• Rattle That Regulatory Saber

    Email Print
    Share

    "OBAMA
    TO REGULATE u2018POLLUTANT' CO2" screams the headline. Thus does
    our most recent fearless leader thumb his nose at We the People.
    Not trusting to democratic institutions like Congress, Obama hides
    behind EPA's
    skirts
    in a spineless ploy to have his way mandated upon us.

    Straightforward
    or transparent legislation was not
    looking promising.
    The U.S. Senate voted
    down
    Obama's climate plan. Climate czar Carol Browner has been
    so rebuffed
    by the Senate moderates that no
    one was wagering
    that cap and trade climate legislation was
    going to get passed. Did Browner put her old EPA hat back on to
    help rattle this saber? How embarrassing for greens to hold so many
    political Democratic Party cards and still be so impotent.

    It overall
    is a very bad day for pushing expensive climate change alarmism.
    Climate policies are shifting toward reason, sobriety, debate, engaged
    real science, and fiscal restraint.

    Obama ought
    to have second thoughts about the advice he's being given when so
    many prominent scientists are freshly skeptical:

    • Freeman
      Dyson, professor
      of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton,
      has become outspoken and critical of the computer models which
      are driving climate alarmism. Dyson says, "I have studied
      the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve
      the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of
      describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans.
      They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the
      chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They
      do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."
      Dyson tackles these bogus
      climate models
      along with stratospheric
      cooling
      in two short YouTube videos.
    • Antonio
      Zichichi,
      president of the World Federation of Scientists, is now saying
      that "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
      Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point
      of view."
    • Richard
      Lindzen,
      Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, takes a harder look at
      negative
      climate feedbacks
      . "Future generations will wonder in
      bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world
      went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature
      increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross
      exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined
      into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate
      a roll-back of the industrial age."
    • Australia's
      foremost Earth scientist, Ian
      Plimer
      , publishes Heaven
      And Earth: Global-Warming – The Missing Science
      .
      The inconvenient professor Plimer states that "The
      hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary
      because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics,
      astronomy, history, archaeology and geology."
    • A U.S. Navy
      physicist
      warns
      of possibly "several decades of crushing cold temperatures
      and global famine." Concern
      about cooling
      becomes commonplace. Mother Nature might even
      be credited with saving capitalism if this climate realism can
      end the suffocating alarmism. Russia
      airs cooling concerns freely. The Russians say our twelve-thousand-year-long
      warm period is ending and we are entering another ice age.
    • Scientific
      graphs
      (within the PDF report) show global temperature has
      been falling for seven years. The graphs also show "CO2
      concentration had been rising at about half the UN’s central estimate,
      requiring its warming projections to be halved and rendering them
      harmless; and that 20 years of satellite observations of changes
      in outgoing long-wave radiation had demonstrated conclusively
      that the UN had exaggerated the effect of CO2 on temperature by
      a factor of 7–10. The economic graph showed the cost of adapting
      to “global warming” (if and when it resumed) as being many times
      cheaper than the cost of attempting to mitigate it."

    Obama's running
    out of time to force us to swallow his catastrophic global warming
    agenda. The catastrophe evaporates as the harsh reality of the economic
    costs of such a global climate bureaucracy become clearer. Climate
    policies in Europe are changing rapidly. France's most eminent climate
    skeptic, Claude
    Allegre
    , is likely to become that country's equivalent head
    of the EPA. The G-20 meeting in London earlier this month ignored
    climate change. The G-20's written statement mentioned the word
    "climate" only two times out of 3,146 words. Expectations
    are falling rapidly for the Copenhagen Climate Convention efforts
    this December to birth Son-of-Kyoto.

    "OBAMA’S
    GREEN POLICY WILL KILL U.S. ECONOMY, SAYS OIL CHIEF"

    screams another headline. Has this President forgotten already
    that our U.S. economy is in a protracted nosedive? His budget calls
    for a $646
    billion climate tax
    through a carbon-trading system that will
    throttle taxpayers. White House officials already admit this tax
    could be three times larger. A family of four could have to shell
    out nearly $45,000 in climate taxes during the coming decade. And
    that is all before the EPA gets started regulating. Whatever is
    he thinking of?

    Some states
    have not waited for any EPA to tell them they can't breathe out.
    They've gotten a jump on rationing energy. One victim is protesting.
    An electric utility
    sues
    New York over CO2 regulation. The utility valiantly fights
    the state on claims broadly ranging from "impermissible taxation"
    to Constitutional violations. I wish the utility well, but our government
    has never met a tax that was "impermissible" and doesn't
    appear to give a flip about the Constitution.

    That
    having been said, you can take
    action on the EPA's proposed action
    . The EPA's action is that
    the EPA Administrator signed a proposal with two distinct findings
    regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air
    Act:

    • The Administrator
      is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations
      of the mix of six key greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2),
      methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons
      (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
      — in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of
      current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment
      finding.
    • The Administrator
      is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2,
      CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles
      and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations
      of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate
      change. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding.

    This proposed
    action would not itself impose any requirements on industry or other
    entities. An endangerment finding under one provision of the Clean
    Air Act would not by itself automatically trigger regulation under
    the entire Act.

    The public
    comment period is open for 60 days. Take the gloves off. Submit
    written comments. Attend one of two hearings. Support those who
    do. Obama has to already know that this issue is going to take him
    down. Whatever is he thinking of?

    April
    20, 2009

    Floy
    Lilley [send her mail]
    is an adjunct faculty member at the Mises Institute. She was formerly
    with the University of Texas at Austin’s Chair of Free Enterprise,
    and an attorney-at-law in Texas and Florida.

    Email Print
    Share