By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, August 2, 2010
John Topping, who served as editor of portions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) First Assessment Report (FAR) concerning impacts of climate change, wrote an article titled, “Massachusetts v. EPA: A Turning Point for the US on Climate Change?”
He sees the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) loss as a victory because they can now control CO2, fossil fuels, and the US economy. Frighteningly, it’s based on completely falsified science and is totally unnecessary. It’s what President Obama really meant when he talked about change. In a pre-election interview he revealed his true intention, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” EPA has launched the rocket with its economy-destroying warhead.
Cap and Trade Failure Not A Problem
Cap and Trade, or control of CO2, is more important to the Obama administration than Healthcare or Financial Regulation. They knew it would be more difficult legislation to pass, as is proving the case.
Public sentiment is the key. Most agreed healthcare needed reform; the issues were method and extent of government involvement. Financial regulation had some sympathy because of traditional antipathy to Wall Street and bankers. Besides, neither implied serious negative impact on the economy or jobs. Cap and Trade is a different situation. The Senate knows from its forerunner, the Kyoto Accord, the impact on jobs and economy are very negative. They voted 95-0 against Kyoto in July 1997, but it’s closer now because they can’t get 60 votes for approval. When Kyoto was considered, the public sentiment was more in favor of global warming as a problem than it is today. Polls show neither global warming nor climate change is of concern to the public. The science has failed and been exposed as a deliberate fraud. The fact more politicians want to approve Cap and Trade underscores how political the issue has become.
Obama keeps pushing because it is the heart of attacks designed to destroy the industrialized, fossil fuel driven, capitalist economy. He’d prefer the financial benefits of Cap and Trade because the budget submitted to Congress in 2009 saw yields of $78.7 billion in 2012 and $645.7 billion by 2019.
Without the revenue, the budget deficit and the debt increase dramatically. However, neither are concerns for Obama whose objective is to undermine the economy and then offer government control as the savior. Latest opinions are it will not survive.
Ironically, losing the vote on Cap and Trade is to Obama’s benefit. It will fool opponents into believing they have some control and he can argue that he respects the democratic process.
Actually, it’s a typical bait and switch, the standard ploy of Obama’s administration. He presented himself as centrist, but is now the most liberal President in US history. He uses Executive orders and bureaucratic rulings to bypass Constitutional checks and balances and exclude the people’s representatives. EPA control of CO2 uses the bait of clean and alternate energy. As EPA Director Lisa Jackson proclaims, “Defenders of the status quo will try to slow our efforts to get America running on clean energy,” “A better solution would be to join the vast majority of the American people who want to see more green jobs, more clean energy innovation.” Alternate energies don’t work and people know these policies have failed wherever they were tried. The switch is to total government control of energy.
As Editor Judi McLeod noted, CanadaFreePress identified quite early the bureaucratic process used to introduce control over CO2.
The next phase of the process has occurred and the EPA is on the verge of implementing draconian control using CO2 as the excuse. On July 29th the Agency rejected challenges to its claim that, “climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gas is a danger to public health.”
How did they get to this point? It began with a challenge before the US Supreme Court by the State of Massachusetts, plus 11 other States, that the EPA was not regulating greenhouse gases, including CO2, from the transportation sector as required. Some believe the EPA orchestrated this challenge deliberately because if they lost they gained. It makes sense considering the sequence of events. First EPA challenged Massachusetts’ right to challenge, that is whether they had ‘standing.’ The Court ruled they did. Then EPA argued they lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 or other greenhouse gases. The Court ruled greenhouse gases were a danger to health through climate change and the EPA was required to resolve the problem. By losing the case EPA established the legal authority to act independent of the legislative branch.
There was one more hurdle. The law allows challenges to their claims that greenhouse gases were a danger to health through climate change.
Ten submissions were examined and rejected. The outcome was pre-ordained by a completely self-serving process of self-examination. As Senator Inhofe said, “EPA could have chosen to have an open, transparent process to look at the implications of climategate,” “But EPA chose instead to dismiss legitimate concerns about data quality, transparency, and billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded science as products of ‘conspiracies.’” They concluded, “The scientific evidence supporting EPA’s finding is robust, voluminous, and compelling. Climate change is happening now, and humans are contributing to it. Multiple lines of evidence show a global warming trend over the past 100 years.” The conclusion is wrong. There is no evidence humans are contributing to climate change and everything that is occurring is natural and within natural climate variability. EPA hypocrisy is seen in the argument made in opposing the Massachusetts’ charge. They told the court that, “…. even if it (EPA) was granted authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, it would be “unwise to do so at this time,” stating that it might conflict with the current administration’s effort to address climate change, particularly with regard to international climate negotiations.” It’s a shallow argument that supports the charge they wanted to lose. It also reflects the politics of a supposedly neutral bureaucracy.
The Missile is Launched
Obama’s first budget allowed $19 million for the EPA to determine sources of CO2 emissions. EPA Director Lisa Jackson will use such information to limit or close down industries that drive the US economy. But we shouldn’t be too surprised because, when playing the bait and switch game, true intentions are occasionally revealed.
When Obama made his “skyrocket “ comment he also said, “If somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” EPA now has the authority to bankrupt them and the entire fossil fuel industry that drives the US economy.