The following letter was sent to all the ring county commissioners. It contains the basic information you will need to push back on the Climate Action Plan
Et Al,
I am reaching out to the ring county commissioners in the hopes that I can make a difference in the upcoming climate change vote. I believe that Cuyahoga County is lost. At our next NOACA board meeting we will be voting on a climate action plan. If you have not read the plan, I would ask that you take some time to do that. After spending quite a bit of time assessing it, I consider it to be based on faulty science, corrupt data, and resulting in action plans that have no hope of achieving the goals that are established. It is a typical big government plan that has wasted time and lots of tax dollars. As I am writing this I am in Denali Alaska (home of many glaciers) and had the opportunity to hear a lecture from David Arnold PHD on Climate and wildlife change. It was a fascinating coincidence that he touched on this topic. He mentioned that we are 12,000 years into a 20,000-year climate cycle of global warming and that there is nothing that we can do to alter that cycle. I asked him about CO2 and his comment was that anyone thinking CO2 has any significant contribution to the change doesn’t know what they are talking about. I say that to lead into the following. The key premise of the NOACA plan is reducing CO2 levels claiming we can change our GLOBAL environment. Our planet has been at 3000 ppm, we are now at 422 ppm, and the target is 355. There was no significant temperature change from 3000 to 422. Do you think 355 ppm will make a difference. (As human we don’t have the tools to manage a globally complex environment.)
I am not going to bore you with a complete case opposing this plan, but I will provide a few highlights that I hope will get you motivated to do your own homework, if you haven’t. (If you have an interest, I can provide much more information and a more complete case.)
But first, Grace made an allegation in the Executive Committee meeting that an alternate (me) mispresented themselves as a NOACA representative to ask for defunding. That is NOT correct and I am willing to share the email stream to prove that. She also claimed that Lee Zedlin said to continue our planning efforts. I believe that is also not true. Region 5 did confirm that they told us to continue. I would ask you to ask for documentation on that potentially false claim. I did reach out to the EPA region 5 to ask the EPA why the climate change plan has not been defunded. It was created under the Biden inflation reduction act (?). I was and am very confused, given Lee Zeldin’s and President Trump’s recent comments. Director Zedlin has made public statements that CO2 is not a pollutant and does not contribute to climate change. President Trump has made similar comments. Director Zeldin and the EPA recently won a lawsuit allowing them to defund similar programs. It seems to me that continuing this plan violates the current administration’s direction. It is a reasonable and responsible question; “why is the plan being funded knowing it will accomplish nothing”; according to the current administration. The EPA region 5 said they did tell NOACA to continue, however, Region 5 will not provide me with any documentation that supports that claim. I am making a FOIA request for documentation. That said, I believe that board members are often provided misinformation by Grace and her team. I never represented myself as an agent of NOACA – period.
That said, I consider this Climate Action to be a scam to try and seek federal dollars and to gain bureaucratic power. And the powers gained will be used against the ring counties. FYI… there is a claim this is voluntary. First, NOACA will be asking to increase its authority (that is in the plan.) Moreover, once the plan is approved the EPA and others, who do have the authority can use it.
I ask you. Has this board ever asked to see all the public comments? How many of our constituents oppose this plan? Not just the ones deemed appropriate by the staff. Has this board ever asked to hear the scientific case as to how what we are doing will lead to an impact on the climate? Why have we as a board not demanded to hear the arguments opposing this plan so we can hear both sides. How many people on this board have even reviewed the plan? I am very disappointed because I believe we, as a board, are not doing our due diligence. What is the basis for a vote yes? It seems to me that for many it is not about the facts or what can realistically be achieved. If it were, we would be asking far more questions.
Here are some things for you to consider.
- NOACA is using an ICLEI framework. ICLEI is a Marxist organization in Bonn Germany and was spawned by the United Nations in the 1960s as a part of Agenda 21. Their agenda is wealth transfer and shifting global power. Why would anyone in the U.S. or in the NE Ohio region, use an international organization that has a clear international agenda and not one that favors the U.S. Their framework taints the entire plan. Check out ICLEI if you doubt what I am saying.
- Lee Zeldin, President Trump, and a cadre of global scientist are no longer hiding their opposition to any climate change plans. They are starting to call BS to the foundational concept that CO2 is the bad guy. Both have called out alternate power sources like wind mills as impractical and rightly so. I can provide all kinds of science that refutes the goofiness in our plan, but let me simply point the fact I already stated. CO2 levels are currently around 422 ppm as was said and the goal is 355 ppm. The CO2 levels have been historically higher. My take away from the Dr Arnold presentation was that climate change can be attributed to a shift in the angle of the sun and a very complicated set of other variables. There is a much longer explanation about what is happening with our climate if you are interested and many resources that can help us to understand it. From what I have learned CO2 is not the bad guy some think. It is plant food and absorbed by the ocean and consumed by plants.
- Included in the current plan is carbon sequestration, removing plant food (CO2) from the air, compressing it and piping it to Geauga or Jefferson counties to inject into underground caverns. This is so dumb I can’t believe anyone would think this a good idea. By the way, carbon sequestration is an international idea…. think ICLEI. It will make a few select folks rich and accomplish nothing.
- Consider how large the global environment is. Does anyone think that making any change in NE Ohio would impact a global environment? It is like taking a teaspoon of ocean water cleaning it and putting it back in the ocean. Silly? Yes!!!.. Dr. Arnold commented that there is a very complex interrelationship between a large number of variables that impact a global environment, many of which we don’t fully understand. Do human’s contribute to the complication? Yes! Are we responsible? Not in his belief after many years of study.
- Below is a CAP benefit slide that was provided in a recent Policy Committee meeting. It is suggested that benefits of fixing climate change would help avoid heart attacks. Think about this. As someone who has had open heart surgery, my doc is clear that heart attacks are a function of diet, genes, and healthy habits. My Doctor never mentioned climate change. Do you really think premature deaths are attributed to climate change? And on and on. There is an attempt to create a correlation to health benefits. But as anyone doing these kinds of studies will tell you. Correlation does not mean causation. This is a simple example that points to the absolute corruption in this plan. This is clear manipulation of the sentiment of the board and shame on us if we fail to use some critical thinking skills and buy into this goofiness.
There is so much more I can point to. I am hoping everyone has read the plan. If not then I am hoping you do. You many discover the many short comings for yourself. I believe anyone voting for this plan has not looked at the data, the foundational science, or the action plans. There is a global climate change agenda and it is not about other than truly addressing climate change. And, no one has proven how this plan will NOT solve climate issues.
I ask you to consider your vote carefully.