The Obama climate monarchy

Using the EPA, CEQ and other federal agencies to fundamentally transform America

president_official_portrait_hiresGuest essay by Paul Driessen

ISIS terrorists continue to butcher people, while hacking into a French television network. Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons remains on track. In a nation of 320 million people, American businesses hired only 126,000 workers in March, amid a pathetic 62% labor participation rate. Wages and incomes are stagnant.

And yet President Obama remains fixated on one obsession: dangerous manmade climate change. He blames it for everything from global temperatures that have been stable for 18 years, to hurricanes that have not made US landfall for nearly 9.5 years, and even asthma and allergies. He is determined to use it to impose energy, environmental and economic policies that will “fundamentally transform” our nation.

He launched his war on coal with a promise that companies trying to build new coal-fired power plants would go bankrupt; implemented policies that caused oil and gas production to plunge 6% on federal lands, even as it rose 60% on state and private lands; proclaimed that he will compel the United States to slash its carbon dioxide emissions 28% below 2005 levels by 2025, and 80% by 2050; and wants electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket.” His Environmental Protection Agency has led the charge.

EPA has targeted power plants that emit barely 3% of all mercury in US air and water, saying this will prevent IQ losses of an undetectable “0.00209 points.” On top of its recent “Clean Power Plan,” EPA is taking over what used to be state roles, demanding that states meet CO2-reduction mandates by reorganizing the “production, distribution and use of electricity.” The agency justifies this latest power grab through a tortured 1,200-page reinterpretation of a 290-word section of the Clean Air Act.

The injuries, abuses and usurpations have become too numerous to count, and involve nearly every federal agency – as the President seeks to make the states and Executive and Judicial Branches irrelevant in his new monarchical “do as I tell you, because I say so, or else” system of government.

Now even the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is getting involved, by dramatically retooling the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA requires that federal agencies consider the impacts of their significant decision-making actions on “the quality of the human environment,” anytime they issue permits for projects, provide government funding or conduct the projects themselves.

The law has avoided many needless impacts but has also enabled activists to delay or block projects they oppose on ideological grounds. The new White House/CEQ “guidelines” were issued on Christmas Eve 2014, to minimize public awareness and response. They require that federal agencies henceforth consider potential impacts on climate change, whenever they provide permits, approvals or funding for any federal, state or private sector projects, on the assumption that such projects will always affect Earth’s climate.

Problems with the new diktats are far too numerous for a single article, but several demand discussion.

First, CEQ uses US carbon dioxide emissions as proxy for climate change. This assumes CO2 is now the dominant factor in climate and weather events, and all the powerful natural forces that ruled in past centuries, millennia and eons are irrelevant. It presumes any increases in US “greenhouse gases” correlate directly with national and global climate and weather events, and any changes will be harmful. It also considers emissions from China and other countries to be irrelevant to any agency calculations.

Second, CEQ employs the same “social cost of carbon” analyses that other agencies are using to justify appliance, vehicle and other efficiency and emission standards. This SCC assessment will now examine alleged international harm up to 300 years in the future, from single project emissions in the United States, despite it being impossible to demonstrate any proximate relationship between asserted global climate changes and any US project emissions (which are generally minuscule globally).

Moreover, the entire SCC analysis is based on arbitrary, fabricated, exaggerated and manipulated costs, with no benefits assigned or acknowledged for using hydrocarbons to improve, safeguard and save countless lives – or for the role that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide plays in improving crop and other plant growth, thereby feeding more people, greening our planet and bolstering wildlife habitats.

Third, the expensive, time-consuming, useless, impossible exercise is made even more absurd by CEQ’s proposed requirement that agencies somehow calculate the adverse global climatic impacts of any federally approved project that could emit up to 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide or its equivalents per year. A single shopping mall, hospital or stretch of busy highway could meet this threshold – triggering endless “paralysis by analysis,” environmentalist litigation, delays and cost overruns.

Fourth, CEQ also wants agencies to somehow evaluate “upstream” and “downstream” emissions. In cases reviewing highway or hospital projects, this would entail examining emissions associated with mining, processing, shipping and using cement, steel, other building materials and heavy equipment before and during construction – and then assessing emissions associated with people and goods that might conceivably be transported to or from the facility or along the highway following construction.

CEQ likewise wants project proponents to offset these alleged impacts with equally spurious mitigation projects, which will themselves by subjected to still more analyses, contention, litigation and delays.

Fifth, the proposed CEQ guidelines would supposedly evaluate any and all adverse impacts allegedly caused by climate changes supposedly resulting from fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions. But they do not require federal agencies to assess harms resulting from projects delayed or blocked because of the new climate directives. Thus agencies would endlessly ponder rising seas and more frequent and/or severe hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts that they might attribute to particular projects.

However, they would not consider the many ways people would be made less safe by an analytical process that results in more serious injuries and deaths, when highway improvements, better levees and other flood protections, modern hospitals and other important facilities are delayed or never built.

Nor has CEQ factored in the roles of ideologically motivated anti-development bureaucrats in the federal agencies – or the ways Big Green campaigns and lawsuits are sponsored by wealthy far-left foundations, Russian money laundered through a Bermuda law firm, and even grants from the government agencies.

Sixth, in many cases, the CEQ rules could actually be counterproductive even to the Administration’s purported energy and environmental goals. Its war on coal is intended to replace coal mines and power plants with “more climate-friendly” natural gas. However, CEQ’s new guidelines for methane and carbon dioxide could delay or prevent leasing, drilling, fracking, production, pipelining and export of new gas. That would hardly seem a desirable outcome – unless the real purpose is to keep fossil fuels in the ground, increase energy prices, compel a faster transition to unreliable wind and solar power, cause more brownouts and blackouts, destroy jobs, reduce living standards, and keep more people dependent on government welfare and thus likely to vote Democrat.

NEPA is supposed to improve the overall “quality of the human environment,” and thus human health and welfare. That means all its components, not merely those the President and his Executive Branch agencies want to focus on, as they seek to use climate change to justify shutting down as much fossil fuel use as possible, in an economy that is still 82% dependent on hydrocarbons.

The CEQ and White House violate the letter, spirit and intent of NEPA when they abuse it to protect us from exaggerated or imaginary climate risks decades from now – by hobbling job creation, families, human health and welfare, and environmental quality tomorrow. That their actions will impact poor, minorities and working classes most of all makes the CEQ proposal even more pernicious.

When will our Congress, courts and state legislatures step up to the plate, do their jobs, and rein in this long Train of Abuses and Usurpations?

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

246 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tetragrammaton
April 13, 2015 8:59 am

Since the CC meme became “settled science”, accepted by 97% of the cognoscenti, the US political class keep finding new uses for it. For example, scientists and others who have figured out that CAGW is and always was bogus, can be kept out of the mainstream of political and scientific life by inducing them to spend their time and intelligence writing comments on blogs. Most voters will never see or even here about the contents of these blogs or comments. I’m glad I’m too intelligent to ever get sidetracked like this ….um ……er

nutso fasst
April 13, 2015 9:13 am

Among the “other agencies,” NASA and the Department of the Interior are both pushing the “97% of climate scientists” claim.
NASA:

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

National Park Service:

A recent survey of climatologists reveals that 97% of those scientists think that global climate change is occurring presently and that human activity is the primary cause…
Let’s be clear. Climate change is happening all around us, and human activities are accelerating it. The evidence is overwhelming, and the theory of global warming is sound. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which conducted the survey above, consists of thousands of scientists from all over the world who specialize in difference aspects of climate science. A separate study by the National Academy of the Sciences drew the same conclusions.

Reply to  nutso fasst
April 13, 2015 9:49 am

Ooops, you got it wrong National Park Service. You might want to check your facts again:
“…only 64 papers out of 11,944, a dizzying 0.5%, as endorsing the “consensus…”. – This has been proven over and over again. Lets get it right – maybe some of the smart Park Rangers can correct some of these fallacies..
This junk science is in every National Park and National Monument website and brochure and other literature!

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 13, 2015 9:53 am

And NASA, I am totally surprised and disappointed with you! You used to be my only hero government agency.

DayHay
April 13, 2015 9:51 am

“In a nation of 320 million people, American businesses hired only 126,000 workers in March, amid a pathetic 62% labor participation rate. Wages and incomes are stagnant”
To put this in perspective, approximately 100,000 new workers are attempting to enter the job market each month. So that leaves 26,000 net jobs. That is a REAL CRISIS.

Resourceguy
April 13, 2015 10:52 am

It should be seamless over reach for Hillary while staying with soft, easy topics during the campaign. The real agenda comes later and stamped with voter approval too in the first of many reality warps.

April 13, 2015 11:42 am

You’ve only just noticed?

April 13, 2015 12:52 pm

Hillary has always been dishonest:comment image

nutso fasst
Reply to  dbstealey
April 13, 2015 1:42 pm

Hillary being a liar is no excuse for lying about Hillary.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

kim
Reply to  dbstealey
April 13, 2015 9:41 pm

Hey, is that Dan Rather on the left in the photo?
==========

April 13, 2015 2:05 pm

EPA has targeted power plants that emit barely 3% of all mercury in US air and water, saying this will prevent IQ losses of an undetectable “0.00209 points.”

Can you point to a more reliable source than a newspaper for the 3% claim?
The official number is 50%. See: http://www.epa.gov/mats/powerplants.html
Besides I think an average IQ loss of 0.00209 points is substantial since the base for the average is the whole population of 320 million people.
Everyone will not be equally affected you know. Most people won’t be affected at all but some will be.
If one in ten thousand people is affected with 20.9 IQ points, and the rest are not affected at all, the average would still be 0.00209 points.
One in ten thousand of 320 million is 32 000 people, reduced from being intelligent to rather slow, for lifetime.
In addition there are Co-benefits such as also reducing particles and it is the feeling of security.
For instance, I love to go fishing and take the fish home and serve it to my family, but I hate the nagging feeling that I may also poison my grandchildren with some mercury.
/Jan

David A
Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
April 14, 2015 3:12 am

Jan, the statement is linked. it is total source of mercury, including NATURAL. Also the IQ link is not based on an average per capitia decline, but on an unscientific WAG of what the plus 3% to natural exposure will do to individuals based on a false linear projection of mercury harms.

Reply to  David A
April 14, 2015 7:46 am

Not based on average per capita decline?
The only link given is to a newspaper article which says that the emission cuts will reduce the average per person IQ loss
Do you have any other sources?
And do you have any reliable sources saying that if we include the natural sources the emissions for the power plants is only 3%?
/Jan

Svend Ferdinandsen
April 13, 2015 2:46 pm

Would it be possibe to use the regulation to stop any new ethanol plant or to put up windmills.
Just a humble thaught.

beowulf888
April 13, 2015 4:54 pm

Hear, hear! I agree. I come to this site for data and the analysis of data — not political screeds. However, I’d also like to point out that Obama relies on his Science Advisor, John Holdren, for the information he uses for his policy decisions. Holdren is firmly in the man-made climate change camp (as are, I’m afraid, the majority of climate scientists). And why would Obama ever be exposed to contradictory views, when the media (which is largely owned by Corporate America plays up the climate change fears to get readers). Anyway, your battle is with scientists, not with the politicians who listen to the scientists.
I would say that lefties are innately more trusting of scientists than righties. This, I will grant you, is weakness when it comes to seeking climate change advice. But I suspect a large proportion on the current Republican candidates would happily claim that the Earth was created in 4004 BC to kowtow to their fundamentalist base.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  beowulf888
April 13, 2015 5:18 pm

beowulf888

I would say that lefties are innately more trusting of scientists than righties. This, I will grant you, is weakness when it comes to seeking climate change advice. But I suspect a large proportion on the current Republican candidates would happily claim that the Earth was created in 4004 BC to kowtow to their fundamentalist base.

You lie.
NO Republican candidate has EVER used that claim, nor HAS any Republican candidate ever had to pretend to make such a claim for his or her base. We are more intelligent, more informed than the liberal/democrat tell-me-what-to-do-voters.

Catherine Ronconi
Reply to  beowulf888
April 13, 2015 5:19 pm

Your suspicion is wrong.
Even Huckabee won’t happily claim to know when the earth was created.

I doubt that even a single GOP candidate in 2016 will be a bona fide Young Earth Creationist. Huckabee’s view resembles Jimmy Carter’s.

milodonharlani
Reply to  beowulf888
April 13, 2015 5:33 pm

The only president with even a BS in a scientific discipline was Hoover’s geology degree from Stanford.
Lying, World War II draft-evading, scumbag megalomaniac Carter claimed to be a “nuclear physicist”, when all the jerk ever did was attend the Navy’s nuclear reactor program.

Reply to  beowulf888
April 13, 2015 5:59 pm

Don, that was about the time the Corporations/Bankers/Neocons Brzezinski/Wolfowitz doctrines seized control of us.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/04reich-graphic-popup.jpg

April 13, 2015 5:52 pm

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

Further proof the EPA is the most dangerous thing on earth. (And the CEQ.)
Regulation at all government levels is a cancer. It is eating our country and our society. We must reverse it and rid ourselves of the regulatory agencies now, or it will be too late before we can do anything about it. Regulation is the greatest threat to all of us.

Mervyn
April 14, 2015 7:00 am

When the Berlin Wall was torn down, everyone thought that that would be the end of those authoritarian tendencies that came out of Moscow, USSR. How wrong everyone was.
Ronald Reagan must now be turning in his grave watching his beloved America adopting the flawed global warming doctrine … because he would know that, today, the greatest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity that he worked so hard for, is no longer socialism or communism but, rather, the ambitious, arrogant, and unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism. And Obama has become its greatest disciple. What Tom Cruise is to the Church of Scientology, Obama is to the “Church of Dangerous Man-Made Global Warming”.

April 14, 2015 8:52 am

“When will our Congress, courts and state legislatures step up to the plate, do their jobs, and rein in this long Train of Abuses and Usurpations?”
I guess you missed the fact that the President heads what is called The Executive Branch of government. You might want to study up on it – it’s important. As the head of the Executive Branch, he gets quite a bit of say in how that branch of government functions.
Just like George Bush did before him. And please note the rather large number of Executive Directives Bush wrote – many of them in complete contradiction for the law of the land. Did you miss that? No, I’m e wrote – many of them in complete disregard for the law of the land. Did you miss that?
No, I’m sure you did not, and you wrote fervently and publicly against it. Because politics doesn’t play a role in your objective analyses, as anyone can see by your gratuitous references to ISIS when speaking of President Obama.
Good grief, man. Founding fathers rhetoric in a hatchet job?

April 14, 2015 10:41 am

The MATS regulation is a tough decision for the Supreme Court. On one hand you have that the MATS regulation make the electricity from coal more expensive, on the other hand you have that Mercury make our kids dumber.
But back to the first again, clever kids can be quite annoying, the slow one are easier to handle. I guess that makes it.
/Jan

April 14, 2015 10:15 pm

Mr. Driessen makes a compelling case for the proposition that the president of the U.S. is a nitwit in key respects. He is a graduate of the highly ranked law school at Harvard University where he held the prestigious position of editor of the law review. Subsequently he was hired as a professor by the highly ranked law school at the University of Chicago. He is articulate and charming and comes across as unusually bright yet the basis for his position on global warming is pseudoscientific rather than scientific. He has fallen for an argument that is emotional rather than logical. This is not the mark of an intelligent person.