Cornwall Alliance For the Stewardship of Creation Fri, 26 May 2017 22:10:07 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Cornwall Alliance 32 32 Caution—“Organic” Foods Ahead Fri, 26 May 2017 14:49:59 +0000 The craze for “organic” foods grows apace in America, with otherwise rational people choosing to pay twice as much or more for foods labeled “organic” as for conventional foods.

Does that make sense?

Not much.

Claims that “organic” foods are healthier than non-“organic” have a hard time finding any empirical justification. Claims that “organic” foods are locally sourced and more environmentally friendly, too, fall short.

Those interested in learning the problems with the “organic” food craze can get a quick introduction from Julie Kelly’s “When ‘Organic’ Food Isn’t,” in May 25’s National Review. For a deeper look, go to two articles in the Washington Post that she links. And for still deeper analysis, try former “organic” food inspector Mischa Popoff’s book Is It Organic?

Why does all this matter? Partly because people who think they’re improving their health by buying “organic” generally aren’t. But partly, too, because hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted that could be used to much greater benefit.



Featured image “Visiting an organic farm – animals” courtesy of Suzette, Flicker creative commons.

]]> 0
President Trump Should Keep His Promise and Pull Out of Paris Climate Agreement Thu, 25 May 2017 15:33:52 +0000

42nd G-7 Summit.

President Donald Trump attends his first G7 Summit May 26–27. There he will face enormous pressure to break a promise to those who elected him.

The promise? To get the United States out of the Paris climate treaty.

The pressure? It will come from the head of pretty much every other G7 member. Canadian socialist Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel will lead. Others will follow.

Even United Kingdom Prime Minister Theresa May might, despite Brexit, push Trump to “stay in Paris.”

Their reason? It can’t be because they’re convinced Paris is a good deal.
Trillions for Virtually Nothing.

Full implementation will cost the world about $1 trillion a year from 2030 to 2100. And that’s an optimistic estimate. If politicians muck things up — and when do they not? — the cost could double.

For that, there’d better be a whopping temperature reduction. But by now these leaders must know there won’t be.

Why? Because the cat’s out of the bag.

Computer climate models — the sole basis of fears of dangerous warming — predict two to three times observed warming. That means they’re wrong. And that means they provide no rational basis for predicting future temperature. And no rational basis for any policy — like the Paris treaty — based on it. 

But there’s another reason. Even if the models are right, fully implementing Paris would achieve only 0.3ºF of cooling by 2100. That’s about 23.3 to 46.6 trillion dollars per tenth of a degree of cooling.

And if CO2’s warming effect is only one-half to one-third what the models predict? Then the cost will be two to three times that much per tenth of a degree of cooling.

Whichever, it’s no bargain. It won’t benefit any ecosystem. It won’t slow sea level rise. It won’t reduce hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, or heat waves. It won’t save human lives.

Continue reading on The Stream.

Featured image courtesy of Flickr/European Council President.

]]> 0
The BEST Book We’ve Offered for Years—Yours, FREE, for the Month of May! Thu, 25 May 2017 15:26:58 +0000

When I began reading Johnny Wei-Bing Lin’s The Nature of Environmental Stewardship: Understanding Creation Care Solutions to Environmental Problems nearly a year ago, I recognized two things about it almost immediately.

First, it was eminently readable—clear, simple, warm, a lot like being involved in a conversation with a dear and longtime friend.

Second, it was a work of extraordinary scholarship—characterized by not superficial but deep familiarity with the competing ideas of a wide variety of movers and thinkers, careful use of primary sources, and unfailingly fair judgment.

Very soon, as I devoured the book far more rapidly than I normally do, I recognized a three more things:

  • Johnny Wei-Bing Lin was scrupulously fair in how he represented, critiqued, defended, and refined competing ideas of environmental stewardship among evangelicals of many persuasions, including those of the Cornwall Alliance and others with whom we disagree;
  • he was astonishingly gracious and humble despite his obvious brilliance;
  • and his book was something I hoped everyone connected with the Cornwall Alliance—scholars in our network, our thousands of donors, and all of the public who read our writings or view our videos—would read.

Of all the many books and videos we’ve offered through the years, Johnny Lin’s The Nature of Environmental Stewardship has the greatest, almost miraculous, potential to bring instruction, correction, clarity, and charity to environmental debates among evangelicals and other Christians in America and around the world.

After reading The Nature of Environmental Stewardship, I struck up a correspondence with Johnny, and I have found him as gracious, intelligent, and challenging one-with-one as in his book.

Johnny’s an unusual scholar. Not many people with a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, M.S. in Civil Engineering, and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences are clear, artful, scintillating writers. Johnny is. Not many are also fine scholars in theology and philosophy as well. Johnny is, and he consistently integrates his Biblical worldview and ethics with his outstanding scientific understanding. Not many are also captivating storytellers. Johnny is. And, frankly, Johnny’s also simply one of the most friendly, gracious Christians I’ve ever known, whose heart for the health and strength and unity of Christ’s churches is exemplary.

For all those reasons and more, it’s impossible for me to overstate how strongly I hope you’ll take advantage of this offer to receive Johnny Wei-Bing Lin’s The Nature of Environmental Stewardshipabsolutely FREE as our way of saying “Thank you!” for a donation of any size received by the end of this month. You can make your 100% tax-deductible donation at our secure online website, by calling us at 703-569-4653, or by mailing your check to Cornwall Alliance, 9302-C Old Keene Mill Rd., Burke, VA 22015. Whichever you do, just mention Promo Code 1705 and request The Nature of Environmental Stewardship, and we’ll send it to you, free of charge.

]]> 0
Video: Beisner Speaks at Heartland’s ICCC12 Conference Sat, 13 May 2017 14:13:20 +0000

E. Calvin Beisner, Founder and National Spokesman of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and policy advisor to The Heartland Institute presents on “Environmental Economics at the 12th International Conference on Climate Change on March 23, 2017.

]]> 0
Senate Votes Down Attempt to Repeal BLM’s Methane Rule Wed, 10 May 2017 16:53:25 +0000

Today the U.S. Senate voted against H.J. Res. 36, a resolution, “providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule of the Bureau of Land Management relating to “Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation.”

Cornwall Alliance Founder and National Spokesman Dr. E. Calvin Beisner found the Senate’s vote to be very disappointing. “The BLM has no authority to regulate for air quality, which is the EPA’s jurisdiction, he said. So the only rationale for the rule, issued at the last minute by the Obama Administration, was to prevent waste. But the oil and gas industry were already achieving huge reductions in methane emissions and have every incentive to continue.”

“Methane is a valuable resource, so drillers flare it only if they have no cost-effective way to capture and sell it. The rule will cost about $300 million a year, $1.8 billion by 2025. With no significant effect on total methane emissions, it is a waste—ironically, since it’s supposed to prevent waste.”

We hope a new resolution will pass in the future.

]]> 0
Killing The Paris Agreement Is Not Enough Tue, 09 May 2017 18:38:02 +0000

This is a great article from Tom Harris in the Daily Caller. We at the Cornwall Alliance strongly commend it to you, and hope you will read it and help spread the word that “killing the Paris Agreement is not enough”!

If President Donald Trump merely pulls the United States out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, it will be like cutting the head off a dandelion. It will look good for a while until equally bad agreements quickly grow back when a Democrat occupies the White House again. Trump needs to dig up the roots of Paris—the 1992 U.N. climate treaty—if he is to keep his campaign promise to “stop all payments of the United States tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.”

Trump can, and should, get the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, of course. Besides the scientifically unfounded objective of “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels,” as if we had a global thermostat, the agreement lets so-called developing countries almost entirely off the hook despite the fact that non-OECD countries are now the greatest source of energy related emissions. Consider the agreement’s emission targets for the U.S. versus China, currently the world’s largest emitter, for example:

  • The Obama administration agreed to an economy-wide target of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas (82% of which is carbon dioxide (CO2)) emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025.
  • China agreed “to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030” and to other measures such as those designed to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption. Taking into consideration expected economic growth in China and other factors, their target translates into about a 70% increase above its 2005 level in 2025.

Yet writing in the Chicago Tribune, Paul Bodnar, a Special Assistant to former-President Obama and a key architect of the 2014 U.S.-China deal (which has the same emission targets as Paris), echoes the position of many opinion leaders when he asserted, “The Paris Agreement…puts China, India, and other emerging markets on equal footing with the United States.”

Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. It will not even be necessary for developing nations to meet their weak Paris emission targets anyway. They have an out-clause, one not applicable to developed countries.

Continue reading at Daily Caller.

]]> 0
Joint Letter from 42 Groups on Paris Climate Treaty Mon, 08 May 2017 20:49:29 +0000

May 8, 2017

The Honorable Donald J. Trump President of the United States The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

We, the undersigned, write in enthusiastic support of your campaign commitments to withdraw fully from the Paris Climate Treaty and to stop all taxpayer funding of UN global warming programs. We were heartened by the comments you made at your 100-day rally in Harrisburg and agree that the treaty is not in the interest of the American people and the U. S. should therefore not be a party to it.

Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Treaty is an integral part of your energy agenda. The Obama administration’s Nationally Determined Contribution (or NDC) to the Paris Climate Treaty commits the United States to take actions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and by 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. Paris then requires a more ambitious NDC every five years in perpetuity.

The NDC cites specific policies undertaken by the Obama administration as part of the NDC. These include: the greenhouse gas emissions rules for existing (the “Clean Power” Plan) and new power plants; Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for vehicles; methane emissions rules for the oil and gas sector and for landfills; and energy efficiency and conservation standards for buildings and appliances.

Environmental pressure groups and several state attorneys general have begun to prepare lawsuits in federal court to block withdrawal of the “Clean Power” Plan and other greenhouse gas rules. One argument that they have already put forward is that these rules cannot be withdrawn because they are part of our international commitment under the Paris Climate Treaty. Failing to withdraw from Paris thus exposes key parts of your deregulatory energy agenda to unnecessary legal risk. The AGs revealed in a recruiting letter that they also plan other lawsuits “ensuring that the promises made in Paris become reality.”

Some officials in your administration are relying on recent statements from former Obama administration officials that the U. S. can withdraw its NDC and submit a new NDC that makes far less ambitious commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The clear language of Article 4 of the Paris Climate Treaty contradicts that claim. Section 11 states: “A Party may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition” (emphasis added).

Even if the U. S. were to be cleared by UN officials to submit a less ambitious NDC, this is not the end of the threats posed by the Paris Climate Treaty to your pro-energy agenda and to the economic future of our country. Article 4 requires each party to submit a more ambitious NDC at least every five years in perpetuity. This commitment to reduce fossil fuel use every five years cannot be wished away by those who argue that the U. S. should keep a seat at the negotiating table in order to advocate for fossil fuels.

In urging you to keep your campaign commitment, we recognize that there are several options for you to withdraw the U.S. from Paris. Of the three options listed below, we think the first two are preferable to the third.

First, you could submit the Paris Climate Treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent with a recommendation that the treaty not be ratified. Submitting the treaty to the Senate would return us to and restore the proper constitutional method for treaty-making and require a future administration to go through proper procedures if it were to attempt to rejoin the treaty.

Second, you could withdraw from the underlying UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This action would also achieve your commitment to “stop all payments of the United States tax dollars to UN global warming programs,” including the Green Climate Fund, which is a part of the UNFCCC.

Third, you could announce your intention to withdraw the U. S. from the Paris Climate Treaty according to the four-year schedule specified in the treaty and continue the process of repealing the regulations that the previous administration submitted as part of its NDC. This option is the least preferable because it runs the risk of legitimizing the Obama administration’s false claim that the treaty is merely an executive agreement.

The undersigned organizations believe that withdrawing completely from Paris is a key part of your plan to protect U.S. energy producers and manufacturers from regulatory warfare not just for the next four years but also for decades to
come. We will strongly support your decision to keep your campaign commitment to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty.


Myron Ebell, Director, Center for Energy and Environment Competitive Enterprise Institute

Thomas J. Pyle, President American Energy Alliance

Joseph Bast, President The Heartland Institute

Grover G. Norquist, President Americans for Tax Reform

Chrissy Harbin, Vice President of External Affairs
Americans for Prosperity

Michael Needham, CEO Heritage Action for America

Michael Costigan, Senior Advisor, Strategic Outreach
The Heritage Foundation

James L. Martin, Founder and Chairman
60 Plus Association

Craig Rucker, Executive Director Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

David Ridenour, President National Center for Public Policy Research

Thomas Schatz, President
Citizens Against Government Waste

Craig Richardson, President Energy and Environment Legal Institute

Tom DeWeese, President American Policy Center

Richard Manning, President Americans for Limited Government

Phil Kerpen, President American Commitment

David Williams, President Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Mario H. Lopez, President Hispanic Leadership Fund

David Bozell, President For America

Steven J. Allen, Vice President and Chief Investigative Officer
Capital Research Center

Kenneth Haapala, President Science and Environmental Policy Project

Craig D. Idso, Chairman Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

William Happer, President The CO2 Coalition

E. Calvin Beisner, Founder and National Spokesman
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

John Droz, Jr., Founder
Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions

Timothy Lee, Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs
Center for Individual Freedom

Peter J. Thomas, Chairman Americans for Constitutional Liberty

Ed Martin, President
Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund

Amy Oliver Cooke, Executive Vice President
Independence Institute (CO)

David T. Stevenson, Director, Center for Energy Competitiveness
Caesar Rodney Institute (DE)

Paul Gessing, President Rio Grande Foundation

Kory Swanson, President and CEO John Locke Foundation

Francis De Luca, President Civitas Institute

Forest Thigpen, President Mississippi Center for Public Policy

Eldon Alexander, President Faith and Freedom Foundation

Lynne Roberts, President Americans United for Freedom

Rich Johns, President Liberty Tree Alliance

Aileen Milton, President The Villages Tea Party

Debbie Gunnoe, President Navarre Patriots

]]> 1
Peoples Climate Movement—Not Science, Just Thuggery Mon, 08 May 2017 17:15:54 +0000 This isn’t science. This isn’t even rational discourse. This is thuggery—typical of communist movements from the French Revolution through the socialist revolutions of the 1840s and the Russian and Chinese revolutions.

Not sure? Read the press release from the “Peoples Climate Movement” for yourself:

Monday, May 8, 2017
Contact: Harrison Beck: or (617) 694-5128
Paul Getsos or (646) 732-0041

Protester’s Demand U.S. Stay Committed to Global Agreement on Climate
Calls on Trump Administration to “Wake Up” to the Climate Crisis

Tomorrow morning, hours before White House meetings to discuss the future of the United States’ participation in the Paris Climate Agreement, hundreds of protesters will descend on the Trump Hotel with alarm clocks in an action to wake up people to the climate crisis and the Trump Administration’s failure to make action on climate a priority.

On Tuesday, President Trump is scheduled to sit down with EPA administer Scott Pruitt, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Ivanka Trump and others to discuss whether or not he will pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement.

The Peoples Climate Movement will be sending a message to the Administration negating the assertion that the Paris Agreement will hurt our families, communities and planet.

Who: Peoples Climate Movement and partners

What: The Peoples Climate Movement will flood the lobby of Trump Hotel early in the morning with a massive wake-up call to the president. A startlingly loud alarm clock will be rung to wake up hotel guests. Afterwards protesters will gather outside the EPA for a rally and then will block the building’s entrances.

Where: Trump Hotel, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave NW & Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW

When: Tuesday, May 9, 2016 from 7:00 – 9:30 AM EDT

Why: The Peoples Climate Movement demands that this administration commits to staying in the Paris Agreement, fully commit to implementing the Clean Power Plan, and go even further in terms of action to address climate to curb global warming.

Visuals: Protestors will come with a massive alarm clock meant to symbolize the wake-up call they’re sending the President and his advisors.

And just in case you still aren’t sure whether this is science or politics, here’s the organization’s self-description:

The Peoples Climate Movement is a broad based group of environmental, immigrant, youth, indigenous, Latino, racial justice, economic justice, and faith-based groups and labor unions demanding an economy and a government that works for working people and the planet.

You’d think that sometime, sooner or later, the world’s socialists and communists would learn that calling something “People’s …” is a sure tip-off. Where would you rather live? The “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” (North Korea) or just the Republic of Korea (South Korea)?



Featured image “Liberty Leading the People,” courtesy of Dennis Jarvis, Flickr Creative Commons.

]]> 0
Christianity in the Land of Hinduism and Buddhism Wed, 03 May 2017 15:42:24 +0000

According to census data from 2011, there are 27 million Christians in India, which constitutes 2.3 percent of the 1.3 billion population. But what is life like for these Christians? With me today is Vijay Jayaraj, the Research Associate for Developing Countries for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation to tell us more about Christianity in India.

]]> 0
Poison for the Mind: The Nation on CO2 and Global Warming Wed, 03 May 2017 15:13:16 +0000

What’s “a far more deadly gas” than the Sarin that Syrian President Bashar al Assad used to kill his own citizensprompting President Trump to respond with a missile attack?

Carbon dioxide.

Or so says The Nation. According to “The Other Poison Gas Killing Syrians: Carbon Dioxide Emissions,” by University of Michigan Professor of History Juan Cole, “If Trump and his cronies really cared about children killed by noxious gases, they wouldn’t be trying to spew ever more CO2 into the atmosphere.”

We could laugh at the ignorance of the author, the fact checkers (if any), and the editors. Or we could rage at their dishonesty. Or we could cry at the ignorance of trusting but deceived readers. Maybe we should do all three.

Time for an elementary lesson in toxicology.

A lethal dose of Sarin is about one-half milligram. The average person exhales over 1 million times as much CO2 per day—about 1.04 kilograms.

If CO2 is “far more deadly” than Sarin, the human race should have perished when the first human took the first breath.

Just a little more about CO2’s toxicity—or rather, lack thereof.

Occupational exposure standards for CO2 are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) average through a 40-hour work week and 3% (30,000 ppm) for short-term exposure.

But those standards are overcautious. The National Research Council reports that “Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm [0.35%] with a range of 0–10,600 ppm [0–0.16%], and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm [0.41%] with a range of 300–11,300 ppm [0.03–1.1%].” And we trust those submariners with control of nuclear ICBMs.

The breath we exhale contains about 40,000–53,000 ppm (4–5.3%) CO2.

Exposure to CO2 only becomes dangerous to life if prolonged more than a few minutes at (40,000 ppm).

Global average open-air CO2 concentration is about 407 parts per million (ppm) (0.04%).

So open-air CO2 concentration would have to be twelve-and-a-half times what it is today to reach the 40-hour work week standard; 74 times to reach the short-term exposure standard; and 98 times to reach the life-threatening level.

Rising at about 3 ppm per year, it will take 1,531 years to reach the work-week standard, 9,864 to reach the short-term standard; and 13,198 to reach the life-threatening level.

That’s sufficient to expose Professor Cole and The Nation’s gross errors. It should warn us not to trust Cole’s central claims: human-induced climate change caused the “severest drought in recorded modern Syrian history in 2007–10,” which “made its contribution” to the Syrian civil war, which killed 400,000 people, left 23 million homeless, and made 4 million refugees.

The problem is that the Syrian drought was caused primarily by non-climatic factors.

The Fertile Crescent, which includes Syria, experienced about a 7% decline in winter rainfall since 1930, most before 1980. That leaves only about 3% of the decline during allegedly man-made warming, post-1980. Average annual surface temperature rose by about 0.5 C˚ since 1930, again about half before 1980. Those are not enough to explain the drought or the conflict over water.

So what did cause them?

From 1930 to 2010, Syria’s population multiplied 11 times, and its industrial and agricultural water use multiplied even more. That meant greatly multiplied water consumption, and hence shortages, regardless of temperature or rainfall.

“Drought” designates not low rainfall but water shortage—which can be caused by decreased rainfall, increased consumption, or accelerated runoff.

Did higher temperature and lower rainfall contribute? Perhaps. But the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in its 2012 report on extreme weather that it was impossible to demonstrate a connection between global warming and increasing frequency or severity of extreme weather events, including droughts.

Even if global warming contributed somewhat to the rise in temperature and decline in rainfall, that doesn’t mean human activity drove it. IPCC’s computer models simulate warming from rising atmospheric CO2 at double the observed rate, and recent research has found that most, maybe all, of the warming was driven by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation coupled with changes in solar output and the 1977 “Pacific Shift,” not by CO2.

So, at most, human activity contributed only a small fraction of the global warming, therefore only a fraction of the rise in temperature and decline in rainfall in the Fertile Crescent, therefore only a fraction of a fraction of the drought, and therefore only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the conflict over water.

Even the conflict over water pales into insignificance compared with religious and political conflicts as causes of Syria’s civil war, the rise of ISIS, and the consequent refugee crisis.

This isn’t even to mention the benefits of increased CO2, but they are many.

Plants must have it for photosynthesis. Every doubling of it causes an average 35% increase in plant growth efficiency. With more CO2, plants grow better in warmer and cooler weather and in wetter and drier soil, make better use of soil nutrients, and resist diseases and pests better. Consequently, they expand their range and the range of all insects and animals, which depend on them, greening the earth and reducing risks of species extinction.

They also yield more fruit. The result is more food for everything that, directly or indirectly, eats plants. And the poor benefit the most because rising CO2 makes food more affordable.

Professor Cole’s claim that CO2, because it contributes to global warming, is “far more deadly” than Sarin gas is precisely opposite the truth. It is both ludicrous and vicious.

Originally published on Patriot Post.

Updated 5/5/17.

]]> 7