kills many more people than heat.