FAIR Energy Foundation exists to ….

We are the NRA of energy.

As someone concerned about the direction of this country, we want to let you know of recent developments at the EPA, and to ask you to join us to debunk the “climate change” nonsense!

In 2018 we filed a petition to reexamine the EPA’s endangerment findings concerning greenhouse gas emission back in 2009].[1]  |

The EPA sat on our petition and did nothing … until President Trump’s last day in office.  The EPA summarily denied our petition citing stale and inaccurate information from past studies purporting to support their original findings.

With the emergence of the Left’s “Green New Deal” (“GND”), the Biden administration’s political agenda, and the revelation of how biased our mainstream media outlets have become, it is not inconceivable for this country to be looking at a new era of ecology-driven or “eco-dictatorship” packaged as the last and only solution to “save our planet.”

If you think $10/gallon for gasoline is inconceivable … think again!

  1. Context matters.

Before looking at undisputed facts about our climate, it is imperative to put things in proper context.

  1. The “climate change” debate is political.

Politics is “the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy.”[2]

There is nothing inherently wrong with politics.  Unfortunately, politicians are involved!  Sadly, politicians have now earned the definition “often disparaging: a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons.”  Add to that the disintegration of objective journalism and the scientific method, and it becomes almost impossible for anyone to discern the truth about anything.  That is of no concern to the Left.  They prefer to work in the realm of “theory” … where only scary words matter, not real science, fact, or truth.  Science, facts, and truth are stumbling blocks to … election, re-election, and personal exercise of political power over the people – you and me.

Think about it.  If you can control the weather (or how people perceive it), well, you can pretty much control the world.  If you are a politician, that proposition has enormous appeal.  Today, virtually all the “climate change” reports being widely published (as in “mainstream” media) come from politicians or their operatives who stand to gain or retain power.

Even the current use of “climate change” epitomizes the politics.  Twenty years ago it was “global warming” … until cooling trends occurred that did not fit the “warming” narrative.  “Climate change” is now the “politically correct” label bandied about.  It is far more flexible and works when the weather is hot or cold.  Besides, the “climate” is always “changing.”  And, the “climate change” mantra has become the weapon of choice to bludgeon opposition to any “social-change” agenda item … that’s what we call “eco-dictatorship.”

  1. Do not let the political drama and emotional appeal cloud your thinking.

Americans tend to route for the “underdog.”  Afterall, America’s own birth story (if we can keep it) is one of the biggest “underdog” victories of human history.  It is ingrained in our culture.

The Left’s narrative:
(1) dominant evil/greedy capitalist corporations are trashing our precious earth for profit.
(2) we the (helpless little) people along with poor Mother Nature are the suffering victims.
(3) whom the brave and righteous Leftist politicians are trying desperately to “save” – against tremendous odds!   Yeah, that has an inherent, cultural, and dramatic appeal to many Americans.  We all love a good drama.  The Left knows … and uses that … and “climate change” provides a dramatic backdrop to push their social change agenda.

  1. The simple undisputed facts about “climate change” – in proper context.

The Left wants to adopt government policy to combat “climate change” on the premise that “human behavior” (the evil empire) has caused and continues to cause the problem.  The evil empire is spewing “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere.  Greenhouse gases retain heat.  The “science” … and simple logic … says the more greenhouse gas the warmer earth’s atmosphere will get … hence the original “global warming” label.  No one disputes that.

The dispute is over … well pretty much everything else.  Questions like: How much greenhouse gas comes from “human behavior” versus natural sources?  If we eliminated human behavior that introduces greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, would that significantly reduce greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?  The simple question … like that.

  1. The “climate change” debate focuses on less than 1% of earth’s atmosphere.

In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “found” that the bad stuff in our atmosphere was: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorcarbons, perfuorcarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.[3]

Context: The atmosphere contains nitrogen (78%)[4] and oxygen (21%)[5], neither of which retain heat,[6] so they are not “greenhouse gases.”  They have no impact on “climate change.”[7]  Undisputed.  So, nitrogen and oxygen combined make up 99% of earth’s atmosphere.  Stop.  Think about that for just a few seconds.  That means the “climate change” debate falls within the context of 1% of earth’s atmosphere.  Based on media reports and hysteria, you might think the numbers would be the other way around – 99% in jeopardy and 1% is safe.  We call those reports political propaganda.  Remember, politics, the “art or science” of influencing government policy.

  1. Greenhouse gases comprise less than half of the 1%.

Out of the remaining 1%, only about 0.45% is comprised of “greenhouse gases.”  No … not 45% but 0.45% or 0.0045.  That means our atmosphere is 99.55% or 0.9955 non-greenhouse gas.

Context: we are debating the theoretical effect of gases that comprise less than half of one-tenth of one percent of earth’s atmosphere.

More context.  Eighty-nine percent of the 0.45% greenhouse gas is – wait for it – water vapor.  Take away 89% of 0.45% and that leaves .0495% or .000495.  Undisputed.

What is left after taking away water vapor?  Mostly carbon dioxide and back in 2010 that amounted to .039% of the atmosphere.  For visual comparison of reality versus the nonsense look at the charts at the end of this letter.   The ambient dust floating in the air in your house comprises XXX!!  You might think that you could live with .039% of any pollutant floating around in the air.   But, it gets even worse.

  1. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant but rather essential to life on earth!

Carbon dioxide gets the most “press” in the propaganda media because – yep – the combustible gas engines in cars spew it out.  Again, you might think that car exhaust has got to be “pollution” – and cars are everywhere so that has got to be bad – right?  Based on prevailing media, you might be surprised to know that it is not a “pollutant.”  Carbon dioxide is released when coal, gasoline, natural gas, wood, and other organic material burn.  But it is not the “smoke” you see in news reports.  Carbon dioxide is colorless and nearly odorless.[8]

It is pretty much everywhere you look.  It is essential to life on earth.  People need oxygen to live – that is what we breath in.  We exhale … carbon dioxide (kind of like car exhaust – imagine that).  Trees and plants need carbon dioxide to live.  And, guess what?  They “exhale” … oxygen.  Wow, crazy stuff!  We need the oxygen the plants exhale and the plants need the carbon dioxide that humans (and our cars) exhale.  This basic science used to be taught in our schools – another issue for another time.

To bring things back into context, again, the main characteristic of the “climate change” concern is that greenhouse gases absorb and retain heat – that concern has nothing to do with “pollutants.”

So, let’s look at the heat issue.  Back around 2010, 95% of the heat retained in the atmosphere was attributable to water vapor and clouds![9]  Only about 3.6% was attributable to the non-pollutant and essential-to-life, carbon dioxide, and the remaining 1.4% to the other greenhouse gases combined.

Today that number is about X.XX%??? 1/2500???

For nearly forty years now we’ve been “debating” what to do about the non-pollutant and essential-to-life carbon dioxide in our atmosphere because the temperature of the earth has been rising along with the level of carbon dioxide.  If you go back about 50 years it seems we would have been leaping for joy at the prospect of “global warming” because in 1970s we had another “climate” experience … except then the “experts” were telling everyone that we were heading into the next ICE AGE!  For real … that’s what the media headlines were back then!

Weather changes … and there’s not much we can do about it.  Having said that, we want to be clear.  We are not proponents of irresponsible behavior when it comes to our environment.  Things can be improved.  We in fact have improved things.  The U.S. is the world-leader on protecting the environment – right now!

  • The Green New Deal’s focus: 99.061% socialism and 0.039% climate.

You can read the GND text on the web.[10]  It is House Resolution 109 introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on February 7, 2019. [11]  It is not the law or even a bill that might become law.  It is a “resolution” full of declaratory statements about findings and how it is the “Federal Governments duty” to change things … dramatically … based on those “findings.”  The GND cites findings from the October 2018 report entitled “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment as conclusive fact.  Remember – this a political debate and politicians and their operatives are involved.  With that reminder, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC experienced its very own “Climategate” back in 2009-2010 (yes, just shortly after the 2009 EPA findings came out).  The IPCC’s scare-tactic predictions were discovered to be based on … press releases from … yep, environmental advocacy groups!  Actual scientific data that contradicted the press release predictions did not make it into the IPCC’s report.  But the non-scientific press release predictions did end up in IPCC’s so-called “scientific” doom-and-gloom predictions.[12]

The “climate change” argument is analogous to someone turning on a stove-top burner and another screaming that your house is “over-heating” and will melt … or explode or implode or something like that.  The alarmist’s want you to focus on the rate of increase in greenhouse gases because within that limited context the numbers can be made to look scary.  But, in proper context, it doesn’t matter if you turn on two or three or all the stove’s burns.  Maybe, when you are standing in your kitchen you can feel the heat, but overall, your house is not burning down or melting – the air is not polluted!

The GND says it is the Federal Government’s duty to take dramatic action or we will all – I don’t know, dehydrate, starve, lose our jobs (or our minds), ice will melt and flood the earth.  It argues that dramatic steps to combat “climate change” will somehow stop … bigotry and racism, oppression of indigenous people, the poor, elderly, unhoused, disabled, and young people.  It will lead to more jobs, fair wages, better housing, healthier food, cleaner air … wow, you probably had no idea that “climate change” … the “over-heating” of our atmosphere … had such an impact on … virtually everything!!  That’s not because you are stupid, it’s because it doesn’t have any bearing on any of those things!  The GND resolution essentially says “turning on the air conditioner will stop racism and all the other bad things in the world.”  As for the GND’s “action items” – they are like using a shotgun to kill a gnat.  It is like recommending that you tear-down your house and build a new one because a few ants showed up.

One of the financial predictions used to justify action to address “climate change” is that “more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100.”  Think for a minute.  To implement the GND over the next ten years will cost trillions of dollars – some estimate as high as $XX trillion.  But, that’s all worth it to save $500 billion in annual economic output 80 years from now?  How about this idea, let’s save $XX trillion over the next ten years at the cost maybe having to spend an extra $500 billion 80 years from now.  That sounds so much better.

We need to put all of this in proper context.  Limited context propaganda is being spread via mainstream media, social media platforms, in the EPA (think about who generally works at the EPA) … this must stop!  Honest and accurate information in proper context is essential.

[1] Citation


[3] Citation

[4] Citation

[5] Citation

[6] Citation

[7] Citation

[8] Citation

[9] Citation


[11] In a Senate Roll Call vote no Democrat Senator voted for it.

[12] Mark Landsbaum, “What to say to a global warming alarmist” (Feb. 12, 2010), ( – summarizes IPCC’s errors.  See also, John P. Costella, Climategate Anaylsys, SPPI Reprint Series (Jan. 20, 2010) from the Washington: Science & Public Policy Institute (2010), (