EPA's next wave of job-killing CO2 regulations

Unleashing EPA bureaucrats on American livelihoods, living standards and liberties

By David Rothbard and Craig Rucker

Supported by nothing but assumptions, faulty computer models and outright falsifications of what is actually happening on our planet, President Obama, his Environmental Protection Agency and their allies have issued more economy-crushing rules that they say will prevent dangerous manmade climate change .

Under the latest EPA regulatory onslaught (645 pages of new rules, released June 2), by 2030 states must slash carbon dioxide emissions by 30% below 2005 levels.

The new rules supposedly give states “flexibility” in deciding how to meet the mandates. However, many will have little choice but to impose costly cap-tax-and-trade regimes like the ones Congress has wisely and repeatedly refused to enact. Others will be forced to close perfectly good, highly reliable coal-fueled power plants that currently provide affordable electricity for millions of families, factories, hospitals, schools and businesses. The adverse impacts will be enormous.

The rules will further hobble a US economy that actually shrank by 1% during the first quarter of 2014, following a pathetic 1.9% total annual growth in 2013. They are on top of $1.9 trillion per year (one-eighth of our total economy) that businesses and families already pay to comply with federal rules.

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study calculates that the new regulations will cost our economy another $51 billion annually, result in 224,000 more lost jobs every year, and cost every American household $3,400 per year in higher prices for energy, food and other necessities. Poor, middle class and minority families – and those already dependent on unemployment and welfare – will be impacted worst. Those in a dozen states that depend on coal to generate 30-95% of their electricity will be hit especially hard.

Millions of Americans will endure a lower quality of life and be unable to heat or cool their homes properly, pay their rent or mortgage, or save for college and retirement. They will suffer from greater stress, worse sleep deprivation, higher incidences of depression and alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse, and more heart attacks and strokes. As Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) points out, “A lot of people on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum are going to die.” EPA ignores all of this.

It also ignores the fact that, based to the agency’s own data, shutting down every coal-fired power plant in the USA would reduce the alleged increase in global temperatures by a mere 0.05 degrees F by 2100!

President Obama nevertheless says the costly regulations are needed to reduce “carbon pollution” that he claims is making “extreme weather events” like Superstorm Sandy “more common and more devastating.” The rules will also prevent up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks in their first year alone, while also curbing sea level rise, forest fires and other supposed impacts from “climate disruption,” according to ridiculous talking points provided by EPA boss Gina McCarthy.

As part of a nationwide White House campaign to promote and justify the regulations, the American Lung Association echoed the health claims. The Natural Resources Defense Council said the rules will “drive innovation and investment” in green technology, creating “hundreds of thousands” of new jobs.

Bear in mind, the ALA received over $20 million from the EPA between 2001 and 2010. NRDC spends nearly $100 million per year (2012 IRS data) advancing its radical agenda. Both are part of a $13.4-billion-per-year U.S. Big Green industry that includes the Sierra Club and Sierra Club Foundation ($145 million per year), National Audubon Society ($96 million), Environmental Defense Fund ($112 million annually), Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund ($46 million), and numerous other special interest groups dedicated to slashing fossil fuel use and reducing our living standards. All are tax-exempt.

As to the claims themselves, they are as credible as the endlessly repeated assertions that we will all be able to keep our doctor and insurance policies, Benghazi was a spontaneous protest, and there is not a scintilla of corruption in the IRS denials of tax-exempt status to conservative groups.

The very term “carbon pollution” is deliberately disingenuous. The rules do not target carbon (aka soot). They target carbon dioxide. This is the gas that all humans and animals exhale. It makes life on Earth possible. It makes crops and other plants grow faster and better. As thousands of scientists emphasize, at just 0.04% of our atmosphere, CO2 plays only a minor role in climate change – especially compared to water vapor and the incredibly powerful solar, cosmic, oceanic and other natural forces that have caused warm periods, ice ages and little ice ages, and controlled climate and weather for countless millennia.

The terrible disasters that the President and other climate alarmists attribute to fossil fuels, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are creatures of computer models that have gotten virtually no predictions correct. That should hardly be surprising. The models are based on faulty assumptions of every size and description, and are fed a steady diet of junk science and distorted data. We shouldn’t trust them any more than we would trust con artists who claim their computers can predict stock markets or Super Bowl and World Series winners – even one year in advance, much less 50 or 100 years.

The models should absolutely not be trusted as the basis for regulations that will cripple our economy.

Contrary to model predictions and White House assertions, average global temperatures have not risen in almost 18 years. It’s now been over eight years since a category 3-5 hurricane hit the United States – the longest such period in over a century. Tornadoes are at a multi-decade low. Droughts are no more intense or frequent than since 1900. There were fewer than half as many forest fires last year as during the 1960s and 1970s. Sea levels rose just eight inches over the last 130 years and are currently rising at barely seven inches per century. There’s still ice on Lake Superior – in June! Runaway global warming, indeed.

This is not dangerous. It’s not because of humans. It does not justify what the White House is doing.

Asthma has been increasing for years – while air pollution has been decreasing. The two are not related. In fact, as EPA data attest, between 1970 and 2010, real air pollution from coal-fired power plants has plummeted dramatically – and will continue to do so because of existing rules and technologies.

For once the President is not “leading from behind” on foreign policy. However, there is no truth to his claim that other countries will follow our lead on closing coal-fired power plants and slashing carbon dioxide emissions. China, India and dozens of other developing countries are rapidly building coal-fueled generators, so that billions of people will finally enjoy the blessings of electricity and be lifted out of poverty. Even European countries are burning more coal to generate electricity, because they finally realize they cannot keep subsidizing wind and solar, while killing their energy-intensive industries.

Then what is really going on here? Why is President Obama imposing some of the most pointless and destructive regulations in American history? He is keeping his campaign promises to his far-left and hard-green ideological supporters, who detest hydrocarbons and want to use climate change to justify their socio-economic-environmental agenda.

Mr. Obama promised that electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket” and that he would “bankrupt” the coal industry and “fundamentally transform” America. His top science advisor, John Holdren, has long advocated a “massive campaign” to “de-develop the United States,” divert energy and other resources from what he calls “frivolous and wasteful” uses that support modern living standards, and enforce a “much more equitable distribution of wealth.” The President and his Executive Branch bureaucrats are committed to controlling more and more of our lives, livelihoods and liberties.

They believe no one can stop them, and they will never be held accountable for ignoring our laws, for their corruption, or even for any job losses, deaths or other destruction they may leave in their wake.

Every American who still believes in honest science, accountable Constitutional government – and the right of people everywhere to affordable energy and modern living standards – must tell these radical ideologues that this power grab will not be tolerated.


David Rothbard is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), a nonprofit educational organization devoted to both people and the environment. Craig Rucker is CFACT’s executive director.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

146 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 5, 2014 9:33 am

“A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study calculates that the new regulations will cost our economy another $51 billion annually, result in 224,000 more lost jobs every year, and cost every American household $3,400 per year in higher prices for energy, food and other necessities.”
This is not a side effect. The intent is to bring the US down a peg or two. More likely many pegs. The plan is working well. We can not vote our way out of this. We can not impeach our way out. We can not sue our way out. Don’t even think of armed rebellion. These new EPA regs will not be rescinded by any future president or congress. We are dealing with an oligarchy, not a democracy.
“O, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.” Sir Walter Scott

Chad Wozniak
June 5, 2014 10:35 am

@nigelf –
I’d go a step further and prohibit the possession and use of any fossil fuel or anything made from or with fossil fuels, by those who publicly oppose developing them, or who publicly demand regulation of them.
Thus, not only coal, oil and natural gas by themselves would be unavailable to these people, but also electricity, plastics, food grown with fertilizer, fabrics, cement, lumber (kiln dried with natural gas), and any number of other items.
Seems a fair and reasonable way to deal with these destroyers of civilization.

June 5, 2014 11:35 am

dipchip says:
June 5, 2014 at 8:49 am

Ras 5 June:
AhObummer: Strongly approve 23% Strongly disapprove 36% – Approval 52% Disapproval 46%
Don’t make no sense. It would mean mildly approve: 29 mildly disapprove 10%

June 5, 2014 12:07 pm

Lank is perplexed says:
Why on earth does the USA go through the process of electing a Congress when the President rules by decree?

That is the bad news, the good news is anything done by Executive Orders can be undone by Executive Order.

June 5, 2014 12:42 pm

Chad Wozniak says:
June 5, 2014 at 10:35 am
@nigelf –
I’d go a step further and prohibit the possession and use of any fossil fuel or anything made from or with fossil fuels, by those who publicly oppose developing them, or who publicly demand regulation of them.
Thus, not only coal, oil and natural gas by themselves would be unavailable to these people, but also electricity, plastics, food grown with fertilizer, fabrics, cement, lumber (kiln dried with natural gas), and any number of other items.
Seems a fair and reasonable way to deal with these destroyers of civilization.
*
That would be most fitting.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
June 5, 2014 1:21 pm

“…the good news is anything done by Executive Orders can be undone by Executive Order.”
Could be undone, but rarely is. The court and congress can also counter such orders, but again, rarely do.
Robert Bissett, Bs.Arch. Naples, Idaho 83847 Artist, Author, Blogger, Teacher Dragon Speed Design Group Latest books: Tornado! – paperback Tornado! – Kindle Real Working Drawings and Real Art, Real Easy Fine Art Prints, Matting, Frames Sometimes a Daily Painting Blog Award Winning Art Custom House Plans, Dome Specialist
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Watts Up With That? wrote:
> A.D. Everard commented: “Chad Wozniak says: June 5, 2014 at 10:35 am > @nigelf – I’d go a step further and prohibit the possession and use of any > fossil fuel or anything made from or with fossil fuels, by those who > publicly oppose developing them, or who publicly dema” >

Harry Passfield
June 5, 2014 1:27 pm

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves”

Abraham Lincoln
“For shame” (Harry Passfield)

Mac the Knife
June 5, 2014 1:28 pm

David Rothbard and Craig Rucker,
Your opening paragraph states the current situation perfectly.
Thank You, for not mincing words!
Mac

Michael C. Roberts
June 5, 2014 2:41 pm

Asthma? From rising levels of ambient atmospheric carbon dioxide? More on that later, but all I can say is YGTBFKM (You’ve Got To Be Freaking Kidding Me). The intent of the wording of the press releases from the EPA and the POTUS are to confuse the populace, through conflation between “carbon” (as in soot, or particulate matter from burning fuels) and the intended target of the EPA ruling which is “carbon dioxide” (a trace gas at atmospheric pressures), into believing the rule will seek to control and reduce “carbon” (soot) in the atmosphere by controlling and reducing “carbon dioxide” (the gas). While not wholly untrue (most people cannot understand the subtle difference in wording even though they can understand the difference in the state of matter: gas vs. particulate), it is disgustingly disingenuous to purposefully equate the differing states of “carbon” as being direct cause of asthma. Particulates as carbon soot adding to risk for asthma? Yes. Carbon dioxide as a miniscule trace gas doing the same? YGTBFKM.
After all the EPA already has a ruling to control Particulate Matter down to 2.5 microns (millionths of a meter) in size: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/designations/index.htm and yes, the PM 2.5 rule is intended to control particulate “carbon” (soot) among other particulates.
Why duplicate effort in chasing particulate “carbon” (soot) with this new ruling, when there is an adequate rule already on the books to control emitted solid form material down to 2.5 microns? The new rule is really going after “carbon dioxide” (gas) and the release of same through the burning of fuels. Then why the use of the term “carbon” when the actual target is limiting “carbon dioxide”??
That is where a knowledgeable person gets into trouble with being disingenuous. Especially when it is said (or at least implied) carbon dioxide control is needed to assist in reducing asthma in children – they already understand an average human exhalation (breathing out) contains as much as +/-4.0% carbon dioxide ( https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070529131522AAkRyus) (actually +/-3.96% carbon dioxide, as the air that was inhaled already had 0.04%!). The problem arises when asthma is blamed on the ever-increases ambient levels of CO2 in the atmosphere– every living and breathing human being should have asthma based upon this form of (ill)logic as we all exhale a larger amount of CO2, created in our internal cellular respiration, than what is available in the air we breathe. Again, YGTBFKM.
Don’t get me started on this, my wife gets fed up with it all……….

Robertvd
June 5, 2014 3:51 pm

Jeff Holmstead, former assistant administrator at the EPA for Air and Radiation, on why the latest EPA regulations on coal-fired power plants are massively misguided
http://schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/charts/audioMaster.jsp;jsessionid=2165BABAB53470AA6553BF18DF7E13FF?dispid=301&pid=65564&f=NjU1NjQtdHJ1ZS0wNi8wNS8yMDE0

Alan Robertson
June 5, 2014 4:23 pm

Michael C. Roberts says:
June 5, 2014 at 2:41 pm
“… we all exhale a larger amount of CO2, created in our internal cellular respiration, than what is available in the air we breathe…”
___________________________
You must pay for your sins.

herkimer
June 5, 2014 5:16 pm

It is a sad state in the affairs of a nation when an arm of the Government seems to deliberately distort scientific facts in order to mislead people that they are meant to serve and protect. To claim that carbon and more particularly carbon dioxide is a pollutant and reducing its emissions will suddenly improve people’s health is a scientific tragedy. It is even more tragic when the various scientific bodies of the nation whose duty it is to preserve and expand our knowledge of science remain totally silent. Not a single scientific body has spoken up, not even the medical profession who very well know that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant nor is part of any air quality index for pollutants in any nation of the world. The latest game that is being played is to associate scientific untruths with true scientific facts in order to make the former appear legitimate to the unsuspecting public. Climate warming is being lumped with climate change or extreme weather which have always been with us and carbon dioxide is being lumped in with pollutants that are part of our air quality index. Just reduce carbon dioxide and all our troubles will disappear. What nonsense.

empiresentry
June 5, 2014 5:38 pm

@kadaka (KD Knoebel) June 5, 2014 at 5:59 am
Secret Service Requests Software To Track Social Media Trends, Detect Sarcasm
I would propose they use a government approved contractor already on the contractor lists.
I would propose CGI…they did such a bang up job on ACA and Medicare/aid, and veteran’s records software.

empiresentry
June 5, 2014 5:39 pm

If deep sea fishing is banned due to carbon capture of fish, can I still spread mulch and ashes in my gardens?

June 5, 2014 5:46 pm

Gee whiz a POTUS can be impeached for having kinky sex with a WH intern but can’t be prevented from devastating the American economy and impoverishing its people.

joeldshore
June 5, 2014 7:30 pm

Looks like economic alarmism is alive and well on this site! As Paul Krugman has recently been pointing out (although I myself also was making this point independently of him for several years), conservative free-market types seem to believe in the power of markets to overcome every possible adversity (scarcity of resources, …) but that they will somehow whither and die (or implode) if a bit of economic scarcity is imposed in a flexible manner through limits on carbon emissions.
This piece is so riddled with ridiculous claims and outright falsehoods that one could spend hours dissecting it, but I will just point out a few examples in one sentence of the nonsense:

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study calculates that the new regulations will cost our economy another $51 billion annually, result in 224,000 more lost jobs every year, and cost every American household $3,400 per year in higher prices for energy, food and other necessities.

(1) The U.S. Chamber of Commerce commissioned a study that would make all sorts of questionable assumptions to arrive at the worst possible result since they are well-known to oppose this policy.
(2) Despite this, they arrived at a number for the annual economic cost that only sounds really scary until you realize that the size of the U.S. economy is $17 trillion. (Paul Krugman made the analogy to the movie where Dr. Evil tries to extort the world for a ransom of $1 MILLION! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs ) It would be a lot less scary if we gave it a more accurate headline: “Study bent on finding the largest possible costs for this policy estimates the economic cost to be 0.3% of the total economy.”
(3) It must take some very creative mathematics to convert $51 billion into a cost of $3,400 per household. That would imply the U.S. has 15 million households (which means an average household size, given the U.S. population, of 21 people per household). Either someone miscalculated by a factor of 10…Or, they are doing something extremely creative to arrive at this figure.
Do you guys even try to apply any degree of skepticism to these claims?

Reply to  joeldshore
June 9, 2014 8:53 am

@Joeldshore – Quoting Krugman on anything other than his stated weight is dangerous. He has proven he is an incompetent basic economist, and of course his “advice” to Enron was such a raging success.

joeldshore
June 5, 2014 7:32 pm

philjourdan says:

One must remember that in the fall of 2012, Obama changed the calculation for GDP. Adding in Accounts Receivable (double counting them) as well as R&D expenditures. The effect was to inflate GDP growth by 2.5-3%. So in effect, without that change, growth would be negative for the last 5 quarters.

It might help jog the memory if you could give some site to any credible economic source to validate this claim.

Reply to  joeldshore
June 9, 2014 8:51 am

@joeldshore – Ask and ye shall receive.
http://www.inc.com/erik-sherman/look-out-for-a-big-change-in-gdp-calculations.html
Note: Typo on my part. 2013. Not 2012.

joeldshore
June 5, 2014 7:37 pm

[Sorry…that should be “cite”, not “site”.]

Alan Robertson
June 5, 2014 8:25 pm

joeldshore says:
June 5, 2014 at 7:30 pm
“…which means an average household size, given the U.S. population, of 21 people per household…”
___________________________
I’m going with the fat finger on the “0” key. Either that, or they got a report detailing young illegal immigrant dude households mixed up in the pile of papers on their desk.
On another note, conspicuous in it’s absence is any word from you about the administration’s numbers. Happy with those numbers, are ye?

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 5, 2014 8:33 pm

Joel Shore, Rochester Institute of Technology, Physics Dept.
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1541449
Overall Quality 2.8

Based on normal standards, he’s not the best, but based on RIT Physics Department standards, he’s great. (…)
***
Interested in hearing someone mumble about Physics for 6 hours a week? You’ve got your guy. Don’t be too disheartened though, the entire RIT physics department is terrible.
***
Intends well but does not make good use of class time or prepare students well for exams.
***
Dr. Shore has good intentions, but his ability to teach is lacking and I can’t recommend him to anyone who actually needs to LEARN physics. (…)

From joeldshore on June 5, 2014 at 7:30 pm:

Do you guys even try to apply any degree of skepticism to these claims?

From joeldshore on June 5, 2014 at 7:32 pm:

It might help jog the memory if you could give some site to any credible economic source to validate this claim.

joeldshore said on June 5, 2014 at 7:37 pm:

[Sorry…that should be “cite”, not “site”.]

joeldshore
June 5, 2014 8:42 pm

On another note, conspicuous in it’s absence is any word from you about the administration’s numbers. Happy with those numbers, are ye?

Well, I’m sort of torn. On the one hand, I admit that, sure, they sound a little optimistic. On the other hand, the history of estimates of the costs of environmental regulations is that not only does the regulated industry overestimate them (no surprise there!) but even EPA tends to overestimate them (although maybe EPA has changed some of their modeling assumptions to better account for market mechanisms to respond by taking the cheapest possible route…I don’t know). I used to know of a study that discussed this in detail; I couldn’t find the one I was thinking of in a quick web search, but here is another one that I have only skimmed: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CFoQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.epi.org%2Fpage%2F-%2Fold%2Fbriefingpapers%2Fbp69.pdf&ei=XDeRU4OTO8-TyAS954GgDA&usg=AFQjCNEmhbQeJwb2CtAwzjVRY0CVrv9m6Q&sig2=4A7YlHOdato-ps3mLMXWxg&bvm=bv.68445247,d.b2k&cad=rja
At any rate, my guess would be that the truth will lie somewhere in between the Chamber of Commerce estimate and the Admininstration’s estimate…but probably much closer to the latter than the former.

Alan Robertson
June 5, 2014 8:43 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 5, 2014 at 8:33 pm
____________________
less than helpful

joeldshore
June 5, 2014 8:49 pm

kadaka says:

Joel Shore, Rochester Institute of Technology, Physics Dept.
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1541449

Not only ad hominem, but irrelevant ad hominem. If you want to at least go for at least slightly more relevant ad hominem, perhaps you can look for mistakes or defects in scientific papers that I have written: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JXhNbi0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao ?
That would be a step up from your previous post.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 5, 2014 9:48 pm

From Alan Robertson on June 5, 2014 at 8:43 pm:

less than helpful

Indeed they were. And as can be seen, that’s a noted trait of his.
But he does have good intentions, he tries. He’s not just trolling. This deserves to be noted when considering his comments.

Alan Robertson
June 5, 2014 10:27 pm

Your comments, K.D. Yours.

Mac the Knife
June 5, 2014 11:30 pm

Ann in L.A. says:
June 5, 2014 at 7:47 am
If you are Washington state, and had a governor who wasn’t a twit, and if you were facing a command to reduce your carbon emissions by 70+% in 15 years, wouldn’t you look at the devastation that that would cause to your state, compare it to the money you get from the feds, do a quick calculation, and tell the feds to pound sand?
Ann in LA,
Glad to see there are still voices of reason in California!
Kiddoo, we have a governor in WA state that is a twit, same as CA. WA state has already driven most of the heavy industry out of the state in the last 2 decades. Boeing is still here but deliberately migrating sizable chunks of new aircraft construction and supporting roles to other states.
Jay “Talks Out Both Sides Of Mouth” Inslee, our socialist democrat governor, is following the Obama executive model. If the state legislature ‘won’t act’ on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming to regulate CO2 emissions, Jay is prepared to act! Carbon regulations are in our future by Carbon Copy Decree, unless we can achieve a real conservative majority in the state Senate and wrest control of the state House from the socialist democRats. The state senate shift is ‘doable’ in this election year but the major shift of the House is unlikely.
In short, Jay Inslee won’t tell the Feds to pound sand. He has his party knee pads on and is avidly ‘supporting’ Our Dear Leaders agenda, reality and economics be damned.
Mac