by Josh Siegel
Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon said Friday he intends to introduce a resolution declaring climate change a national emergency.
Blumenauer, who has endorsed the progressive Green New Deal resolution and is active on environmental and renewable energy issues, circulated a letter to colleagues Friday seeking support for a resolution that would declare the “sense of Congress” that climate change is a national emergency.
Blumenauer’s resolution would swipe President Trump for declaring a national emergency Friday to build a border wall and address what the congressman called a “manufactured crisis.”
“What our country should be doing right now is focusing on addressing a real national emergency and one of the most pressing issues of our time: the climate crisis,” Blumenauer said in his letter. “If Donald Trump wants to start declaring national emergencies for fake crises, Congress should address the real ones, starting with climate change.”
Republicans who oppose Trump’s emergency declaration for the wall have expressed concern that Democrats could take that precedent and use the same executive authority to act alone on their priorities, such as climate change and gun control.
Full story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Seems to me Trump opened the box on that one… can’t see any future president NOT declaring a national emergency at some time in their administration!
If you had a clue, you’d know that pretty much every President since they were given the power to do so has declared a national emergency at some time in their administration. Obama declared several.
And it’s not even the first national emergency that Trump has declared.
The Democrats just know most of their voters are dumb enough not to understand this. They don’t care about ‘national emergencies’, they care about blocking construction of a wall that will stop them importing new voters.
If he knew that he would be someone else
He can be whoever, whenever, but his ignorant opinions always identify him.
If you had a clue, you’d know that pretty much every President since they were given the power to do so has declared a national emergency at some time in their administration.
All of them from Carter thru Trump have. The only president who didn’t, was the president (Ford) who signed the act in 1976. Carter was the first to declare a national emergency (with regards to Iran).
The Democrats just know most of their voters are dumb enough not to understand this.
Case in point: Griff.
Actually John, the 1976 Act was created to put a check and balance on the USE of National Emergency claims. FDR had used it several times decades earlier.
It started with President Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States
The post was specifically in reference to the 1976 national emergencies act. what FDR did was long before the 1976 act was put in place, and thus irrelevant to what presidents have done under an act that didn’t exist when he was president.
good ol’ glo-ball gov Wisons…1913 voter rights given to those who didn’t have to fight…next thing you know WW1…then WW2…then….
List for us all the US presidents who have not declared a National Emergency. Should be easy, since they have only had the ability for a relatively short time, historically speaking.
Seems to me Trump opened the box on that one… can’t see any future president NOT declaring a national emergency at some time in their administration!
Griff, every President since Carter has declared multiple National Emergencies (Carter, the least amount at 2, one of which is still in effect, Clinton the most at 17, six of which are still in effect). I hate to break it to you, but that box was opened a long, long time ago.
Griff, you lose ALL credibility, even from newbies on this site, when you post such an ignorant, unresearched statement.
I think there should be a new definition: ‘Griff’ – noun; def., 1. an opinion based on ignorance; 2. a false fact, a lie. 3. an incredibly stupid comment.
Griff, you lose ALL credibility
That assumes he had any credibility to begin with. It’s rather hard to lose what he never had.
That’s why I call him ‘Grift’.
“Seems to me Trump opened the box on that one… can’t see any future president NOT declaring a national emergency at some time in their administration!”
Griff, you should ask yourself why Obama didn’t declare CAGW to be a national emergency while he was in Office. There must be some reason, otherwise he would have done what you propose, and then he could have fixed CAGW all by himself, according to your formula.
The truth is declaring CAGW a national emergency would never have passed the laugh test, and would not have been approved by the Supreme Court who shot down similar attempts by a president to nationalize American industry.
Way too funny.
What if President Trump took this idiot up on the matter?
For the creeping socialism that lies at the heart of the Cult of Catastrophic Climate is becoming a national emergency.
Far too many fools and bandits with their hands on power.
Blind,scientifically speaking,worms gnawing at the foundations of society, because they FEEL!
Idiots in command is amusing when they are few,catastrophic when they become many.
So the civic institutions are all failing to produce scientifically literate,well educated citizens..
This could be called a real national emergency.
“What if President Trump took this idiot up on the matter?
For the creeping socialism that lies at the heart of the Cult of Catastrophic Climate is becoming a national emergency.”
That might qualify as a CAGW national emergency, and President Trump wouldn’t even have to nationalize American industry to deal with it, just activate the Justice Department.
“So the civic institutions are all failing to produce scientifically literate,well educated citizens..
This could be called a real national emergency.”
I fully agree!
The entire alarmist community has campaigned very strongly over the last year and the result is that many more people have been persuaded that global warming is a major problem. The growth in worried believers has been quite marked in the UK. Unfortunately that includes politicians and policymakers. We are going to get pushed into even more crazy and expensive green schemes.
This site and a few others continue to do a fantastic job, but it is a case of preaching to the converted. That is not a criticism but a frustrated cry for help. Perhaps someone could write a post proposing a few ways in which we could get more of a public debate or put some technical challenges into the public domain. Perhaps we could identify things that all of us can do as citizens.
This site has countless readers, a great many of them keen to fight the alarmist propaganda. There is a great opportunity to tap such a resource by harnessing the collective brain power. They could suggest what things we could do, select the best ideas and discuss how to implement them. There are many people who contribute to this site who could do a great job getting such a project off to a good start. Obviously it would have to meet Anthony’s approval and he may see some unwelcome downsides.
With the public and political sphere inundated daily by hysterical headlines, the narrative has now moved into the very heart of government. The only hope of reversing the tide is a serious hearing within government, one which, as in a court of law, hears arguments from both sides. The trier of fact would then be not only elected representatives but the target of orchestrated hysteria: the public – those who elect those representatives. If the sides are properly represented, the hearing would, as was skillfully observed by the late Michael Crichton, quickly expose the truth of the matter through sharply contrasting support of the two sides: ambiguous or unsupported opinion on one side vs hard science and empirical fact on the other.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-authors/michael-crichton/aliens-cause-global-warming/
With the public serving as trier of fact, the media hype that is embraced by political opportunists would then disintegrate.
Unfortunately, Republicans are unlikely to react until the threat to their re-election is imminent. By then, it will be too late.
So now, “climate change” is a political ploy? Who knew?
Actually, half of us have been saying that all along.
If the Dim-o-crats REALLY believe we are facing an existential climate crisis … then they should BAN all fossil fuels IMMEDIATELY!!! Anything short of this is willingly marching all of humanity into the gas chamber!!! (Pun intended).
So come on now, Orey-gone Rep. … be specific with your looney resolution … Make Fossil Fuels ILLEGAL!!! After all … if only ONE life is saved …
Not just Fossil Fuels, but also all the items that come from Fossil Fuels, all the plastics, Electronics etc.
Pharmaceuticals.
AOC and other like-minded Dems propose the Green New Deal as the solution to climate change. However, one perspecacious observer said the Green New Deal was the longest suicide note ever written!
“According to the Brennan Center for Justice, presidents have declared national emergencies 60 times” since 1976 when this power was codified into law -This from a Left leaning source
Nothing new here. President Trump is not letting the open border racists off easy. He’s willing to fight it out. The people who voted for him voted for this.
Trump approval rating about where it was when he was elected. Slightly positive. To paraphrase “you have to break a few Progressives to make a revolution”
TO SUMMARIZE, there is NO credible evidence that dangerous runaway global warming will occur due to increasing atmospheric CO2. It has never happened in Earth’s past, despite CO2 being many times higher than present. There is NO full-Earth-scale evidence of increasing atmospheric CO2 driving Earth’s temperature; the only such evidence is that temperature changes LEAD changes in CO2, not the reverse (MacRae 2008, Humlum et al 2013). Every global warming activist’s scary prediction of runaway global warming and wilder weather has FAILED to materialize – a perfectly NEGATIVE predictive track record. The Climategate emails and warming adjustments of the temperature record are evidence of scientific fraud by warming activists.
The scientific evidence is that global warming alarmism is not just false, it is also probably fraudulent. The scientists who lead the global warming alarmist movement are, in all probability, fully aware of this fraud. The politicians who promote global warming alarmism may not understand the science, but are certainly aware of the existence of strong opposition by highly credible scientists.
To date, trillions of dollars of scarce global resources and millions of lives have been wasted due to false global warming alarmism.
WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? One possibility is suggested in the following quotations from “The Sociopath Next Door”, by Dr. Martha Stout (2006):
Many mental health professionals refer to the condition of little or no conscience as “antisocial personality disorder,” a noncorrectable disfigurement of character that is now thought to be present in about 4 percent of the population – that is to say, one in twenty-five people.
…
According to the (then) current bible of psychiatric labels, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV of the American Psychiatric Association, the clinical diagnosis of “antisocial personality disorder” should be considered when an individual possesses at least three of the following seven characteristics:
( 1) failure to conform to social norms;
(2) deceitfulness, manipulativeness;
(3) impulsivity, failure to plan ahead;
(4) irritability; aggressiveness;
( 5) reckless disregard for the safety of self or others;
( 6) consistent irresponsibility;
(7) lack of remorse after having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person.
The presence in an individual of any three of these “symptoms,” taken together, is enough to make many psychiatrists suspect the disorder.
********************************************************
“TO SUMMARIZE, there is NO credible evidence that dangerous runaway global warming will occur due to increasing atmospheric CO2.
So what’s causing the warming at the moment? There is no other plausible cause that has been presented. Coming out of the little ice age is not a reason. We should be cooling but we are not.
“It has never happened in Earth’s past, despite CO2 being many times higher than present. ”
Umm yes it has. The earth has been much warmer at various times.
There is NO full-Earth-scale evidence of increasing atmospheric CO2 driving Earth’s temperature”
Yes there is. You can read about it in the IPCC reports and on numerous quality websites…
“the only such evidence is that temperature changes LEAD changes in CO2”
Yes that happens too. It’s why it is a double edged sword.
“The Climategate emails and warming adjustments of the temperature record are evidence of scientific fraud by warming activists.”
Really where is your evidence that the records are fraudulently adjusted? Seriously, forget the BS and bluster, please be specific where there has been fraud. The GWPF tried to gather information on this a few years ago and failed. They came up with nothing. The NZ Climate Science Education Trust were slaughtered in court in New Zealand when they alleged NIWA did this ….. then ran for the hills when they were ordered to pay 80K. So bring on the evidence. I don’t mean mistakes I mean deliberate fraud to change the historical records. Good luck with that. Many here use it as a throw away line, but few actually try to present any real evidence. I suspect because there is none.
Simon, I have no time for your nonsense.
I have posted ample evidence to support my claims on wattsup – go look it up.
“I have posted ample evidence to support my claims on wattsup – go look it up.”
Ha ha. In other words you have nothing.
So what’s causing the warming at the moment?
The same thing that caused it all the previous times in history that it warmed – Mother Nature.
There is no other plausible cause that has been presented
The null hypothesis still stands. There’s been no plausible refutation of the null hypothesis, as such your “it must be man because I’m too stupid to consider anything else” excuse fall flat.
Coming out of the little ice age is not a reason. We should be cooling but we are not.
Of all the idiotic things you’ve said, that certainly stands right up there as one of the most idiotic. If “we should be cooling”, then we wouldn’t be “coming out of” the little ice age we’d be going deeper into it.
Messed up the html tags on the last section. Last paragraph should not be in italics.
“The same thing that caused it all the previous times in history that it warmed – Mother Nature.”
Huh… mother nature is not an answer. You may need to dig a little deeper.
“If “we should be cooling”, then we wouldn’t be “coming out of” the little ice age we’d be going deeper into it”
Ummm… I think you are more than a couple of steps behind. I’ll dial it back a bit for you. When all is considered, at this point in time, we should be cooling. Because we are warming, there must be a reason. The trick is to find it and if we can do something about it.
Huh… mother nature is not an answer.
Yes, it is. “It’s natural, same as it always was” just isn’t the answer you want to hear because you wish to blame man for political purposes.
When all is considered, at this point in time, we should be cooling.
That’s an assertion without evidence. We’ve been warming since the little ice age, not cooling, so your claim that we should be cooling requires something more than your baseless assertions.
Because we are warming, there must be a reason
And that reason is the same as for every other time we have warmed throughout history. If you think otherwise the burden is on *you* to prove otherwise (models are not proof) not assert it.
The trick is to find it and if we can do something about it.
If it’s natural (and thus far there’s no proof that it isn’t – remember models are not proof), there’s nothing that can be or needs to be done about it other than adapt as needed (which is how species have dealt with the naturally changing climate since life began).
John Endicott
I give up. Enjoy your little bubble.
I give up. Enjoy your little bubble.
Ha ha. In other words you have nothing.
Simon once again demonstrates how the alarmists twist and abuse logic.
He declares that unless someone can prove that the current warming isn’t being caused by CO2, we must assume that it is being caused by CO2.
To add to the absurdity, he declares that we should be cooling now.
OK Simon, since you are so convinced that CO2 is causing the current warming, what caused the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods? Since it couldn’t have been CO2, it must have been something else. What was it?
MarkW
There is ample evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic.
Hey and well done not calling me a troll just because I disagree with you. Progress.
The planet is viable. It’s the Democrats that are wicked.
POTUS wants xx billions for the wall
Dems want xx billions to stop CAGW
Not to worry, it’s only couple of clicks on the US Treasury’s red keyboard
The difference is, the xx billions Trump wants is well within the current budget, so moving money around to accomplish it would be doable (once the inevitable court battles are resolved). the xx billions the Dems want (the Green New Deal) is actually in the *trillions* to the tune of double the size of the current budget (at the very least). There’s not enough money that can be moved around in the budget to accomplish their “stop CAGW” goals.
Besides, the Wall would put a big dent in the roughly $280 billion illegal immigrants now cost the US every year! I’ve seen studies that show the payback period for the Wall could be measured in mere months! Other benefits include drastic reductions in illegal invasion, drug running, human trafficking, and the economic suffering of citizens living along the border! The way the Democrats are fighting the issue makes me wonder if they’re getting kickbacks from Mexican drug kingpins!!
Only reason to oppose securing the border is because they are personally gaining from it being unsecured.
The senator is confused. His ‘climate emergency’ is the ‘manufactored crisis’ , not the president’s wall.
Actually his problem he dutifully reads his “bible” the [Portland] Oregonian which weekly has a large ‘religion’ article about climate change/global warming. The Oregonian never allows any contrary opinion except for a once a month letter to the editor. (out of hundreds of contrary opinions on their OregonLive opinion boards)
Earl Bowtie is a clown. He has never offered a real bill, never had a bill passed, never done anything of note except pander to the radical Left. Earl has no influence and is not a player. He is superfluous and unworthy of real concern.
A “Resolution” is non-binding, and it cannot become law. Who cares?
We care, because nothing good can come from it. A resolution is a tool of persuasion. It will convince more people there is a need for action to save us from “climate change”.
Perhaps Republicans should propose a resolution countering forcing the US to destroy its energy infrastructure.
SR
James: A “Resolution” is non-binding, and it cannot become law. Who cares?
A resolution need to pass both houses. If the Republicans can keep their RINOs in check, it won’t make it pass the Senate.
Steve: Perhaps Republicans should propose a resolution countering forcing the US to destroy its energy infrastructure.
I like your idea, however same thing applies, only in reverse. While you might get that passed the Senate (again, depending on keeping the RINOs in check) it will require some sane Dems to cross party lines in the house. I’m not sure there’s enough of those left anymore. But it would be good to get them on the record nonetheless.
“Republicans who oppose Trump’s emergency declaration for the wall have expressed concern that Democrats could take that precedent and use the same executive authority to act alone on their priorities, such as climate change and gun control.”
1) President Trump provided data on illegal immigrants’ crime to validate the need for declaring a national emergency over border security.
What data could a future president present to justify declaring a national emergency over climate change?
2) President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency is in line with his duty to protect the US from external dangers (such as terrorism, invasion, smuggling,Etc.)
A future president declaring a national emergency to enable gun control measures would be acting contrary to his/her sworn duty to uphold the US constitution.
SR
…. AND …. we conservatives totally support them doing so! The thing is, what ever they foolishly declare will be dragged in front of the courts ….. just like the Dims are doing with Trump. THE DIFFERENCE:
Trump will win. The LAW specifically gives him authority in these matters, and the Boder Patrol will back him up in his claim.
The DIMS, otoh, will lose, because gun control is ruled by the 2nd Amendment so there is no chance any declaration will be successful, … and CAGW is too abstract. The key is the word “catastrophic”. They can say CO2 causes warming till the cows come home, but there is no indication that it has been or will be catastrophic. …. and it actually runs the chance of blowing up in their faces, by discrediting the whole issue.
I saw one meme about Pelosi’s threat to issue restrictions on guns that basically said the government could have our guns, bullet first!!
What data could a future president present to justify declaring a national emergency over climate change?
The endangerment finding. Trump’s EPA needs to get that removed before he leaves office.
““Republicans who oppose Trump’s emergency declaration for the wall have expressed concern that Democrats could take that precedent and use the same executive authority to act alone on their priorities, such as climate change and gun control.”
Trump is not setting a precedent and he is not enabling a future Democrat president. No matter which way Trump went, to declare an emergency at the border or not, that would not prevent a future Democrat president from declaring a national emergency for anything he chose.
This is a ridiculous argument on it’s face.
Obama did not declare CAGW to be a national emergency. He could have. Ask yourself why he didn’t do it.
If a future Democrat president called gun ownership a natioal emergency, it would make no difference because he can’t change the Second Amendment, so a president would be wasting their time doing such a thing.
And Republican who opposes Trump is just helping the radical Democrats and their radical agenda. There will be a political cost.
exactly. Trump is using the same powers as previous presidents, there is nothing “unprecedented” about it and future presidents will chose or not to use those same powers as they see fit regardless of what Trump does or does not do.
Exactly. This is information Trump will have to present, repeatedly, to the American people because our “media” refuses to do their actual job, instead spewing lies and fantastical conspiracy theories. He has to get ahead of this, give weekly “fireside chats” and post the documentation online. They keep lying? Take it to the next level. A good start would be having it come up anytime anyone accesses any USG webpage, then use the NSA to blanket it over top of twitter, snapchat, farcebook, instagram, etc etc. Social media needs to start serving the people, not distracting them and lying to them. Then do the same to all TV, cable and satellite “news” programing in 12 hour blocks, randomly chosen. Start putting the actual facts out where everyone will see them. National Emergency, don’t ya know!
I don’t think the dems realize how limited national emergency powers are. It doesn’t allow the president to draft and sign his own legislation (which is what would be required for climate change), nor does it allow him to ignore the constitution (gun control). I mean, look at what trump can actually do. Grab a few billion from here and there to fund existing military resources.
What exactly is the dems plan upon assuming the presidency and declaring these ridiculous emergencies?
They are fantasizing about nationalizing the oil industry, banning cars, etc, etc. Basically, turning the presidency into a dictatorship. I’m not kidding. I can provide some twitter quotes if desired.
The LA Times hypes a “Potential” MegaStorm but fails to mention that this happened in 1861-2.
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-mega-storm-dam-failure-20190218-story.html
The magic molecule, CO2, is now to blame for all changes in weather, even if they happened before.
I see this as a coordinated effort to hype all actual and potential weather events in advance of a Congressional push to claim weather events a national emergency before they happen. I can only see this backfiring on the Dems as reality shows that their claims are baseless. Much like the claims they can provide 100% of all the US energy needs from renewables in 11 years are baseless.
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-mega-storm-dam-failure-20190218-story.html
Link for the LA Times article
Didn’t Barack Hussien Obama declare a National Emergency re: climate change when he and his EPA went after the fossil fuel industry?
No. You are thinking of the Endangerment finding.
We have a similar nutcase here in the UEA’s home city – one “Dr” Rupert Read:
https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/extinction-rebellion-talk-rupert-read-green-party-1-5857613
“Mr Read said: “The climate crisis has become ever more urgent – the general secretary of the United Nations has said we have to put fundamental changes in place in the next 18 months or we are heading for catastrophe”
“Mr Read has been at the forefront of a campaign to persuade the BBC to stop featuring climate change deniers on its news reports and is also a leading figure in the Extinction Rebellion (XR) movement, a growing organisation that advocates non-violent direct action and public disobedience to force politicians to meaningfully address the problem of climate change”
And being interviewed on the Beeb after disrupting a local council meeting:
“If Donald Trump wants to start declaring national emergencies for fake crises, Congress should address the real ones, starting with climate change.”
Let’s see, life expectancy in the USA is LITERALLY decreasing due to heroin and fentanyl being smuggled across the southern border, nearly the entire human trafficking problem in this nation is due to the southern border, and our social programs which are funded by US tax dollars are being severely strained due to illegal immigration on the southern border – this is just a “fake crisis.”
Obviously the real emergency is the fast approaching idiocracy.
On AO-C’s GND, her paragraph (J) on page 9. is laughably and scientifically ignorant. And it is morally repugnant.
“(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution, including by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as preservation and afforestation;”
She and her staff must be scientifically ignorant in the extreme to write about “removing GHGs from the atmosphere.” The depth of sheer dumb in that statement is un-ending.
And then she is proposing “Afforestation” — which is the establishment of a forest or stand of trees in an area where there was no previous tree cover. And by previous, AO-C’s definition would certainly be the time before European colonials settled and cleared North American lands beginning almost 400 years ago.
Afforestation is clearly different from re-forestation, both in terms of ecology and the role of humans n shaping the land. Re-forestation in the US is what has been occurring through-out the 20th century in New England and the Great Lakes/NorthWest regions after the severe logging of hard wood forest for both timber and farm land needs during the 18th-19th centuries. Countless hundreds of thousands of thousands of acres in New England that were cleared for farms in colonial times and long since returned to forest ecosystem (see note). The farms were abandon beginning in the 19th century as farmers left the poor rocky soils to head west to the plains and to Oregon and California. Great forests around the Great Lakes were cut for timber.
To undertake “afforestation” in place of farms where there had never been forests would be insane. Sever depletion of ground water levels would also be likely. Furthermore, forest encroachment to towns and local communities would be a set-up for the same kind of disasters seen in the CampFire of last November.
AO-C appears so stupid and ignorant of science, society and history that her positions in the GND are immoral if she and her staff takes them knowingly. But then when have moral boundaries ever stopped a true socialist?
The policy emphasis of the climate activists, as embodied in their Green New Deal, is now focused on massive new government and private sector spending for a combination of green energy projects and climate-justified infrastructure projects.
What climate activists refuse to acknowledge is that it is impossible to compress a hundred year’s worth of technological and economic transition away from carbon fuels into a thirty-year time span without experiencing major collateral impacts. Little or nothing has been said by climate activists concerning what these impacts might be.
As its advocates see their plan, the Green New Deal is all upside; it has little or no downside. That’s their story, and they are sticking to it.
If the policy objective is a recommitment to Barack Obama’s goal of an 80% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2050, then spending unlimited amounts of money on wind, solar, hydro, energy storage, and perhaps even on nuclear won’t get us there.
The only possible means of greatly reducing America’s carbon emissions in the short span of time climate activists are now seeking is to put a stiff price on all carbon fuels and to use the Clean Air Act to its maximum legal effectiveness in directly regulating all major sources of our carbon emissions, not just coal.
And even this kind of forceful approach won’t be enough to get the job done. If America is to achieve an 80% reduction in our GHG emissions by 2050, a program of government-mandated carbon fuel rationing combined with strictly enforced energy conservation measures covering all sectors of the American economy must eventually be adopted.
More likely than not, Donald Trump will be defeated in the 2020 election. It is also likely that control of the Senate will pass into the hands of the Democrats.
If past history is any guide, it is unlikely the Democrats in Congress will enact a stiff tax on carbon. It is just as unlikely the Congress will acknowledge the need for a carbon fuel rationing program beginning in the mid to late 2030’s if their Green New Deal spending isn’t achieving their carbon reduction targets.
So the question arises, is new legislation from the Congress needed to pursue a highly aggressive, nationally-enforced anti-carbon policy based on strict enforcement of the Clean Air Act?
The answer is no, not another word of new legislation is needed from Congress to begin the process of greatly reducing America’s GHG emissions as far and as fast as climate change activists claim is necessary.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the EPA has full authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate all sources of America’s carbon emissions. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that the process used by the EPA in 2009 to determine that CO2 is a pollutant was properly followed.
The Executive Branch and the EPA now have all the independent authority needed to pursue a highly aggressive anti-carbon policy, if they choose to do so.
Here is a plan to reduce America’s GHG emissions 80% by 2050 using the existing legal authorities of the President as enabled by the Clean Air Act and by existing national security legislation. This plan is similar to the one that was being pushed a decade ago in 2009 by 350.org and by other environmental groups.
In this updated version, the original 350.org plan is augmented by a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated carbon tax.
Moreover, if carbon pricing combined with massive new spending on green energy projects doesn’t prove to be fully effective, the updated plan adds a provisional system for imposing direct government control over the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
Phase I: Establish a legal basis for regulating carbon dioxide and other carbon GHG’s as pollutants. (2007-2012)
— File and win lawsuits to allow regulation of CO2 and other carbon GHG’s as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
— Publish a CAA Section 202 Endangerment Finding as a prototype test case for regulation of carbon GHG’s.
— Defend the Section 202 Endangerment Finding in the courts.
Phase II: Expand and extend EPA regulation of carbon GHG’s to all major sources of America’s carbon emissions. (2021-2022)
— Issue a presidential executive order declaring a carbon pollution emergency.
— Publish a CAA Section 108 Endangerment Finding which complements 2009’s Section 202 finding.
— Establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon pollution.
— Use the NAAQS for carbon pollution as America’s tie-in to international climate change agreements.
— Defend the Section 108 Endangerment Finding and the NAAQS in the courts.
Phase III: Establish a fully comprehensive EPA-managed regulatory framework for carbon. (2023-2025)
— Publish a regulatory framework for carbon pollution under Clean Air Act sections 108, 111, 202, and other CAA sections as applicable.
— Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
— Establish a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.
— Establish the legal basis for assigning all revenues collected from these carbon pollution fines to the states.
— Research and publish a provisional system of direct carbon fuel rationing as a backup to the carbon fine system.
— Defend the EPA’s comprehensive system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts.
Phase IV: Implement the EPA’s carbon pollution regulatory framework. (2026-2050)
— Commence operation of prior agreements with the states for enforcement of the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
— Commence the collection of carbon pollution fines and the distribution of fine revenues to the states.
— Monitor the effectiveness of the EPA’s carbon regulatory framework in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
— Monitor the effectiveness of renewable energy projects in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
— Monitor the effectiveness of energy conservation programs in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
— Adjust the schedule of carbon pollution fines upward if progress in reducing America’s GHG emissions lags.
— Assess the possible need for invoking the provisional system of direct carbon fuel rationing.
— Defend the EPA’s system of carbon pollution regulations against emerging lawsuits.
Phase V: Implement the provisional system for direct carbon fuel rationing. (Start and End dates contingent upon Phase IV progress.)
— Issue a presidential proclamation declaring that Phase IV anti-carbon measures cannot meet the 80% by 2050 target.
— Initiate the provisionally established system for imposing direct government control over production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
— Apply the Phase IV system of carbon pollution fines in escalating steps as needed to incentivize Phase V compliance.
— Defend the government-mandated carbon fuel rationing program in the courts.
Phase VI: Declare success in reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. (If complete by 2050 or earlier.)
— Assess the need for continuing the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations and the US Government’s mandatory fuel rationing program beyond 2050.
— Defend the government’s anti-carbon measures against emerging lawsuits if these measures continue beyond 2050.
Remarks:
Phase I of this plan was complete in 2012. The legal foundation needed to impose aggressive across-the-board regulation of all major sources of America’s carbon emissions remains in place awaiting the appearance of a president willing to use it.
When Barack Obama was Chief Executive, his Clean Power Plan and his other anti-carbon measures might have achieved possibly one-third of his Year 2050 GHG reduction goal. But the remainder depended upon a highly uncertain combination of accelerated technological advancements and raw unvarnished hope.
And yet, when President Obama had the opportunity and the means to move forward with the 350.org plan, he refused to go through with it. Nor were 350.org itself and the other climate activist groups willing to push hard for adoption of their 2009 plan after their initial victories in the courts.
From 2012 onward, climate activists could have worked closely with the EPA using the ‘sue and settle’ process to put their 2009 plan into effect. If the dangers of climate change are as severe as they claim, then why didn’t the activists go forward with it?
Could it be that in 2012, President Obama, 350.org, and all the other anti-carbon environmental groups were afraid of massive political blowback if they had pushed for a program which can be highly effective in quickly reducing America’s carbon emissions — but at the expense of imposing great personal and economic sacrifice on most Americans?
To be fair, the prophecy of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming has numerous, and perhaps a democratic, appeal. Why wouldn’t a political party exploit its leverage.
Hmm. Perhaps some cc legislation could be proposed by Trump.
Ban the exportation of fossil-fuel drived electricity to any state that has banned the in-state production of electricity by the use of fossil fuels. Call it, ‘Protection of State Clean Energy Policies’. Constitutionally, it is justified under the Interstate Commerce clause.
The argument would be that power companies could avoid state mandates to provide ‘clean energy’ by buying power produced by ‘dirty’ power companies in other states.
As far as I know, California is the only state that would currently be affected. Ban them from importing power, and they will go dark occasionally, and then, ironically, maybe see the light.
+42
And get the popcorn ready as the Dems tie themselves into pretzels trying to defend their opposition such Climate change initiatives from the president.
Blumenauer for Kindergarten-President.