Obama keeps his promise on carbon

power plant coal firedDuring the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. Barack Obama said: “…if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…” He added that under his now-defeated Cap and Trade bill, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

In 2010, Cap and Trade died in the Senate, but the president’s goal of bankrupting the coal industry never waned. Monday he announced that the Environmental Protection Agency will impose new regulations throughout the country limiting carbon emissions from power plants powered by fossil fuels. Several states are challenging the EPA rules “that aim to cut carbon emissions in the power sector by 32 percent.” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, testifying before Congress, was asked about claims that the new EPA plan would only impact global warming by a measly .01 degrees Celsius, to which she replied, “…I’m not disagreeing that this action in and of itself will not make all the difference we need to address climate action, but if we don’t take action domestically, we will never get started…”

The Washington Post, which believes the Earth is warming and humans are responsible, acknowledged the regulations have “shortcomings,” but endorsed them because they set a good example for the rest of the world.

So, these regulations are likely to cost jobs, raise electricity prices and have a minimal effect on global temperatures, but they will set a good example? Is that the new policy standard?

Among many reasons Americans should be suspicious of this “climate change putsch,” as a Wall Street Journal editorial labeled it, is that Administrator McCarthy has refused to release the “secret science” her agency used when drafting the new regulations. This “most transparent administration in U.S. history” has now added to the secret side deals with Iran, secret scientific “evidence,” which may not be evidence at all. Cults do that by suppressing any information and facts contrary to the imposed orthodoxy.

After the initial fusillade from critics, the president fired back, arguing that addressing “climate change” is a moral obligation and a matter of national security. It would be helpful to know the president’s standard for determining what is moral and what is immoral, especially since he has said nothing about those Planned Parenthood videos in which high-level employees are shown explaining how the organization can abort babies in ways that preserve body parts. And there is ISIS, which continues to operate and appears not to have been “diminished and degraded,” as the president promised it would. Is ISIS not a bigger national security issue?

The EPA regulations are likely to reach the Supreme Court. In 2007, while the Court did grant authority to the EPA to regulate carbon emissions (Mass. v. EPA), it said it was not giving the agency an unrestricted license to do what it wants. It ruled that costs and outcomes must be taken into consideration as part of its regulatory mandates. The Court decision was one of two rebukes it has delivered to the EPA in the last two years for exceeding its statutory powers.

As the Court noted, “When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the American economy, we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.”

These are bound to be the issues should the EPA regulations again reach the Court, as they should.

Source

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (7)

  • Avatar

    norm bishop

    |

    The rest of the world will become more competitive, as we lose jobs and a reasonable energy source. Furthermore, we will pay more for our electrical needs. Our current government policies only hurt (us) and help our competition.

  • Avatar

    John from Michigan

    |

    Your headline uses the word “carbon”, a pejorative dirty thing we all want to get rid of, when you should use “carbon dioxide”, a nicer sounding beneficial gas in the life cycle on Earth. Using carbon as a substitute for carbon dioxide is a propaganda term used to vilify a term (carbon dioxide) that is no more “carbon” than sodium chloride (salt) is sodium. I don’t believe the “carbon” slur has any place in the Climate Change Dispatch.

    • Avatar

      Qwerty

      |

      Carbon might be used to refer to organic waste chemicals in general, not just carbon dioxide.

      • Avatar

        John from Michigan

        |

        Qwerty…I agree with you, but in this article, they’re referring to CO2 and using the term “carbon” to make CO2 sound bad. The global warming advocates also use “carbon pollution” when referring to CO2 (which is neither carbon nor pollution) to make it sound bad, and therefore, turn people against it.

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Notice the only promises that Obama keeps are the bad ones… Any promises that might be helpful to the economy or society are cast aside like yesterday’s trash.

    Obama is a true leftist ideologue who believes that the United States has undeserved prosperity and influence. Instead of trying to raise others to a higher level, he believes in destroying the successful, and redistribute poverty.

    [i]”Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth.
    Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.”
    -Winston Churchill[/i]

  • Avatar

    John

    |

    [quote name=”John from Michigan”]Your headline uses the word “carbon”, a pejorative dirty thing we all want to get rid of, when you should use “carbon dioxide”, a nicer sounding beneficial gas in the life cycle on Earth. Using carbon as a substitute for carbon dioxide is a propaganda term used to vilify a term (carbon dioxide) that is no more “carbon” than sodium chloride (salt) is sodium. I don’t believe the “carbon” slur has any place in the Climate Change Dispatch.[/quote]
    The author, Cal Thomas, is referring to what Obama said about building a coal (aka carbon) plant. But I agree that writers, who may not have control over the headlines their editors want, should be more specific and not say carbon pollution but rather carbon dioxide emissions. It’s a tactic of the Left to say carbon pollution even though CO2 is not harmful at the current levels (and will never be unless our oceans suddenly dried up overnight).

  • Avatar

    Kristian Livingston

    |

    [url=http://freesoftwaresclub.com/youtube-downloader-pro/]Youtube downloader pro crack[/url] free download is a capable software and easy-to-use, simply go to YouTube to find the video we want to download, copy the video URL and paste it to the program.

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.