Biden Admin

United States Department of…Bloomberg?

, 0

Biden Treasury Dept. Tried to Hide Emails with Bloomberg NEF Official Pushing Climate Agenda With Claim That Correspondence Was Intra-governmental; is Bloomberg NEF Serving as Consultants to Biden Admin on ‘climate’?

Courtesy of government-transparency group Energy Policy Advocates (EPA), the following was obtained in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation. It represents a curious sequence. First, note a particular, heavily redacted email:

Who is this Biden Treasury official, Ethan Zindler, whose email address Treasury also felt compelled to shield, EPA asked? Well, he’s, um, not:

As the email address no doubt shows; which Treasury no doubt knows as it also very deliberately redacted said email address. For which there is no apparent compelling reason, though it’s a nice tell that they decided to hide it too. Buried in a big doc production, maybe no one will notice.

b5 protects “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters” from release and, under certain circumstances, correspondence with outside consultants. Hmm.

So, what’s with the redaction as “b5” deliberative process of a discussion between a senior, actual Treasury official and a Bloomberg New Energy Finance rep? “The Company helps corporate strategy, finance and policy professionals navigate, change, and generate opportunities.”

EPA asked just that. Treasury came back with this, upon reconsideration:

Here we see Bloomberg New Energy Finance explaining to a senior Treasury appointee how she should do her job, specifically by somewhat feverishly laying out the full-monty of a “whole of government approach” to jamming into place this death-blow of a policy agenda to reliable energy despite/because Congress never approved it.  Following up on their Zoom conversation.

Inherently, none of the hidden lobbying was eligible to be declared b5…as Treasury knew, having redacted the Bloomberg guy’s non-gov address. It’s just, eh, this is embarrassing let’s call it deliberative. Unless Bloomberg NEF is a Biden admin consultant on their shared climate agenda (or the admin thought they’d try it anyway to shield this).

And in unredacting it, Treasury then withheld some as b6, instead. FOIA’s b6 exemption protects information about individuals in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”. Ah. Except the first release, which was redacted almost in full but, again, solely as b5 “deliberative” correspondence, had no mention of such information being withheld out of necessity (just as there is no reason to conclude, from the context but now also the history of this document, the document contained is b6 information). It must be really bad?

Regardless, is Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which so breathlessly touts — as an expert outlet, a “strategic research provider” — the same agenda pushed by the Biden administration — a Treasury Department consultant?

 

Censorship Update — FOIA’d Email: “Special Climate Envoy” Kerry Came in With Plans to “Engage” Facebook

, 0

This email dated two days before the Biden inauguration comes to us courtesy of government-transparency group Energy Policy Advocates, which obtained the doc in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation with the Biden State Department for certain records about “Special Climate Envoy” John Kerry‘s ethics, disclosure, and recusal paperwork.

State produced to EPA a tranche of documents which appear to be mistakenly released here and meant for someone else. But it also at long last began its grudging effort to comply with the FOIA request with 16 pages of heavily redacted emails (fully half of them completely redacted, “white page” redactions in full). One of the partly withheld emails caught our eye.

Kerry came in to this ad hoc position (circumventing confirmation) with a plan to “engage” Facebook on climate. :

Thanks to FOIA productions we know that Kerry has a long record of very close collaboration with one of the worst of the banks on this issue, Bank of America, as SecState, to advance the climate agenda. Amazon, we know all about its Net Zero push.
But, Facebook, what ever could that possibly mean… Ah, yes…Facebook has an “independent fact checker” it alerts about climate realism that gets attention, one of the main tools being used to censor Lomborg, Koonin, Shellenberger, PragerU and others.
Paging @johnstossel (tip of the hat to his cheeky use of the platform to fight back, BTW).

#SOTU in Review

, 0

Former GAO Board Member Horner Updates GAO’s Pre-SOTU Prescience, Courtesy of The Pipeline

GAO previously wondered aloud what it must have been like for a Biden White House aide tasked with writing this week’s State of the Union address. Having spent weeks crafting an opus of appeals to Congress over Biden’s “climate” agenda, reality barges in and scrambles the planned approach.

Quickly, squandering the inheritance of energy dominance, and ushering in a U.S. equivalent of Germany’s disastrous energy policies here — with a reliance on China for rare earth-mineral dependent ‘renewables’ more than a Russian pipeline if, yes, increased reliance on Russian oil — went from being weirdly out-of-touch with Americans to utterly disconnected from reality.

What to do?

Unfortunately, adjusting to events and scrapping old plans until better times hopefully return was not the option chosen. Acknowledging how policy mistakes have brought the world to this week’s deadly and further-perilous point is therefore plainly out of the question.

Instead, Tuesday night’s speech, after opening with supportive words for Ukraine itself, was otherwise oblivious to the fact of Western Europe now lying prostrate — cornered by its own obsession with Green New Deal policies (called “Net Zero” over there) into near-total reliance on intermittent energy and unreliable foreign sources of traditional hydrocarbons.

For a few days the line coming from Europe and the Biden administration was a unified one, that the “Ukraine turmoil” shows “fossil fuels” are clearly bad and it’s time to go harder on the windmills-and-sun-catcher fantasy. Apparently, the world only just recently started down that path, and have been insufficiently committed to it or something.

Germany has spent the most time and money pushing this agenda and, as is now well-known, is the worst offamong its neighbors for the effort from both economic and national security perspectives. Encouragingly, over the weekend Germany made several “about-face” announcements giving hope that maybe the dogmatic slow-learners in government there are somewhat teachable. A Monday Wall Street Journal headline noted, “Germany’s Climate Left Gets Serious: Greens in Berlin start to make responsible energy trade-offs. Is President Biden listening?”.

That said, as of now Germany still plans to shut down three nuclear power plants this year, in favor of more reliance on Putin’s gas. Dogma and donors are cruel mistresses.

Back here, pre-speech trial balloons told us that, because real energy infrastructure “would take years,” that’s a no-go. And Tuesday night, we heard the now-ritual, “We’ll build a national network of 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations…”, and the apparently immediate solution of “double America’s clean energy production in solar, wind and so much more [and] lower the price of electric vehicles, saving you another $80 a month that you’ll never have to pay at the pump.”

In normal times, the most galling line might have been the promise that more Green New Deal-style policies will “cut energy costs for families an average of $500 a year by combating climate change.” After years of confessions that energy costs will have to skyrocket, “necessarily,” and “climate change needs higher energy bills,” joining headlines blaring “Energy bills will have to rise sharply to avoid climate crisis, says IMF,” this gamble on public amnesia showed that selling an ideological agenda is what matters.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki previewed this business-as-usual approach on ABC’s This Week. A mere eight of the past nine presidents have used the State of the Union speech to push expensive governmental interventions in the name of a renewable energy agenda to replace what works and lies underneath American soil in abundance (the virtues of which Trump deviated from the norm to extoll). Tuesday made that 9 of 10.

In 2011 the Competitive Enterprise Institute took this Punxsutawney preaching on, in a video noting the Obama-Biden’s embrace of the tired pose. CEI’s video opened with The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart also picking up on the same thing a year earlier, if with the endearingly naïve hope that this time it would be different.

If only this had been explored in a West Wing episode. Alas, here we go again.

Like the Europeans now reaping the climate-policy whirlwind, President Biden and his party are too heavily invested in the matter with their base and (like a growing flock of Republicans) their donors to let go.

Biden’s use of the State of the Union reflected an unnerving resistance to change course in the face when certain inevitable consequences of the “green” agenda came home to roost. Demanding more of the same last night, faster, was simply irresponsible. Failing to exploit one’s own, plentiful resources in fealty to the Green Blob has proved a “lesson in energy masochism.”

Western Europeans for years complained the U.S. was too slow to follow their examples on “climate” and energy policy. Tuesday night was a plea for ideological priorities. Existing law allows Biden to resume actual policies grounded in real-world experience. The world should hope that in coming weeks the Biden administration joins, yes, the German Left to acknowledge the world we live in, holsters the green dogma, and does what’s best.

What the Signs Say About 2022 #SOTU on the Energy Security Front: Faster US Adoption of EU “Climate” Agenda the Rational Response to Europe Crisis

, 0

“All of these are unnerving symptoms of how distracted this team are by ideological hobby horses, no matter how many wake-up calls reality arranges for them.”

Imagine being a Biden White House aide tasked with writing tonight’s State of the Union address. Having spent weeks crafting an opus of appeals to Congress over Biden’s “climate” agenda, reality barges in and scrambles the whole build-back-better, ‘our greatest threat is climate change’ narrative. At least, one would think.

Squandering the inheritance of energy dominance, and ushing a U.S. equivalent of Germany’s disastrous energy policies here — with a reliance on China for rare earth-mineral dependent ‘renewables’ more than a Russian pipeline if, yes, increased reliance on Russian oil — now moves from being bizarrely out-of-touch with Americans to absurdly disconnected from reality.

What to do?

All signs are that adjusting to events and scrapping old plans until better times hopefully return was not a consideration. Acknowledging how policy mistakes have brought the world to this week’s deadly and further-perilous point is therefore plainly out of the question.

Pre-SOTU speech trial balloons suggest that Tuesday’s State of the Union speech will labor to style the Biden administration’s obsession with the “climate” and anti-fossil fuel agenda as the rational response to this world thrust before us in recent days. He and his party are too heavily invested in the matter with their base and their donors to let go — just last week the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy held its first “roundtable” to examine how science can help fix the problem of people not buying into adopting Europe’s disastrous agenda here.

Instead, expect a lecture oblivious to Europe now lying prostrate — cornered by its own obsession with Green New Deal policies (called “Net Zero” over there) into near-total reliance on a Putin-led Russia to keep the lights and heat on.

The line coming from Europe and the Biden administration was for days a unified one, that hydrocarbons (“fossil fuels”) are clearly bad and the “Ukraine turmoil” shows it’s time to go harder on the windmills-and-sun-catcher fantasy. Apparently, the world only just recently started down that path, and have been insufficiently committed to it or something.

Meanwhile, because real energy infrastructure “would take years,” that’s a no-go. Instead, tonight I call for $X billions to build a nationwide EV charging network by 2030…

White House press secretary Jen Psaki previewed this approach on ABC’s This Week. It should sound vaguely familiar. A mere eight of the past nine presidents have used the State of the Union speech to push expensive governmental interventions in the name of a renewable energy agenda to replace what works and lies underneath American soil in abundance (the virtues of which Trump deviated from the norm to extoll). Tuesday will make that 9 of 10.

In 2011 the Competitive Enterprise Institute took this Punxsutawney policy on, in a video noting the Obama-Biden’s embrace of the tired pose. CEI had some fun with the fact that, a year earlier, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart had also picked up on the same thing if with the endearingly naïve hope that this time, it would be different.

If only this had been explored in a West Wing episode. Alas, here we go again.

Meanwhile, closer to ‘Ground Net-Zero,’ London-based Net Zero Watch titled its February 27, 2022, roundup of news items about energy and environment policy — and the relevant economic and national security impacts — “Putin’s war on Ukraine changes everything.”

It should. However, the same group tweeted out a story quoting Executive Vice-President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans declaring that “Putin threatens Ukraine because he wants to divert attention from climate problem”. You see the real threat here in our policymakers’ minds. This echoes sentiments from Biden’s “Special Climate Envoy” John Kerry fretting that Putin’s invasion will distract from Kerry’s imagined “war against climate change.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board captured the moment:

“But Mr. Kerry’s comments aren’t a gaffe. They reveal the Biden Administration’s obsession with climate, and with punishing fossil-fuel production, which has made the U.S. and Europe vulnerable to Mr. Putin’s energy blackmail. The climate lobby has made Mr. Putin more powerful. Every time Mr. Kerry visits Moscow, the boys in the Kremlin must think it’s Christmas.”

Germany has spent the most time and money pushing this agenda and, as is now well-known, is the worst offfor it from an economic and national security perspective. Over the weekend, Germany made several “about-face” announcements giving hope that maybe the dogmatic slow-learners in government there are somewhat teachable. A Monday Journal headline on February 28, 2022, noted, “Germany’s Climate Left Gets Serious: Greens in Berlin start to make responsible energy trade-offs. Is President Biden listening?”.

That said, as of now Germany still plans to shut down three nuclear power plants this week, in favor of more reliance on Putin’s gas.

Pre-SOTU speech trial balloons suggest that Tuesday’s State of the Union speech will labor to style the Biden administration’s obsession with the “climate” and anti-fossil fuel agenda as the rational response to this world thrust before us in recent days. He and his party are too heavily invested in the matter with their base and their donors to let go — just last week the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy held its first “roundtable” to examine how science can help fix the problem of people not buying into adopting Europe’s disastrous agenda here.

In Congress, the House Oversight Committee is in the midst of a “year-long” investigation to pursue scapegoats for Congress’s inability to persuade the public to accept the “climate” agenda — guided by consultants provided to it by donors such as George Soros and Pierre Omidyar to help steer the subpoenaing enterprise.

Accepting in-kind staff work on its face appears to violate House Rules and federal law. Meanwhile, Biden’s use of the State of the Union is all too typical. All of these are unnerving symptoms of how distracted this team are by ideological hobby horses, no matter how many wake-up calls reality arranges for them.

Media, Biden Admin Team Up on “Race to the Bottom”

, 0

Documents produced by the Treasury Department in FOIA litigation with Energy Policy Advocates lay out the apparent manufacture of the Administration’s “race to the bottom” narrative deployed to support increasing the U.S. corporate income tax rate.
These records bring to mind the White House’s recent behind-the-scenes enlistment of a helpful press corps to change the tone of reportage on economic performance and inflation, to one of cheerleading and insistence on lowering expectations — after the WH had private meetings with certain media figures to bemoan the sudden drop in favorable coverage, a frenzy of print and broadcast commentary declared that Biden is being unfairly covered, particularly on the economy.
And the reversal was particularly clumsy on economic coverage, too, with a cascade of suggestions that maybe the surge in inflation isn’t actually regressive and most harmful on the poor after all and, come to think, inflation might be a “good thing“.
These docs further suggest how and why such things happen between the media and administrations with which the press as a whole typically sympathize.
The “race to the bottom” phrase (often attributed originally, if in a different context, to Justice Louis Brandeis) in support of Biden tax increases popped as a fashionable talking point in March. Providing a window into the process of an administration-media joint here in a March 14, 2021 email we see a Treasury official passing along to colleagues a note about his work to obtain desirable coverage with Washington Post White House economics reporter Jeff Stein:
Stein drops the phrase seven times in his news item.
Secretary Yellen then deployed the term in a March 23 House Financial Services Committee hearing.
Two weeks later, Yellen gave a speech on April 5 speech rolling out her part of the pincer movement, followed by a WSJ oped published the evening of April 7 and run (and put in perspective by the editors) in the April 8 paper.
The WaPo news story that the writer hurried to give the Administration a heads up about, when his editors moved it up, indeed used the phrase 7 times…twice more than the Secretary used it in her WSJ piece even though it was her thrust (she submitted it with the title “Corporate tax is a race to the bottom”). That’s service.
(Looks like an interesting b5).

Energy Policy Advocates Files Suit Against State Department Seeking “Special Climate Envoy” Kerry’s Ethics, Recusal Records

, 0

Other agencies have complied re lower-ranking officials, but not for Kerry, McCarthy

Today, the nonprofit governmental transparency group Energy Policy Advocates (EPA) filed an open records lawsuitagainst the United States Department of State seeking records including and relating to the required ethics clearance and recusal process for Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Change John Kerry, who is employed by or at minimum under the ethics supervision of the Department of State.

For example, “The State Department’s Ethics Office reviewed Special Presidential Envoy Kerry’s assets and investments upon his appointment to identify holdings that could pose a significant risk of a conflict of interest,” a State Department spokesperson wrote in a statement to ABC News. “Special Presidential Envoy Kerry agreed to divest the assets identified by the Ethics Office and has done so.” Soo Rin Kim, Lucien Bruggeman, and Libby Cathey, “New climate envoy John Kerry sold off energy holdings to avoid conflict of interest, disclosures show,” ABC News, April 30, 2021. However, recent reports suggest that Kerry maintains certain investments which could compromise his ability to deal in a straightforward and non-conflicted manner with one of his primary targets for diplomacy, the Peoples Republic of China. See, e.g., Sen. Marco Rubio, “Sen. Marco Rubio: It’s time to fire John Kerry, Biden’s ethically challenged climate czar,” Fox News, October 15, 2021.

To understand State’s unexplained claim of “unusual circumstances” in delaying a response to EPA’s request, EPA submitted a subsequent FOIA request to State requesting all correspondence from its [email protected] email account used for these purposes which includes the term “unusual circumstances”, dated over a six-week period from July 1, 2021, through August 12, 2021, inclusive. EPA noted “this is a simple request. It should cost little to no time or other resources to process, expeditiously.” State also has not responded to this.

As EPA noted in its request, “The requested information is of great public interest for its relevance to the Biden Administration’s ethics policies and procedures and compliance therewith.” EPA Executive Director Rob Schilling comments, “Special ‘Climate’ Envoy Kerry has apparently been given the role of de facto Secretary of State, pushing one of the biggest priorities of the Biden administration including offering wealth transfers and promises of economic constraints. Bureaucrats in Washington assure us that Kerry divested from investments that might have caused a conflict of interest for him in his new role as a US climate negotiator, but the State Department is sitting on the documents that will prove whether any conflict remains or how closely tied Kerry is to Chinese interests. We filed suit because we think the public deserves to know what he disclosed and the parameters of his recusals.”

As Predicted: Sue-n-Settle Yields Biden’s Back Door Climate Plan

, 0

Trade press and other news reports yesterday confirmed something GAO readers know, which is that the Biden Administration is transparently re-running the Obama Year 1 “climate” playbook, to obtain praise from foreign leaders and energize the annual climate “Conference of the Parties” — this time, COP26 (or #Flop26 on Twitter).

President Biden has signaled unambiguously that, at both this weekend’s Rome G20 meeting and climate pact talks in Glasgow beginning two days later, he will deepen President Obama’s GHG emission-reduction promises based on the Clean Power Plan, tossed out by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA. Much of the past week’s mania to try and pass budget “reconciliation,” now “only” with over half a trillion dollars in “climate” schemes if without the regulatory changes originally in the bill was about avoiding Biden’s credibility crisis.

It won’t. Too many recall then-EPA Chief and current Biden White House Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy telling the Paris COP that its climate regs were, in the Guardian’s reporting, “bulletproof”. SCOTUS had other ideas.

The replay of Obama-Biden’s first year in office is that Obama, too, was unable to convince Congress to pass his “climate” agenda, which became inescapable in humiliating and politically damaging fashion the next summer and which prompted the first signal of his ultimate, signature “pen and a phone” approach to governing in the absence of popular support for his ideas.

At the time, the virtue-signal was the Obama USEPA’s greenhouse gas “Endangerment” finding, which launched all manner of economic dislocation and devastation in certain communities and regions of the country, despite that those GHG regulations were subsequently thrown out by the courts. The inevitable havoc was wreaked, and the industries hobbled with tremendous economic and human collateral damage.

Still, it was announced as the Obama delegation jetted off to COP15 in Copenhagen. The obviousness of the stunt had even the NYT wondering about it and Politico and CBS mocking the claim of this being “pure coincidence”.

After pushing this agenda too openly with “capntrade” legislation helped cost the Administration’s party control of the House, Biden is adopting a more opaque approach, if nonetheless following the script to a tee. This time Biden’s EPA is letting its green-group allies know that it will agree with a lawsuit filed the day before inauguration day — so that only the Biden USEPA could defend against it (or…not) — and revisit the primary and secondary “Ozone NAAQS.”

The greens are in on the joke that this will provide what the Wall Street Journal accurately summarized as Biden’s ‘Back Door’ Climate Plan. (That editorial summarized a brief Energy Policy Advocates filed in the DC Circuit on this case explaining how the AGs and now-Biden EPA Air chief Joe Goffman planned this before he was appointed).

It’s weedy, but in short this is a cynical sue-and-settle move created with the assistance of Biden’s EPA Air Office chief, Joe Goffman, when he was advising the plaintiff state attorneys general who filed the January suit, suit, State of New York, et al. v. EPA, prior to the election.

Yes. Read that again. There are no indications in Mr. Goffman’s released ethics records that the Air chief disclosed this work during his ethics clearance, and so he has not recused himself. This could pose problems down the road for the rule (and Mr. Goffman), but as the Obama plan showed one can still largely achieve one’s goals even by promulgating unlawful rules that are tossed in the end.

Today, before USEPA filed whatever it is going to file (GAO has long thought this would be “COB”, since the purpose is to land at G20 and the COP as conquering heroes waving about fresh news, a la Lisa Jackson and the Endangerment finding), five Republican attorneys general asked the DC Circuit to get it on, and “place this case back on track for briefing on the merits,” on “the sole issue in this case: whether the [Trump] Ozone NAAQS Decision was lawfully made by the EPA”.

“And the issue of whether the EPA can lawfully rescind or revise the Ozone NAAQS Decision is not before this Court.”

“If the EPA believes that it has the authority to review the Ozone NAAQS Decision, it may seek to initiate that review, if it so chooses, independent of this Court’s resolution of the instant case.”

The AGs note that the progressive AGs who filed this sweetheart suit, USEPA and greens do not accept this proposal to govern proceedings in NY v. EPA going forward.

Watch for this effort to reinstate and expand, economy-wide the Obama greenhouse gas regulatory state, in the name of meeting promises made in the unratified Paris climate treaty, to become a major issue beginning sometime in 2022.

Recusal Watch: Who is Gina McCarthy Injecting into the Process to Advise Administration?

, 0

We already know of some loose compliance with disclosure and recusal matters in the Biden Administration, specifically pertaining to its push to impose the “climate” agenda without congressional authorization — expected to soon manifest itself in an Environmental Protection Agency filing before the DC Circuit next Friday, 10/29/21 in State of New York et al. v. EPA (in a major sue-and-settle move developed before the election with the assistance of Biden’s Acting Air Office chief, EPA will announce it is rescinding and replacing the Trump ozone standard, which EPA will then use to transform the Clean Air Act into an economy-wide decarbonization scheme it was never enacted to be).

Energy Policy Advocates has requested White House Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy’s recusal memo and records pertaining thereto. The Biden Administration has been rather less than compliant in those pursuits. Meanwhile, it appears Ms. McCarthy is roping in and introducing preferred outside “experts” to advise the administration on its climate scheme, with everyone careful to avoid offering or seeking details in writing.

Could this be problematic? With the Biden White House having very deliberately brought in its team of climate activists in such a way to avoid Senate confirmation, congressional oversight and FOIA, it would take a media willing to ask questions and get answers to find out. 

Hell Hath Frozen Over: Court Docs Suggest Repeat of Obama/Copenhagen, Biden EPA Plans to Spring Unprecedented “Back Door” Climate Rule, One Obama’s EPA Chief Called “Not Advisable”, in Glasgow

, 0

Surely — Again — Glasgow “Timing is a coincidence”: Biden EPA Replaying Obama EPA Trick for a “GHG NAAQS”?

Sue-and-Settle also reappearing to avoid rulemaking, legislation

So, this is fascinating, as well as potentially huge — and rather scandalous, as environmental policy scandals go.

The Biden Administration appears set to subtly affirm in October a “‘Back Door’ Climate Plan” — or the specifics of how it intends to “decarbonize the U.S. economy” in the next decade — if hiding it in a secondary “ozone NAAQS” which the administration will days later unveil, in its pursuit of praise from the global environmental establishment, at a November “climate” conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

Emails with activists and obtained from state attorneys general confirm this end-run, repeating the theatrical trappings of the Obama EPA’s first-year radicalization of the Agency, is employed because the required legislation is simply not feasible and to avoid the political and likely legal suicide of trying to openly and directly regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) as “criteria pollutants” (i.e., setting a “primary NAAQS” for carbon dioxide or ‘GHG equivalent’).

That the breathtaking move is in fact on its way was hinted at in a court filing by EPA in the DC Circuit on Thursday. A letter sent the same day to the White House by Congressional Republicans helps make the connection between this plan and the upcoming climate conference. A review of the history of the Obama-Biden EPA and White House makes the connection, and cynical orchestration to obtain international approval, irresistible.

Obama’s EPA orchestrated its radical revamping of EPA and global warming agenda to coincide with its arrival at a “climate” conference in Copenhagen

.