## Thursday, November 10, 2016 ... /////

### Myron Ebell is a hope for the return of sanity to the climate policymaking

I've known for months that Myron Ebell was Donald Trump's choice for the EPA transitional team. I don't know Ebell in person – not even through e-mail – but he's been visible as a top man from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a pro-free-market think tank.

You may look at the CEI videos on YouTube. If you expand the videos from the whole decade, you will find the name "Ebell" 21 times on the page – over twenty videos with him.

My understanding is that a decade ago, Ebell must have been important in the creation of 1-minute ads that I loved, Energy and Glaciers, which include the final catchy slogan that I later repeated many times: "Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life."

Needless to say, there already exists a petition by climate alarmists, "Do Not Allow Myron Ebell to Lead the EPA Transition". Sadly, a good science writer has participated in it.

There are big hopes that the Trump administration could make many industries more effective, less regulated, and less wasteful. Trump has said that the global warming is a "Chinese hoax" – and while I don't think that China has been so important for this particular scam, fresh reactions from China do indicate some "extra anxiety" in the populous Asian country.

Also, the Donald has said that he hates wind turbines. It's plausible that they will be suppressed. I don't think that the construction of new ones will be subsidized. Maybe it won't even be allowed. And maybe even the old ones will be gradually stopped and dismantled. And maybe we'll be disappointed and he will make no real changes.

As far as the sane internal U.S. logic goes, the U.S. hasn't ratified the Paris Agreement. Only Barack Obama has "personally" ratified the weird agreement "on behalf of the U.S.". But without any help from the lawmakers, it's hard to imagine how these commitments by Obama could mean anything after Obama leaves the White House i.e. after the first world's white billionaire moves to an apartment previously occupied by a black family. It's rather likely – but not guaranteed – that Trump will remove the U.S. from this misguided enterprise and do much more than that. He may defund at least the climate parts of the EPA and stop the U.S. contributions to international organizations spreading the climate hysteria.

All these pathological things could be removed in his first term. It's realistic. I believe that he (and Ebell?) should adopt a peaceful approach. For example, the policies shouldn't be "completely stopped" but just "postponed" e.g. to the end of the first 5-year period in which the average global satellite-based temperature trumps the year 1998 at least by 0.5 °C.

He could vow that at that moment, there will be studies that quantify some damages – done to countries, individual, corporations, and ecosystems (only those who can safely show that the net damages exceed the net benefits would count, of course). And these total world damages could be divided by the CO2 emissions and a flat fee on carbon – e.g. on producers and importers of fossil fuels – would be imposed and simply distributed to the "victims". This doesn't have to be complicated.

But the short-term and medium-term idea is that no one would be solving this non-problem at least in the following years. All subsidies that could stop immediately should stop.

I also think that the politically distorted research has grown out of control – and this sector of the research institutions has hired lots of people who don't do any useful science and who were selected according to their political and pseudoscientific opinions (because they have memorized the sentences "the sky is falling" or "climate change is real"). Trump should slash all these institutions funded by the federal government at least by a factor of 5.

Some reasonable quantification of the amount of climate science that is corrupt by the political "applications"; and the old-fashioned climate science that is studying the truth impartially should be made. Roughly speaking, the post-reform size of this whole research should be just a little bit higher than it was in 1988 or so when the climate hysteria was getting started and kilotons of politically convenient parasites and crooks began to be hired. Right now, the climate "science" field is larger by more than one order of magnitude relatively to 1988. Most of those people aren't real, honest scientists.

Due to its influence on the world, there is a chance that even leaders e.g. here in Europe would be forced to basically follow America's example. Trump and his folks may improve the world quite a bit. Decades of these policies harming the economic growth could be undone rather quickly.

Hours ago, utility companies' stock dropped, possibly because of related Trump's plans. I think that this drop is irrational – especially in the case of companies that do no business in the U.S. – but it's an off-topic comment.