Climate Regulations Don’t Limit Warming

mccarthyUnder questioning by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) during March 22 hearings before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted the Obama administration’s climate efforts will do nothing to prevent climate change, acknowledging they are symbolic attempts to get other countries to make steep carbon dioxide emissions cuts.

McCarthy was unmoved when McKinley noted the negative impact regulations such as the Clean Power Plan have had on jobs and electricity prices.

Concerning the Clean Power Plan, McKinley asked, “If it doesn’t have an impact on climate change around the world, why are we subjecting our hard working taxpayers and men and women in the coal fields to something that has no benefit?”

Administration ‘Showing Leadership’

“We see it as having had enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership, as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris,” McCarthy responded.

Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, says McCarthy has made similar statements on other occasions.

“Actually, McCarthy said nothing new here,” said Lewis. “Back in September 2013, she admitted to Rep. Mike Pompeo she could not ‘link’ the Clean Power Plan to ‘impacts’ on any of EPA’s 26 ‘climate indicators.’ Rather, McCarthy said, the CPP is ‘part of an overall strategy that is positioning the U.S. for leadership in an international discussion.’”

In July 2015, McCarthy testified the value of the Clean Power Plan “is not measured [by the amount of warming it prevents.] … I’m not disagreeing that this action in and of itself will not make all the difference we need to address climate action, but what I’m saying is that if we don’t take action domestically we will never get started.”

Read rest…

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (7)

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    This is another crock of ship:
    [i]”Gina McCarthy admitted the Obama administration’s climate efforts will do nothing to prevent climate change, acknowledging they are [u][b]symbolic[/b][/u] attempts to get [u]other countries[/u] to make steep carbon dioxide emissions cuts.”[/i]

    This is a [b]political[/b] and [b]economic[/b] measure to stifle America’s free market economy so that we can move closer to a one-world socialist Utopia.

    Ottmar Edenhofer (UN climate official): when asked “So what is the goal of environmental policy” said, (quote) “We redistribute de-facto the world’s wealth by climate policy”. Some of these people now feel so emboldened and entitled that they no longer see the need to lie about their objectives.

  • Avatar

    DMA

    |

    On page 64663 of the Clean power Plan there is a clear statement of it’s purpose:
    “These finale mission guidelines, which rely in large part on already clearly emerging growth in clean energy innovation,
    development and deployment, will lead
    to significant carbon dioxide (CO2)
    emission reductions from the utility
    power sector that will help protect
    human health and the environment
    from the impacts of climate change”
    If Ms. McCarthy declares that it will fail to achieve it’s purpose, how can she defend it’s imposition?

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    For the sake of argument let’s says that the anthropological climate change alarmists are totally right as far as the warming.

    The justification for the harm that the Clean Power Act is that it puts the United States in a leadership position. Let’s look at the Paris agreement, what that leadership has resulted in.

    Earth’s average temperature will be reduced by 0.17 degrees by 2100. See

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/why-the-paris-climate-treaty-is-just-a-load-of-very-expensive-hot-air.html

    which is the only peer reviewed analysis of the Paris agreement. This reduction is only if all parties live up their agreements, which is very unlikely. Even John Kerry, Obama’s Secretary Of State, says that the agreement is worthless.

    So, here we have the EPA doing great harm to American families in order for American to have a leadership position that has lead to a worthless agreement.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Note also that none of these proposed restrictions are designed to elevate or improve any economy. To the contrary, this is designed to pare back the success of free market economies so that they can share the same level of misery as green-model socialist countries.

    Aspiring to less… the legacy of leftism.

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    The EPA has tried to impose policies that will do nothing to effect the earths temperature ,
    cost $$billions to implement and drive up the price of energy resulting in fuel poverty deaths . How can a government agency get away with this utter nonsense ?

    What studies has the EPA received that show the benefits of CO2 to the environment ?
    Has the EPA even asked the question and quantified the benefits of added plant and forest growth ?

    When did the EPA know their plans to reduce CO2 were harmful to the planets health ?

  • Avatar

    4TimesAYear

    |

    I have pointed this out many, many times. Lewis is correct in saying that McCarthy is saying nothing new. It’s not about pollution control either. Therefore, the EPA has no business trying to regulate it. The “Clean Power Plan” is an oxymoron. God bless McKinley – he has been relentless on this. I don’t know how he keeps his sanity when he questions McCarthy.
    Btw, it might just be worthwhile to point out that the EPA’s actions will actually harm the environment and be hazardous to people’s health. They already are. They are in violation of their mission. Atmospheric CO2 is not a hazardous substance and as such does not fall under their purview.

  • Avatar

    4TimesAYear

    |

    [quote name=”DMA”]On page 64663 of the Clean power Plan there is a clear statement of it’s purpose:
    “These finale mission guidelines, which rely in large part on already clearly emerging growth in clean energy innovation,
    development and deployment, will lead
    to significant carbon dioxide (CO2)
    emission reductions from the utility
    power sector that will help protect
    human health and the environment
    from the impacts of climate change”
    If Ms. McCarthy declares that it will fail to achieve it’s purpose, how can she defend it’s imposition?[/quote]

    But it doesn’t protect human health or the environment.
    Atmospheric levels of CO2 have no health impacts whatsoever, and does no harm to the environment. And the EPA was not commissioned to control the climate. The Supreme Court told them to make a determination as to whether (atmospheric) CO2 was a hazardous substance. They have not proven it so. The only way they could do so was to connect it to climate, so they did an end run in order to call it a “hazardous substance” – and a warmer climate, which may or may not happen, may or may not have a negative effect on health and or environment. It’s all based on assumptions. In their attempt to “protect the environment and human health” they actually are causing a great deal of harm already.

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.