EPA fiats threaten American lives, livelihoods, living standards and life spans
Guest essay by Paul Driessen
The United States will “do more,” before it’s “too late” to prevent “dangerous” global warming, President Obama told Berliners last week. If Congress won’t act, he will, by regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, increasing subsidies and reduce environmental overview for wind and solar projects on federal lands, and issuing other rules that will adversely affect economic growth and job creation.
Indeed, his Environmental Protection Agency is already devising new rules that will sharply curtail carbon dioxide emissions, by regulating thousands of facilities that use hydrocarbon energy – and thus ultimately almost everything Americans make, grow, ship, eat and do.
However, the manmade global warming “disasters” exist only in computer models and assertions by scientists who are addicted to billions in government Climate Armageddon grants. Moreover, the “preventative measures” are far worse than the disasters EPA claims to be preventing.
Even the most diehard alarmists have finally recognized that average global temperatures have hardly budged since 1997, even as atmospheric levels of plant-fertilizing CO2 climbed steadily. For many areas, the past winter was among the coldest in decades; the USA and Britain just recorded one their coldest springs on record; and satellite data show that Earth has actually cooled slightly since 2002.
The frequency and severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts are no different from observed trends and cycles over the last century. 2012 set records for the fewest strong tornadoes since 1954 and the number of years with no category 3 or higher hurricane making US landfall. (The vicious tornadoes of recent weeks underscore how quickly the weather can swing back to normal patterns.) Arctic sea ice is within a few percentage points of “normal” levels for the past fifty years, and the rate of sea level rise is not accelerating.
These facts completely contradict computer model predictions and alarmist claims. Moreover, as Climategate and numerous studies have shown, the “science” behind EPA’s ruling that carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare is conjectural, manufactured, manipulated and even fraudulent.
EPA is supposed to protect our environment, health and welfare. Instead, it “safeguards” us from exaggerated or illusory risks – by issuing mountains of costly, intrusive regulations that endanger our health, wellbeing and wildlife far more than any reasonably foreseeable effects from climate change.
This accumulation of anti-hydrocarbon restrictions and penalties is putting EPA in control of nearly every aspect of our lives. Fuel, compliance and business costs will soar. Companies will be forced to outsource work to other countries, reduce work forces, shift people to part-time status, or close their doors.
Poor and minority families will be unable to heat and cool their homes properly, pay their rent or mortgage, buy clothing and medicine, take vacations, pay their bills, give to charity, and save for college and retirement.
With twelve million Americans already out of work, and another eight million working multiple lower-paying, part-time jobs, EPA’s global warming and 1,920 other rules over the past four years translate into unprecedented sleep deprivation, lower economic and educational status, and soaring anxiety and stress. That will mean greater risk of strokes and heart attacks; higher incidences of depression, alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse; more suicides; and declining overall life expectancy.
EPA’s new 54.5 mpg fuel efficiency standards will force more people into smaller, lighter, less safe cars – causing thousands of needless additional serious injuries and deaths every year – in the name of preventing illusory climate and oil and gas depletion crises.
Federal regulators use the same phony climate change and energy depletion arguments to justify letting wind turbine operators slaughter millions of birds and bats every year – including bald and golden eagles, hawks, condors and whooping cranes. They continue to promote and subsidize $50-per-gallon biofuels, to replace oil and natural gas that the world still has in abundance – thanks to new exploration, drilling and production technologies. This focus on biofuels also means more rainforests and other wildlife habitats are being cut down in the name of “renewable” energy.
EPA and President Obama never consider any of this, in calculating the supposed “benefits” of their onerous regulations. They refuse to recognize that their hysterical claims of climate cataclysms are increasingly indefensible. They ignore the damage that their heavy-handed rules impose on our health, welfare and environmental quality.
EPA finds, punishes and even targets anyone who violates any of its ten thousand commandments, even inadvertently. The agency’s climate change actions, however, are not inadvertent. They are deliberate, and their effects are harmful and far reaching. They will affect every American and 100% of our economy.
And yet, these increasingly powerful bureaucrats – who seek and acquire ever more control over our lives – remain faceless, nameless, unelected and unaccountable. They operate largely behind closed doors, issuing regulations and arranging sweetheart “sue and settle” legal actions with radical environmentalist groups, to advance ideological agendas, without regard for their impacts on our lives, livelihoods, living standards, health, welfare and environment.
They know that, for them, there is rarely any real transparency, accountability or consequences – even for gross stupidity, major screw-ups, flagrant abuses or deliberate harm.
We need to save our environment from environmentalists and EPA – and safeguard our liberties, living standards and lives against the arrogance of too-powerful politicians and bureaucrats. How we achieve this, while protecting our lives and environment from real risks, is one of the greatest challenges we face.
________________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
© Paul Driessen * June 20, 2013
Published in the Washington Times, Monday, June 24, 2013
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/24/climate-alarmisms-10000-commandments/
daddyjames says:
June 26, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Barry Woods June 26, 2013 at 2:09 pm
The free market can decide how much extra it costs to buy a more fuel efficient car. Government mandates, which are generally not based upon the laws of physics, but politics, cannot do this. What said government mandates do do is produce a byzantian set of rules and croney capitalism.
As many have said many times before on WUWT, Human-Caused-Climate-Change has never, ultimately, been about climate, it is about CONTROL. Countries that already have Socialist governments, e.g., Argentina, Brazil, and China, have already reached the end of the Road to Serfdom (Friedrich Hayek). They HAVE a dictatorship of the elite. The Demonocrats are still working on it. They still need excuses to steal American’s liberty and private property.
In that, there is hope. Hang in there, all you freedom-loving people of the British Commonwealth, the U.S.A., and the rest of you in other lands — the main CAGW battle is over. It’s just mopping up time, now.
Reality is daily resoundingly refuting the Cult of Climatology. While there will be many more battles in the perennial War for Truth, the CO2 battle is DONE. That’s why the Climatology Cult’s high priests are screaming so shrilly, now. When you have no real ammunition, you make as much noise as you can. Well, LOL, it is becoming daily more and more obvious to EVERYONE (e.g., Carbon Credit Market Collapse, Dope essentially conceding the oil sands pipeline will be approved, Boris Johnson switching sides…) that CAGW is so over.
Okay, it’s not obvious to the Cult of Climatology general membership — ignore them. They are mere, unthinking, followers. Until someone wants help, it is NO USE TO TRY TO HELP THEM. When they sincerely seek truth, they will find it. After the first couple of questions or so, it is easy to see whether someone is a genuine truth seeker or only a troll seeking to justify his or her fallacies.
The Cult’s preposterous propaganda is now appealing only to their general membership. It is not winning any new converts. Their pitiful little “wierding” campaign will not succeed. The Fantasy Science Club is clearly now in its death throes, wildly thrashing about, firing off blitzes of unsupported conjecture and speculation, desperately trying to delay its inevitable demise.
********************************************
Re: Dope and his stupid speech this week, Congress still is. Don’t let that tinpot dictator frighten you with his “words, just words.” [Dope c. 2008] The House is doing GREAT things and, once we get the Senate back to sanity, WE CAN STILL GET OUR COUNTRY BACK ON TRACK. Sure, it will take years to fully recover, but, we can and WILL, even now, get off the Road to Serfdom.
FREEDOM LIVES!
Hey, Rocky Road (LOVE that flavor!) — EXCELLENT refutation of “daddy.” Don’t sweat the italics thing, it was clear where the nonsense left off and your fine reasoning began.
@RockyRoad
I just pointed out some easily verifiable facts that can be quickly found if you bother. And I fail to understand why my comments elicit such a hostile response.
“reduce environmental overview for wind and solar projects on federal lands”; isn’t that how Obama got the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
In Australia, according to this “expert” we have only 7 years before its too late.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-17/climate-commission-report-warns-emissions-need-to-start-falling/4757550
Thanks Rockyroad, Daddy complains about food waste but in the developing world not much food goes to waste,
The best way of getting food to starving children is to grow it locally, which is best done with increased levels of CO2. To go head to head with the EPA and your President you need to go to apple pie and motherhood issues. CO2 helps to feed the children and the grandchildren. Tie it in that way. Focus on the children.CO2 saves lives and it grows more apples.
@ur momisugly kent baker
Could you provide any data to verify your claim that food waste in the developing world is not a problem?
I don’t see that as a complaint of mine, merely an observation.
And I agree, improving the infrastructure would cause an increase in CO2 emissions. No argument there,
The long-term geological pattern is the sequestration of CO2 in limestone, coal, etc. This is a death-spiral for plants (and everything else short of extremophiles). It is our duty and obligation to reverse the process.
I’ve had it! Will someone tell me what the meaning of “preventation” is?? The root of “preventative”?
In the prevention of a disaster we can take preventive measures. I simply don’t know how to take preventative measures.
Snow and light vehicles are not a good mix.
Fundamentally industry has failed itself- there was naturally going to be push back from pollution and side effects of industry so they left it up to government to regulate them which they influenced by lobbying which lead to this mess now- the distance of government people from industry means they know very little, assume a lot and apply their politics so much to regulation solution- even if you think carbon dioxide should be regulated- government fails dismally at that. They should have taken the bull by the horns and set up their own collective regulator for which government only set the general results to be achieved and has some general involvement in the framework and preferably follow a science/economics based process.
“Single passenger vehicles weighing 6,000 lbs doesn’t make sense.”
The Toyota Camry weighs 3190 pounds at curbside. Perhaps you can identify the models of “single passenger vehicle ” you are fantasizing about. Or not.
LOL, Hinckley Buzzard, a 3 TON car! That really “doesn’t make sense.” [re: Steve from Rockwood at 1:16PM 6/26/13]
Maybe a Humvee …. loaded for bear with groceries and kids and the dogs and… . #[:)]]
“The weight of a military Humvee is 5,200 lb., without cargo.”
[http://www.ehow.com/info_7897735_military-humvee-specifications.html]
Maybe all the coal power generating plants should have three or four day “accidental” failures at the same time – making sure, of course, that the grid covering Virgina and D.C. is the main part of the fail zone. It might help make the elected jerks realize what they are messing with.
Hi Janice Moore:
Actually, Steve from Rockwood is sort of correct. A Ford
F350 Super Duty pickup has got a curb weight of 6,622 pounds. I have seen
such vehicles being driven with no passengers a number of times.
Where Steve from Rockwood doesn’t get it is that
mandating what vehicles we drive is yet another instance of government
overstepping its Constitutional bounds. A small, efficient, limited
Federal government that doesn’t try to do too much was the intent–
notice the 9th amendment to the Constitution?–not the overreaching,
over-regulating behemoth we now have.
Thanks, Chris R., for the correction. And, yes, indeed, the key issue is free markets with the BUYER choosing the type of car they want to buy.
LOL, one of my dream cars has been for several years a 1964 Cadillac (with removable hard top), painted metallic cranberry with a white leather interior, and a personalized license plate that says: FREEDOM.
To Janice Moore:
That would indeed be one AWESOME car, especially the
license plate. I hope you can someday achieve this dream!
Thanks, Chris R.. If I EVER do, I’ll post something on WUWT and I’ll take you for a ride (if you appear able, I’ll even let you drive it!)
Lighter weight cars won’t make you less safe if everyone else starts driving them. And they won’t worsen your outcome from crashing with an 18-wheeler.
Even though global warming appears to me less of a problem than claimed, there are plenty of other reasons to make cars more fuel-efficient. The oil supply will last longer, less demand means lower prices, and less consumption means less air pollution and less fuel cost to car owners.
There are means available to improve fuel efficiency. For example, a better automatic transmission would be a manual one controlled by a robot. Batteries, tires and mats could probably be made lighter with some effort. Axles could be hollowed with very little loss of strength. Headrests could probably be made less dense with some effort. A lot of nickling-and-diming the weight down would allow a smaller engine and lighter weight transmission to be used. These ways to reduce fuel consumption won’t even weaken the car’s body.
Then, there is a hybrid technology, using a small engine to power a generator, which powers a battery and electric motor. The engine only has to supply the amount of horsepower needed on a sustained basis. This allows for regenerative braking, which greatly increases urban fuel efficiency. The battery does not have to be big in cars used where there are no mountains to drive up at high speed. The engine can be diesel, which alone would increase fuel efficiency. Electrodiesel technology has been in use for decades – that is how many trains are powered.
I remember when automakers had to be dragged kicking and screaming to introduce airbags. I am not confident they would implement something people would want without a government mandate.