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.