What's Actually Good for the Environment May Surprise You

By Amy Payne
Good news for Earth Day: We can boost energy production and economic growth without harming the environment!
Thanks to years of empty promises from the Left, politicians in Congress and the White House have installed all sorts of harmful policies that block energy production, jobs, and economic growth. But those policies have shown themselves to be counterproductive—they don’t deliver the benefits liberals promised, and they hurt Americans.

Here are two examples that may surprise you.
1. An oil pipeline is environmentally safe.
The Keystone XL pipeline, which President Obama just delayed again, has received an environmental green light multiple times—from this administration.
State Department impact reports have concluded “that the pipeline, a Canada-based project to deliver up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day to Gulf Coast refineries, would pose no significant environmental risk and would not contribute substantially to carbon dioxide emissions,” says Nicolas Loris, Heritage’s Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow.
Loris also notes that the project “has bipartisan support, the backing of several unions, and approval from former energy and interior secretaries.”
The pipeline would bring jobs and would help provide additional oil supply. “With high economic benefits and minimal environmental impact, this project should be a no-brainer,” Loris says. But elections seem to be a problem for Keystone. After a promise to decide the pipeline’s fate by 2011, President Obama postponed the project through the 2012 election—and this latest delay pushes a decision past the midterms.
2. Biofuels are not better for the environment.
Here’s another case where central planners promised they knew what was best for us—and it’s not working out. In fact, it’s costing us.
A new study out this week concluded that biofuels aren’t the “clean” alternative to gasoline that advocates promised. In fact, producing biofuels can release more greenhouse gases than using gasoline.
It’s been known for years that biofuels aren’t as environmentally friendly as we were first told. Heritage’s Loris wrote last year that “After accounting for land-use conversion, the use of fertilizers, insecticides, and pesticides, as well as the fossil fuels used for production and distribution, biofuel production is quite carbon-intensive.”
Even if unintended, the consequences of mandating ethanol production and use in gasoline have been disastrous. Loris reports:

The mandate promised less dependence on foreign oil, lower fuel prices, and fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of delivering on these promises, the mandate delivered concentrated benefits to politically connected producers and higher costs to America’s energy consumers.

Whether it’s blocking helpful developments or mandating harmful ones, the government isn’t getting environmental policy right. That’s why The Heritage Foundation’s American Conservation Ethic includes the principle that the most successful environmental policies come from liberty.

EPA ‘Jetting Around the Country’ for Week-Long Earth Day Tour

By Elizabeth Sheld
The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility took a swipe at the EPA for sending bureaucrat Gina McCarthy on an greenhouse gas generating five city tour for Earth Day.
Administrator McCarthy will undertake a greenhouse gas laden week-long tour that will "far exceed" any benefit from her climate change proselytizing.

“Frenetically jetting around the country appears to undercut [the] EPA’s message to ordinary Americans that they should conserve, consume less and reduce transportation pollution,” PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch said in a statement.

McCarthy will be participating in "various events to...focus on responsible steps to cut carbon pollution to slow the effects of climate change" in New York, Boston, Cleveland, Atlanta and Memphis.
Some activities on the tour were called into question.

Ruch noted that some events on McCarthy’s itinerary have questionable ties to promoting climate action, such as joining Energy Secretary Moniz to throw out the ceremonial first pitch at Tuesday's Red Sox vs. Yankees baseball game at Boston's Fenway Park.

Ruch went on to note:
“[The] EPA touts this tour as meaningful but this agency’s effectiveness in public education is not measurable. While Ms. McCarthy is an engaging individual she is hardly a charismatic figure whose mere presence galvanizes public action.”
For shame.

IRS Strips Conservative Group of Tax-Exempt Status Over Anti-Hillary Remarks

By Becket Adams
The IRS has stripped a conservative group of its tax-exempt status following the group’s repeated criticism of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her successor, John Kerry.
The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty “has shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications,” the IRS said in a written determination explaining its decision to revoke the group’s status.
Losing its tax-exempt status means contributions to the Virginia-based conservative group are no longer tax deductible.
The Patrick Henry Center was among several organizations listed in a February notice that had lost their tax-exempt status, but the IRS letter released Friday explained the agency’s reasoning for doing so.
Although the Patrick Henry Center’s name was redacted from the IRS letter, the case aligns closely with recent statements made by leaders of the conservative group, USA Today reported.
The IRS said the group forfeited its status by promoting regularly politically charged articles written by Patrick Henry Center founder Gary Aldrich, a former FBI agent.
In a 2004 article, Aldrich wrote of then-Democratic presidential candidate Kerry, “if John Kerry promises otherwise ill-informed swing-voters lower gas prices at the pump, more than a few greedy, registered ignoramuses will follow him anywhere.”
In another anti-Kerry article in 2004, Aldrich wrote: “I’m quite certain Senator John Kerry will be a ‘hero’ to today’s peaceniks, anarchists and any others who hate Amerika. But for the more than 50,000 Vietnam Veterans whose names appear on the Vietnam Memorial, Senator John Kerry is nothing but a skunk.”
“Let’s see what happens when he brings his medals to the first presidential debate. I’m willing to bet George W. Bush will have no trouble dealing with this coward,” he wrote.
...Later, in 2005, Aldrich wrote an article titled, “Stop Hillary Now!” The article encouraged “Clinton haters” to get out the word on Hillary’s “atrocious conduct,” the Washington Times reported.
By promoting these articles with alerts on its website, the IRS said, the Patrick Henry Center acted as an “action organization,” thereby violating rules that state tax-exempt groups, in this case a 501(c)(3), must refrain from engaging in electoral politics.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said last week that his agency and the U.S. Treasury Department are discussing defining the meaning of “candidate-related political activities.”

CNBC vs. NBC: Did Democrat Donor Influence Latest Keystone Delay?

By Jeffrey Meyer
Following the latest delay, NBC mostly ignored the story, giving it a paltry 18-seconds on the Saturday April 19 Today. Keystone was briefly mentioned on Sunday’s Meet the Press during an interview between moderator David Gregory and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL). CNBC’s Squawk Box was the only NBC program to mention that Democratic billionaire and environmentalist Tom Steyer had pledged $100 million for Democratic candidates on the condition that Keystone not be approved.

Petition to denounce Tom Steyer

By Thomas Lifson
At change.org, a petition has been posted by Sunny Berman for online signatures denouncing billionaire Tom Steyer for his far more self-interested political donations, and promises of a hundred million bucks for candidates who oppose the Keystone pipeline, while profiting from subsidized green energy projects.
Tom Steyer is using his vast fortune to pervert the political process and, by destroying competition for his American-based “green” energy projects, to enrich himself at the expense of the American people.
Steyer’s personal net worth is estimated at $1.6 billion, making him a 1 percenter among 1 percenters. He recently made news when he pledged to use this vast personal fortune to fund Democrat candidates to the tune of $100 million in 2014 in exchange for their efforts to oppose the Keystone pipeline.
On average, coal output on projects that Farallon funded has almost doubled thanks to Farallon’s (and, therefore, Steyer’s) contributions. It’s worth noting here that many of these projects occurred in countries that do not enforce strict emission controls on the coal industry.
Thanks to these investments, Farallon may well be the single largest private coal investor in the world. The Koch brothers, by contrast, own a now defunct coal mine that, at its peak, produced .04% of the production from the coal mines in Farallon’s portfolio. It’s therefore reasonable to believe that Farallon has profited to the tune of around $400 million thanks to his company’s overseas investments in coal production.
Like any good 19th century robber baron, Steyer doesn’t mind getting his hands dirty abroad, but likes to keep his image clean at home. There is no evidence that he has remorse for the coal his money has produced overseas, or for the land and lives despoiled, or for the CO2 emission that coal created. He has not confessed and repented; nor has he used his vast wealth to remediate the damage to both people and the environment that his profitable investments caused.
Steyer seeks to earn a halo from environmentalists here at home, as well as to increase his profits in the green energy sector, by using his coal money to deny Americans the jobs and lower energy costs that would result from the Keystone pipeline. He should be denounced and condemned in the strongest terms by the greatest number of people.

Obama Sends Strongest Signal Yet that He Expects Democrats to Lose the Senate

By Bryan Preston
If Democrats lose the Senate this fall, Barack Obama loses the lynchpin of his lawlessness. The Senate in Harry Reid’s grubby hands has killed Obamacare repeal bills by the bushel and keeps every possibility of holding Obama accountable at bay. But the Senate in GOP hands can, and likely will, open a slew of investigations that have been locked in the House or stymied outright up to now. For Obama, facing a House Oversight Committee investigation into the IRS scandal is one thing. Facing investigations in both the House and Senate, and the probability of select committees investigating various things, with John McCain and a newly empowered Ted Cruz and Mike Lee baying at him, is another thing entirely.
The Senate can impeach.* I don’t expect that to actually happen, but the threat alone is bracing. As long as Harry Reid controlled the Senate, there was no threat at all.
Now, with polls showing the Democrats’ Senate majority in major trouble, Barack Obama is lawyering up.

President Obama on Monday said he has selected W. Neil Eggleston to become chief counsel, adding the expertise of a veteran attorney who was involved in some of the most heated legal battles of the Clinton administration.

Obamacare exchange paying Planned Parenthood employees to enroll people in plans

By Patrick Howley
California’s Obamacare exchange Covered California is paying Planned Parenthood employees for each person that they enroll in Obamacare.
“Certified Enrollment Entities are paid a flat-fee of $58 per successful application and $25 per successful annual renewal. The Enrollment Entities compensate the individual Enrollment Counselors,” according to California Health Benefit Advisers.
Thirty-eight different Planned Parenthood clinics in the state are listed as certified enrollment entities, according to state exchange records.

The truth behind Obamacare’s phony 8 Million signups

By Robert Hutchinson

...Polling data has revealed that a substantial portion of the 8 million signups have come from two sources: previously insured people who had their “substandard” private policies cancelled by government edicts and were forced to buy Obamacare policies to replace them… and people signing up for free coverage through Medicaid.
Last December, the Associated Press estimated that 4.7 million Americans lost their coverage due to Obamacare rules.
In other words: Obama rigged the system so millions of people would have their insurance policies cancelled… and now is bragging that those same millions have purchased the only alternative now on offer, his government-run plans.
...But that only tells half the story. Many Obamacare plans are just as much “catastrophe” plans as the ones they are replacing: Bronze and Silver policies have high deductibles of $6,500 or more… and family caps as high as $12,500. In other words, families will still pay thousands of dollars out of pocket for many health services.
When the reality of that finally sinks in, many consumers will stop paying their premiums… especially when, as many experts predict, they increase substantially after this November’s elections.

...In other words: Obama rigged the system so millions of people would have their insurance policies cancelled… and now is bragging that those same millions have purchased the only alternative now on offer, his government-run plans.
It would be like a stickup man robbing you of your wallet and then bragging that he’s a humanitarian because he’s willing to loan you some money… at 25% interest.
The truth that the U.S. media are carefully covering up is that Obamacare is horrendously expensive for what you get.

5 Ways Obama Has Destroyed The Rule Of Law In America

By John Hawkins
...Tell me why any American should respect the law?
Because it's moral? Not necessarily. Slavery was once the law of the land. Abortion is the law of the land today. Even in a nation like America, it's not unusual for laws to be unfair, unjust, and even immoral.
Is it because laws represent the will of the people? Not anymore. Today, the "law" is often summarily created from murky statutes by unelected bureaucrats who face no consequences for destroying people's lives.
Well, is the law at least equally applied? Absolutely not. Your political affiliation and how well connected you are to the regime in charge can have a direct bearing on whether you're prosecuted for breaking the law and how serious the penalty will be.
So, what's left?
Respect for the law? Why should anyone respect arbitrary, immoral laws that aren't equally applied and don't reflect the will of the people? Under Barack Obama, the "law" in this country has become nothing more than whatever you can get away with and we're likely to feel the consequences of that for decades to come.
1) Obamacare is whatever Barack Obama says it is: Barack Obama has no more legal right to change Obamacare all by his lonesome than Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, or for that matter, Justin Bieber does. He simply doesn't have the legal authority to delay the employer mandate, delay taxes that are written into law, or give subsidies through federal exchanges to places where no state exchange was set up. Yet, Obama has delayed or changed the meaning of the law 19 times as if he were Kim Jong- un, as opposed to the President of a republic. 2) There are different laws for Tea Parties and the Occupy Movement: In city after city, the Occupy Movement was allowed to protest without expensive permits, participants were allowed to illegally camp and in some places they were allowed to break the law with impunity, which is why it's so staggering that there were still almost 8,000 arrests by the time all the dirty hippies abandoned their tents and rape-free zones to go home and take showers. Meanwhile, Tea Party groups across the country weren't given any similar breaks.

Liberals Digging Their Political Graves

By Christopher Chantrill

...Liberals do not think about the real meat of political philosophy, which is not to design a perfect political system with perfect justice, but to deal with the real problem: rulers and their appetite for power. Liberals worry instead about how to flush out the racists, sexists, and homophobes that are lurking in the woods waiting their chance to turn back the clock on glorious progressive achievements. Their concern is that the ruling class of liberals doesn't have enough power to do good.

...Suppose you were to be the Republican nominee for president in 2016 and you were cudgeling your brain figuring out how to light a fire under the 4 million voters that didn't get out to the polls to vote for Mitt Romney in 2012. An aide comes in with some PowerPoint slides describing an America where liberals had forbidden conservatives to organize, where the IRS and the Justice Department had conspired to harass and maybe even criminally prosecute ordinary American citizens because they didn't fill in their incomprehensible government forms properly. The last slide has the quote from the Democratic president who had airily declared one day in 2014 that there wasn't a “smidgen” of evidence of corruption at Lois Lerner's IRS. The GOP nominee would say: where do we send the thank-you note?

I have a new catchphrase for all this: “Governing makes you stupid.”

I Will Not 'Go Gentle into That Good Night'

By Jim Yardley

....Under the leadership (or perhaps diktats would be a more accurate term) of Barack Obama, our government (you know, the one that is “of the people, by the people, for the people”) seems to have decided that the “people” are now superfluous and can be ignored. If they choose not to be ignored, they will be harassed, oppressed, threatened, and (if Lois Lerner had her way) imprisoned for their desire to speak loudly in defense of the traditions and values that made this nation the greatest and most free society that has ever existed on the planet.

So how will we, individually and collectively, respond to the approach of that “good night” marking the end of a great nation? Speaking as an individual, I will never be silenced, nor can I be intimidated by the mouthings of a poseur in the White House, nor by any of his lackeys who populate the various executive departments. I will never stop writing what I believe to be truth. I might occasionally be wrong, but I will never try to communicate something untrue.

But how about collectively? How should we, as a nation of men and women, not children, respond to the threat of the death of our country; our way of life; and the values, hopes, dreams beliefs, and faith in what our Founders planned and built for us?

Dylan Thomas provided us an answer in the last line of his poem:

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

It is time, and past, for us to show rage at what Obama and his thugs are trying to do to us. We are not slaves. We are those who still believe in a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” We still look at America as that shining city on the hill, and we still grow misty-eyed when we hear "The Star-Spangled Banner" played (even if we admit to ourselves that it’s a really terrible piece of music).

We should not – no, actually, we must not – show bestial rage like the animals that populated the Occupy crowd. But display civil disobedience – not violence or destruction of property or physical assaults – against the proto-fascists so favored by the Obama regime.

Think civil disobedience would be a waste of time? It could be that you’re right. Of course, there have been people here and there throughout history who would disagree on that.

Mahatma Gandhi would head the list, with Rosa Parks standing at his side. Our own Thomas Jefferson once said: “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” Bishop Desmond Tutu went even farther when he said: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” And the icon of the civil rights movement, Dr. Martin Luther King, expressed the same sentiment when he said: “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

And what is more a civil right than those expressly guaranteed in our Constitution?

It’s fair to point out that Mr. Gandhi, Ms. Parks, and Dr. King at the very least have proven that civil disobedience on a massive scale can be extremely effective. That is the best way I can imagine to exhibit our rage. Even the mouthpieces of the Obama administration, such as the New York Times, would have a hard time burying a headline that read, “100,000 Arrested for Disobedience.”

Now that would be a headline.

Why are the cops punishing Common Core opponents?

By Robby Soave
A school district asked the police to prohibit certain students from setting foot on school property because their parents had privacy concerns about Common Core-aligned standardized testing, and wished to opt their kids out.
The incident happened at Marietta City Schools in Marietta, Georgia. The Finney family didn’t want their three children — in third grade, fifth grade and ninth grade — to participate in the state-mandated Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests, partly because of the vast amounts of data the government is collecting about their children, and partly because they think the tests don’t serve a compelling educational interest, according to The Marietta Daily Journal.
Their sentiments are shared by a growing number of parents around the country, who increasingly see standardized tests as a costly bureaucratic tool that allows the government to gather personal information about kids. Criticisms of the tests are closely linked to criticisms of Common Core, the new national education curriculum standards that are fiercely opposed by both conservative grassroots and teachers unions.
“They are collecting data on our children,” said Mary Finney in a statement. “Now, with Common Core there is such a large amount of information and data collected on children. People don’t realize it. We don’t want to sound like we’re wearing tin-foil hats, but they want to track our kids from kindergarten through college.”
The Finney family attempted to opt out of the tests, but administrators were unsure whether they were legally permitted to do so.
And then — at West Side Elementary School — a police officer barred the Finneys from setting foot on school property.
If the kids weren’t going to take the tests, their presence at school was a “kind of trespassing thing,” according to the officer.

By Bryan Preston
Prof. Brent Terry teaches Introduction to Creative Writing at Eastern Connecticut State University. In a lecture Monday morning, he said that Republicans are “racist, misogynistic, money-grubbing people” who want to turn the clock back and keep blacks and Latinos from voting. The Republican Party was founded to end slavery while the Democrats started a civil war to preserve slavery, but ESCU’s history department probably doesn’t teach that. He also said that if the Republicans win the Senate this fall, America will be a “very, very different kind of country” in which colleges will start closing up.
Campus Reform reports that the audio was captured by a student, who wishes to remain anonymous. ESCU has released a statement saying “Our faculty has academic freedom to conduct their classes in whatever way they choose, this is not a university matter.”
Just another day in academia.

Years of Living Hypocritically: Five Alarmist Celebs and Their Double Standards

By Sean Long

They may be good at making movies, but Hollywood celebrities’ lifestyles are far from an environmentalist’s dream. Their globetrotting, multiple mansion owning ways are inconsistent with the environmental agenda they loudly promote.

Showtime’s new climate change series, “Years of Living Dangerously,” premiered April 13, 2014, slightly more than a week before Earth Day 2014. It relies on several wealthy, Hollywood celebrities to spread fear about climate change. While these actors and directors talk a lot about reducing carbon footprints and saving the world, they haven’t given up their own enormous mansions and private jets.

Director James Cameron, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and actors Harrison Ford, Matt Damon and Ian Somerhalder who are worth a collective $1.2 billion, according to Celebrity Net Worth, were just some of the Hollywood types involved in Showtime’s nine-part series.

Through “Years of Living Dangerously,” each of these men sound the alarm about environmental threats, yet -- by their own standards -- their lifestyles do more harm to the environment than that of the average citizen. Cameron maintains multiple estates and a fleet of fossil-fuel burning vehicles, while Somerhalder boasts online about his frequent international flights while complaining that the conventional gas engine needs to go and London cabs need to be retrofitted and made cleaner.

These are the top five environmental hypocrites from “Years of Living Dangerously.”

1. Arnold Schwarzenegger Linked to Deforestation, Criticized for Private Jet Commuting

Arnold Schwarzenegger, who joined the Showtime series as both executive producer and an on-screen correspondent, has a long history of both climate alarmism and environmental hypocrisy. Incidentally, the former governor is worth $300 million, according to Celebrity Net Worth.

One of the first stories in “Years of Living Dangerously” decried the role of deforestation in contributing to climate change. Specifically, the series blamed Indonesian deforestation on its government and on companies involved in the palm oil industry.

But Schwarzenegger must have ignored the episodes featuring Harrison Ford addressing the problem of deforestation. On March 27, 2014, Business Insider cited a report from the non-profit Global Witness which claimed Schwarzenegger profited heavily from palm oil-related deforestation and that he was invested in one of these companies.

“Ironically, some of the same companies that are responsible for the worst abuses are among the holdings of Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA), the $US338 billion fund of which Mr. Schwarzenegger is estimated to own some 5%,” Business Insider wrote.

But that isn’t the only instance of eco-hypocrisy on the part of the Governator. As governor of California his actions didn’t reflect a desire to reduce his personal carbon emissions. Rather than living in the state capital of Sacramento, Schwarzenegger continued to live in his massive Southern California mansion, commuting over 300 miles to work. This commute wasn’t too difficult for him since he flew his private jet to work multiple times a week, according to Ecorazzi.

The Los Angeles Times, in 2008, reported estimates from the Helium Report noting that Schwarzenegger’s jet “does nearly as much damage to the environment in one hour as a small car does in a year.”

2. James Cameron Lives Lavishly While Saying ‘Live With Less’

James Cameron, worth $700 million thanks to a successful film career with highlights like “Titanic” and “Avatar,” was an executive producer of “Years of Living Dangerously.” Cameron has been outspoken against those skeptical of climate change calling them “swine,” according to Ecorazzi, and “boneheads” that he wanted to “shoot it out with.”

More troubling still, in 2010 Cameron said, “I believe in ecoterrorism,” according to Breitbart.

Cameron has also pushed an eco-friendly lifestyle, at least in public remarks. In 2010, he said, “it will be a dying world if we don’t make some fundamental changes about how we view ourselves and how we view wealth,” the Los Angeles Times reported. He continued, “We’re going to have to live with less.”

But Cameron certainly doesn’t appear to be living with less. The Independent (UK) reported in 2010 that he owned three houses in Southern California (including prestigious Malibu) that take up more than 24,000 square feet combined and “each have heated swimming fuels,” but they are sorely lacking in “a single energy-saving solar panel or windmill.”

Similarly, filmmakers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer said Cameron owns “a JetRanger helicopter, three Harleys … a collection of dirt bikes, a yacht, a Humvee firetruck” and most preposterously “a fleet of submarines.”

This certainly doesn’t sound like a man personally committed to “living with less.”

3. Harrison Ford Loves to ‘Fly Up the Coast for a Cheeseburger’

Harrison Ford, beloved by many as movie fans for his roles as Han Solo and Indiana Jones, appears conflicted between his love of flying and his worship of nature.

In the first episode of “Years of Living Dangerously,” Ford declared “I needed something outside of myself to believe in and I found in nature a kind of god.” This conviction apparently led him towards climate alarmism and concern about carbon emissions.

This same reverence must not be present, however, when he burns literally tons of fossil fuels piloting his fleet of aircraft. According to Breitbart, Ford gave a 2010 interview with Live magazine where he revealed that he is “passionate about flying” and will “often fly up the coast for a cheeseburger.”

Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported in 2010 that Ford, who is worth $210 million, owns “several aircraft.” The Mirror (UK) revealed in 2013 that this fleet was joined by a Bell Jet Ranger helicopter. That extravagance is hypocritical given Ford’s warnings about the danger of fossil fuels and carbon emissions.

4. Matt Damon: Bashes Natural Gas with Foreign Oil Money

Matt Damon, who has starred in many films including the Bourne trilogy, is yet another green hypocrite on the team of “Years of Living Dangerously.” In an upcoming episode, Damon will discuss climate change’s supposed role in heat waves. He has a history, however, of inaccurately and hypocritically promoting environmentalism.

Damon, who is personally worth $75 million, co-wrote and starred in a widely hyped anti-fracking film called “Promised Land” which opened on Dec. 28, 2012. The film portrayed greedy and ruthless natural gas companies, intent on extorting drilling rights from poor farmers.

But “Promised Land” which bombed at the box office, was financed in part by Image Nation, a film company completely owned and operated by the oil-rich government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

“Promised Land” was produced “in association with” Image Media Abu Dhabi which was owned wholly by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). According to the CIA World Factbook, UAE exported $166 billion of crude oil in 2013. UAE is also a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Climate alarmists are quick to attack climate skeptics with allegations of fossil fuel funding, but Damon was somehow able to remain a high-profile environmentalist in spite of the connection.

5. Ian Somerhalder Tweets His Love for ‘Global Trotting’

Ian Somerhalder, most famous for his role as Boone on “Lost,” is also involved with “Years of Living Dangerously.”

He’s thrilled to be working on Showtime’s documentary and tweeted, “Couldn’t be more proud to watch this dream come true. CHECK OUT EPISODE 1 OF YEARS #YEARSProject,” celebrity website Wetpaint said.

Reports suggest he will bash the coal industry in his climate alarmist portion of the program. Although not nearly as wealthy as many of the other celebrities on this list, with his $4 million net worth, Somerhalder is just as hypocritical.

Twitchy reported a series of embarrassing tweets that expose Somerhalder’s elitism and environmental double standards.

On May 7, 2013, Somerhalder complained in a tweet about airlines’ carbon output, saying “Airlines should look at their carbon output&plant trees to offset pollution. Anyone want to calculate what aBoeing 777 puts into the air?”

Surrounding this tweet, however, Somerhalder excitedly documented his personal flights to China, Spain, Canada, Russia, Hungary, Italy, France, Belgium, England and both coasts of the United States. While admitting that these flights emitted large amounts of carbon emissions, he gushed over this “Whirlwind of global trotting” just a day earlier on May 6.

Somerhalder’s also used his tweets to call for other people to make expensive changes in order to benefit the environment. While in London in June 2013, Twitchy said he tweeted “I LOVE London but you guys have got to get cleaner-burning engines in these Black London Taxis. Retrofit the old ones please-its not right…”

Similarly, Somerhalder declared on May 7, 2013, that it was “time to end conventional gas engine” simply because he “can’t open [his] window b/c of the exhaust coming off of street.”