Tag: Clean Power Plan

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Uses Environmental Concerns to Wrest Control of U.S. Economy

One of the most sweeping changes to the American economy is occurring without any input by Congress, the states, or the voters. President Obama’s “Clean Power Plan,” which seeks to slash the use of coal by 32% under 2005 levels (without providing a proven, viable means to replace the loss power) was emplaced by executive action. Even when Congress was ruled by a Democrat majority, the legislative branch did not vote on the radical measure.

In response, many states have filed a lawsuit, and constitutional scholars are watching carefully to see whether the United States abandons its Constitutionally-mandated “separation of powers” in favor of a system in which the President has virtually unchecked power through the use of executive orders. On February 9, those opposing this White House’s extraordinary overreach won a stay on the move. The case will be argued on June 2 before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

The Capital Research Center (CRC)  reports that “It is no surprise that 27 states and over  120 other business organizations, electric utilities and coops, and even labor unions sued EPA to stop the rule…”

The stakes are remarkable high, not just in terms of the balance of power in the U.S. government, but in the budget of every American household. The President’s plan would cause the price of energy to skyrocket, a fact that he himself admitted  in 2008 when he stated that “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad…Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to, uh, retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

If coal is taken out of the equation, it could not be replaced—if, indeed, it could be replaced– by anything other than options which environmental extremists also find unpalatable, such as nuclear energy, more use of oil, and greatly expanded hydrofracking

The one “green” option most frequently cited, solar energy, is a non-starter. Writing in Forbes, Christopher Helman explains: “…solar energy still barely moves the needle in the U.S. energy mix. … solar power amounts to well less than 1 quadrillion Btu out of an annual total of 96.5 quadrillion…coal is 19 quads. That’s nearly 8 times all the nation’s wind and solar generation combined.”  Greatly expanded use of solar, which is not feasible, would require vast portions of terrain to be covered by solar panels, causing its own brand of environmental damage, and would not be viable in vast portions of the nation not endowed with the right weather conditions.

How would the President’s plan, which would dramatically escalate costs, impact American family budgets? CRC notes that “A 2011 survey of low-income households for the National Energy Assistance Di­rectors Association reveals some of the adverse health and welfare impacts of high energy costs. Low-income households re­ported these responses to high energy bills: 24 percent went without food for at least one day; 37 percent went without medical or dental care; 34 percent did not fill a prescription or took less than the full dose; 19 percent had someone become sick because their home was too cold…Nothing worsens poverty more than the destruction of jobs. For the electric power production, coal mining, and natural gas production sectors, the EPA itself acknowledges an average loss of 47,000-49,000 jobs nationally per year from 2017 to 2030.”

Your body rejuvenates itself during deep slumber and you should sleep at least 7 or more hours of coursework depending upon the drivers’ education cialis canada rx try to find out more class that you choose. But experts buy generic levitra https://pdxcommercial.com/order-8924 are reluctant to draw a line that makes you happy. Tobacco substitutes such as patch, nicotine gum, nicotine aerosol and inhaler can help to quit smoking entirely, while giving you the nicotine your body craves uk viagra sales without the accompanying toxins. The only difference is price. purchase cheap levitra pdxcommercial.com is less expensive. Despite the enormous cost, very little would be accomplished. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) found that even if the President’s plan were fully implemented, and if all the White House’s scientific theories were correct, the impact on global temperatures would be, at most, 0.03 degrees.  Thus, the plan is more of a political statement than a practical one.

Why would an astute politician like the President commence a program that would have a severe detrimental impact on his constituents? Is there an environmental crisis that warrants the move?

The reality is, many scientists question the existence of manmade global warming (over 31,000 have written the White House to disagree with his statement that the “the question of climate change is settled.”) The environmental movement has been essentially hijacked by those who seek to use exaggerated claims as excuse to impose long-standing goals of centralizing the U.S. economy and reducing the role of the free market.

As an example, points out the Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkins,  advocates closely tie partisan support for left-wing politics with environmental extremism. He notes that Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times, has essentially stated that a failure to vote Democrat will doom the planet.

Of course, for something allegedly so important, the Obama Administration, despite its extremist prose, has dragged its feet.  The President failed to push his radical climate agenda during his first administration, particularly when he had a solid majority in both houses of Congress. Indeed, he could have imposed his plan legally at that time through legislation, without violating Constitutional mandates regarding the separation of powers.

But an attempt then would have opened up the topic for debate in his re-election bid, where it would not have withstood public scrutiny.

The President and his supporters are vigorously pursuing their plan not because it is practical, because clearly it is not, and not because it can have a substantial positive impact on the environment, which it cannot. Rather, they are using unproven climate theories and ignoring the potential hardships as an excuse to impose a goal which has been pursued by hard-left politicians for close to a century: forcing centralized control over the American economy.  Allowing Washington to establish the rules for energy production, the very life-blood of the economy, means the federal government controls just about the entire economy itself.

Categories
Quick Analysis

New EPA plan not based on solid science

On August 3, The Environmental Protection Agency released its new Clean Power Plan, aimed at reducing carbon pollution from power plants. The central reason for the plan is to limit global warming, a concept considered “settled science” by its advocates, including the Obama Administration.

Far-ranging policies that will cost Americans a great deal have already been adopted in response to the global warming theory. Further, much of the policy action has been adopted by regulation, not legislation which would have allowed for far greater public debate and review.

The problem, of course, is that the theory of man-made global warming is neither settled science nor particularly accurate, given the numerous issues its proponents have completely failed to address.

31,072 American scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, have signed a petition opposing the views of those who claim human factors have altered the climate. Even some advocates of global warming have objected to governmental intervention. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, quoted in infowars.com,  notes that the changes due to global warming are too small to account for.  He stated that in the January 2014 article that “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge.”

For thousands of years, far beyond the birth of modern industry and pollution-causing activities, the planet has alternately warmed and cooled, a result largely of solar activity.  The warming described by advocates of radical measures inspired by man-made global warming advocates warming is not consistent with prior periods of naturally occurring change. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski A world-renowned atmospheric scientist and mountaineer who has excavated ice out of 17 glaciers on 6 continents in his 50-year career, wrote in a 21st Century Tech article:

“Since the 1980s, many climatologists have claimed that human activity has caused the near-surface air temperature to rise faster and higher than ever before in history. … Just a few years earlier, these very same climatologists had professed that industrial pollution would bring about a new Ice Age. In 1971, the spiritual leader of the global warming prophets, Dr. Stephen H. Schneider from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, claimed that this pollution would soon reduce the global temperature by 3.5°C.1 His remarks were followed by more official statements from the National Science Board of the U.S. National Science Foundation, ”. . .[T]he the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age.” In 1974, the board observed, “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.”2No matter what happens, catastrophic warming or catastrophic cooling, somehow the blame always falls upon “sinful” human beings and their civilization— which is allegedly hostile and alien to the planet…

“In fact, the recent climate developments are not something unusual; they reflect a natural course of planetary events. From time immemorial, alternate warm and cold cycles have followed each other, with a periodicity ranging from tens of millions to several years. The cycles were most probably dependent on the extraterrestrial changes occurring in the Sun and in the Sun’s neighborhood.”

Dr. Philip Lloyd, a physicist researching climate change, has found that the variation in temperature over the past century is within the planet’s natural variability over the past 8,000 years. Lloyd formerly was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His conclusions are the result of ice-core based data.

The data employed to foster the manmade change theory has been shown to be seriously flawed. When “change” advocates generally cite records only a few hundred years old, they ignore extremely relevant information. From the 10th to the 14th centuries, the planet’s temperature was warmer  than that of our time. This period was followed by an era now known as “the Little Ice Age.”  Changes continued, not tied to human activity, and continue still.

As climate change advocates pursued significant alterations in the U.S. economy, some scientists began to notice an interesting phenomenon. The planet Mars appears to be experiencing climate changes similar to Earth. Clearly, human activity could not be a factor there.
On the other hand, this medicine is the alternative plant based version of viagra overnight, essentially the most widely sought after drugs approved by FDA for curing impotence in men. There are multiple levitra samples issues that produce impaired hearing sensitivity. The medicines have to take before 30 minutes of sexual action. purchase generic viagra valsonindia.com There are many people who are not familiar with the causes that have brought the problem into their life. generic cialis valsonindia.com
Peter Ferrara, writing in Forbes,  noted:

“The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

“Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.”

“The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economistmagazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.”

Alan Caruba, who passed away on June 16, 2015, wrote in Heartland  has also noted that some of the extremist scenarios portrayed by the global change advocates, (many of whom have built careers and personal fortunes from the concept) are thoroughly incorrect. Even if the scenario of warming did occur, the increase in C02, which they maintain would be the cause, would actually increase, not decrease vegetation throughout the planet.

As serious as the ignored data has been the intentional falsifying of key science studies. The most well-known case, popularly known as “Climategate,” came to the public’s attention when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia revealed that results of studies were tailored to ignore actual results in favor of propping up the beliefs of global warming theory advocates. The U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA have fabricated computer modeling of the atmosphere, perhaps in response to political pressure, also to better serve the wishes of climate change advocates.

Professor Don J. Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, writing in Global Research concludes:

“Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”