2014 ndi 6ws – Fitzmier, Lundberg, Abelkop
Download 0.68 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- EPA regulations would collapse the economy
- Republicans are trying to block EPA regulations
- Republicans think EPA regulations will kill the economy and will fight them
- EPA regs hurt the economy- kills jobs, raises energy costs and imposes new burdens on businesses
- EPA regulations will crush the economy, the poor and middle class will be particularly impacted
- The impacts of EPA regulations will hit the poor hardest and increase the overall unemployment rate
- EPA regulations are terrible for the economy—lack of flexibility will cause power plants to close, destroying business growth and job opportunities
- Regs bad for the economy
- EPA regulations can’t solve warming
- EPA regs don’t solve warming
EPA Regs1NCGOP Senate will make the EPA toothlessHunt 4/1/14 – Albert Hunt is the host of Political Capital with Al Hunt and is a columnist for Bloomberg, “Republican Senate could bypass Obama’s vetoes,” http://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/04/01/republican-senate-bypass-obamas-vetoes/7165339/ If Republicans take control of the U.S. Senate in this year’s elections, it will be, as Vice President Joe Biden might put it more graphically, a big deal.¶ Last week, elections handicapper Nate Silver gave a 60 percent probability that the Republicans would gain at least the half-dozen seats required for a majority. This wasn’t news to top party strategists. But it produced a palpable panic among Democrats along Pennsylvania Avenue, from the White House to Capitol Hill.¶ Rationalizations followed. Maybe the assumptions were flawed, or Republicans would overreach and set the stage for Democrats to come back in 2016. In any case, President Barack Obama has the veto pen for the last two years of his term. That glosses over the profound policy implications of a change that would affect many areas.¶ • The Affordable Care Act: The president can stop repeal of Obamacare, but a determined congressional majority can wreak havoc by using the initial budget process, known as reconciliation, which allows major changes to be made with only a majority Senate vote that isn’t subject to filibusters.¶ “The Republicans can use reconciliation to pass lots of policies – even repealing parts of Obamacare,” says Lanhee Chen, formerly a top policy adviser to Mitt Romney and now a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a Bloomberg View columnist.¶ Republicans have struggled to come up with any palatable alternatives to the health care law. That means major components such as the subsidies and tax credits, or the ban on discrimination against insuring those with preexisting conditions, wouldn’t be changed. But deep cuts in funding for running the program and getting new enrollees would take a toll.¶ “There could be a big hit in day-to-day administration,” says Chris Jennings, a health care expert who has worked with the Obama administration.¶ • Fiscal priorities: Despite the power of the presidential veto, all the compromises would move to the right. Congress would adopt measures closer to those favored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, cutting social spending for the poor and increasing defense spending.¶ Republicans would try to enact conservative tax measures. Reform of the corporate code might be a starting point, though changes to individual income taxes would be unlikely for budgetary and political reasons.¶ • Regulation: A Republican Congress would hold the upper hand. Regulatory agencies the party doesn’t like – a long list that includes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency – could turn into toothless watchdogs with slashed budgets.¶ There would be a big push for the [RENSA] Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, which requires congressional approval for all major regulations. EPA regulations would collapse the economyInhofe 5/31/14 Jim, former chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. R-Okla, USA Today, "Inhofe: President plays politics with climate change", www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/31/jim-inhofe-climate-change/9732121/ Cap-and-trade proposals have been explicitly rejected in Congress no fewer than four times over the last 15 years, but President Obama and his administration will be announcing Monday his plans to charge full steam ahead, leaving the American majority behind.¶ President Obama's announcement will likely rehash the normal fear-tactic talking points about the theory of man-made climate change. Then he will shift his tone and use rosy words to share about his aggressive new Environmental Protection Agency proposal that will force existing power plants to regulate carbon emissions and will set the stage for states to create cap-and-trade systems in order to regulate these plants.¶ What's not so rosy are the numbers. Each past cap-and-trade plan rejected by Congress was estimated to cost Americans roughly $400 billion a year in de facto tax hikes. Now the president is once again looking to do through regulation what he couldn't accomplish through legislation. But myself and others are sounding the real alarm of how the president's plan will be dangerous for our economy and future job opportunities.¶ On May 27, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report saying that climate change regulations for new and existing power plants would result in an average loss of 224,000 American jobs each year and an increase in electricity costs of $289 billion while lowering overall household incomes by more than $500 billion.¶ These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. More EPA regulations like the one that will be proposed Monday threaten the reliability and affordability of our power grid, will weaken our economy, and drive more people into the unemployment lines. In a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on May 14, committee witness, Marvin Fertel, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, testified that EPA regulations are "shutting down the backbone of our electricity system."¶ Other inexpensive domestic energy producers, many of whom had to fill the gap in electricity demand during this year's polar vortex, have also warned that these regulations will force them to close their operations in the next few years. What happens for areas of our nation who face a long heat wave or cold snap in future years?¶ It is no wonder recent polls, such as Gallup's on March 12, show that the majority of Americans are least interested in climate change policy issues when compared to other, more important issues like the economy, job creation and even available and affordable energy.¶ That the president is willing to follow through on climate change policies, despite the widespread unpopularity, underscores the real motivation behind his actions: pleasing a donor base. Billionaire Tom Steyer joined the likes of Al Gore, Michael Moore and others, earlier this year when he hosted high-profile Democrats at a fundraiser and promised a $100 million war chest if they keep climate change a priority. With each speech, media interview, and EPA regulation, President Obama and others are making good on their promises.¶ The Obama administration's proposal must be seen for what it is: a move motivated solely by politics with little regard for the American consumer or the economy. The president will boast of the flexibility his proposal will provide, but there is no way around the fact that it could amount to the largest tax increase in American history. The big question is how the American people will respond and that decision can only be made by them at the polls this November. History proves that a volatile economic environment risks conflict—radical terrorist groups and tension over shared energy resources could unintentionally result in a pre-emptive nuclear strike Mathew Harris and Jennifer Burrows, National Intelligence Council, in 2009 [Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf] Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge,particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world. GOP Will Cut EPARepublicans are trying to block EPA regulationsWallbank 6/13/14 ( Derek Wallbank, reporter for Bloomberg News, “Republicans to Try to Block Funds for EPA Emissions Rules”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-13/republicans-to-try-to-block-funds-for-epa-emissions-rules.html” Republicans will try to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed greenhouse-gas rule by denying the funding to implement it, according to a senior member of a U.S. House appropriations panel. The funding ban “will be in Interior,” Idaho Republican Mike Simpson said, referring to the spending bill being drafted for the Department of Interior and EPA. Simpson, head of the House’s Energy-Water Appropriations subcommittee, formerly chairman of the Interior and Environment appropriations panel. “We’re going to take a serious look at it,” Representative Ken Calvert, a California Republican and chairman of the Interior-Environment subcommittee, said in a separate interview at the Capitol. “It wouldn’t surprise me” if a funding ban were included in the money bill his panel is crafting, he said. “There’s great interest from a lot of members.” The EPA’s proposed carbon rule, released earlier this month, would require state-by-state limitations on carbon dioxide emissions that would reduce the national output by 17 percent from current levels by 2030. Because the spending bill must pass to keep the Interior Department and the EPA running, it’s an attractive vehicle for bringing media and public attention to the emissions issue. Republicans would embrace a pitched battle over a carbon rule they say will kill jobs in coal-rich parts of the country. Republicans think EPA regulations will kill the economy and will fight themKasperowicz 6/10/14 (Pete Kasperowicz, reporter for The Hill’s Floor Action Blog, “GOP bill would stop EPA from emitting dangerous, job-killing regulations”, http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/06/10/gop-bill-would-stop-epa-from-emitting-dangerous-job-killing-regulations/ ) Dozens of House members introduced legislation on Monday aimed at curbing regulatory emissions from the Environmental Protection Agency, which many Republicans see as a source of dangerous rules that threaten to harm economic growth and job creation. The bill is a reaction to the EPA’s latest rule, which would require power plants to cut their carbon emissions by 30 percent in 25 years. ep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) proposed the Protection and Accountability Regulatory Act, along with 66 other House Republicans and one Democrat, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.). The bill would nullify the EPA’s new carbon emissions rule for existing power plants, as well as the EPA’s January rule that applies to new plants. And it would stop the EPA from issuing similar rules on power plants for five years. “America needs to wake-up to what these regulations mean for our economy and our future,” McKinley said. “That is why we are raising the alarm and continuing to fight this plan at every turn.” McKinley argued that China and other countries are the biggest problems when it comes to carbon emissions caused by burning coal. Republicans say the EPA’s new rule would to reduce global carbon emissions because of countries like China. Republicans said last week that the EPA’s new rule is a job-killer at a time when millions of Americans are still looking for work, and raise electricity prices on middle class families at a time of stagnant wages. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the proposal “nuts.” . Key To EconomyEPA regs hurt the economy- kills jobs, raises energy costs and imposes new burdens on businessesLambro 6/3/14 ( Donald Lambro, journalist and chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, “New Epa Regulations Are Political Gift for Republicans”, http://www.uexpress.com/donald-lambro/2014/6/3/new-epa-regulations-are-political-gift “ WASHINGTON -- Just when our economy is shrinking, President Obama wants to impose harsh environmental rules that will kill jobs, raise energy costs and impose new burdens on business. One week after the government said the U.S. economy contracted in the first quarter, for the first time since 2011, Obama is calling for severe new coal emissions rules that many Democrats in Congress say will hurt their states' economies. They will result in widespread job losses, with estimates of up to half a million workers, and likely much more than that if the new rules are fully adopted. Those jobs would come, first and foremost, from coal-mining states, but also from many industries that are heavily dependent on coal for their energy needs. Nearly 20 states obtain more than half their electric power from coal-fired plants, according to the Energy Information Administration. The Chamber of Commerce says the Environmental Protection Agency's emission rules would cost businesses more than $50 billion. EPA regulations will crush the economy, the poor and middle class will be particularly impactedRothbard and Ruckard 6/3/14 ( David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, CFACT's President and Executive Director, “EPA’s Next Wave Of Job-Killing CO2 Regulations”, http://www.cfact.org/2014/06/03/epas-next-wave-of-job-killing-co2-regulations/ ) 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 from coal-fired electricity generating plants 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 U.S. 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 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. The impacts of EPA regulations will hit the poor hardest and increase the overall unemployment rateMorgan 6/2/14 ( John Morgan, editorial contributor to Moneynews.com, “ Furchtgott-Roth: Carbon Emission Regs Will Kill Jobs and Hurt Poor”, http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Furchtgott-Roth-EPA-emission-carbon/2014/06/02/id/574557/ ) Solar power costs twice as much as natural gas and mandating its use will kill jobs, but the Environmental Protection Agency wants to force it on Americans anyway, according to Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist for the Department of Labor. President Obama is expected to announce new "cap-and-trade" environmental regulations on June 2, having decided to bypass Congress and go the regulatory route since he was unable to persuade the House and Senate to pass "cap-and-trade" legislation. "But these steps without legislation will reduce opportunities for the poorest Americans. Those in the lowest fifth of the income distribution spend 24 percent of their income on energy, compared with 4 percent for those in the top fifth," she wrote in a column for Real Clear Markets. The mandated cuts in carbon emissions will raise the cost of energy, particularly electricity, and hit the poor hardest, according to Furchtgott-Roth. Under the expected regulations, every state would have to meet its required target by ensuring plants reduce emissions or by financing reductions in other ways, such as investing in more costly renewable energy including wind and solar power. "These impose real costs on the economy, such as fewer factories, trips, and jobs. Electricity made from solar power costs twice as much as electricity made from natural gas," Furchtgott-Roth explained. "Everyone wants cleaner air, but most people also want the security of employment that comes from industrial activity." She cited a 2010 Congressional Budget Office estimate on proposed regulations to slash greenhouse emissions that concluded "job losses in the industries that shrink would lower employment more than job gains in other industries would increase employment, thereby raising the overall unemployment rate." EPA regulations are terrible for the economy—lack of flexibility will cause power plants to close, destroying business growth and job opportunitiesBarrasso and Heitkamp 6/2/14 John, junior senator from Wyoming, Heidi, a member of the North Dakota Democratic-Nonpartisan League Party, is the junior senator from North Dakota., The Wall Street Journal, "The New Anti-Coal Rules Will Cut Jobs and Hurt the Economy", June 2 2014, online.wsj.com/articles/the-new-anti-coal-rules-will-cut-jobs-and-hurt-the-economy-1401751493 On Monday, the Obama administration unveiled new regulations to restrict the amount of carbon dioxide produced by existing power plants. While we agree that America needs to balance energy needs with environmental concerns, the timing of this effort could hardly be worse for the struggling U.S. economy.¶ We learned just last week that the economy is shrinking for the first time since 2011. America's labor-force participation remains low. Millions of Americans continue to have difficulty finding good jobs. These excessive new regulations will likely force power plants to close, putting Americans out of work.¶ The administration repeatedly promised to deliver regulatory certainty and give states "flexibility" if they meet the tough new standards. The fact is that states have to present their plans to the Environmental Protection Agency for final approval. If the EPA doesn't approve the state plan, the agency could impose its requirements on the state.¶ The 645-page rule would give states a few options to reduce emissions. Those options are still very restrictive and will take away good jobs, increase energy costs and hurt the economy.¶ EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said that the agency's regulations will decrease energy costs by 8% by 2030. We remain skeptical and believe that consumers will see higher rates. Businesses, large and small, and manufacturers will have to pay much more for their electricity; these increased prices will be absorbed or passed on and will further hurt the economy.¶ In states that already require higher portions of renewable fuels, electricity costs are on average 30% higher than in other states. Recent studies have estimated that this rule would lead to certain job losses, with one study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimating that an aggressive carbon policy would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs by forcing coal-fired power plants to shut down. This does not even begin to address capacity and reliability issues that the administration all too often brushes aside.¶ Coal-fired power plants will be especially hard hit, disproportionately hurting coal-producing states like Wyoming, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Montana.¶ When excessive Washington red tape closes a power plant or a coal mine in a small community, those jobs aren't the only ones to go. The lost revenue base hurts public schools, police and busing services for seniors who can't drive. Teachers, laborers and doctors move away, looking for a better chance somewhere else. Small businesses don't have enough customers, so they shut down—the town withers away. The pain is felt locally, but America's environmental policies must reflect the fact that carbon dioxide is produced globally. The U.S. share of carbon-dioxide emissions has been dropping for more than a decade. Meanwhile, emissions in developing countries have soared. China's have increased by 173% from 1998 to 2011.¶ These new EPA policies will produce minimal environmental benefits unless other countries also aggressively reduce emissions, to the detriment of their economies. That is unlikely in the near term.¶ Regs bad for the economyCOC 14 The United States Chamber of Commerce, in collaboration with the Institute for 21st Century Energy and IHS, which provided experts to analyze the impact of carbon regulations, "Assessing the Impact of Potential New Carbon Regulations in the United States", www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/files/file-tool/Assessing_the_Impact_of_Potential_New_Carbon_Regulations_in_the_United_States.pdf U.S. economy results and implications¶ The overarching objective of the economic impact ¶ analysis conducted for this study was to quantify ¶ the impacts, both on U.S. national and regional ¶ economies, of aiming for the Policy Case’s reduction ¶ in power sector CO2¶ emissions by 2030. These higher ¶ electricity prices will absorb more of the disposable ¶ income that households draw from to pay essential ¶ expenses such as mortgages, food and utilities. In ¶ turn, this will lead to moderately less discretionary ¶ spending and lower consumer savings rates.¶ More significant, however, are the opportunity costs ¶ associated with approaching the emissions reduction target by 2030. The $480 billion required to achieve ¶ compliance or replace prematurely one source of ¶ electricity generation with another represents an ¶ unproductive use of capital, meaning that the Policy ¶ Case’s spending in pursuit of regulatory compliance ¶ rather than economic expansion will lead to an overall ¶ drop in U.S. economic output, relative to the Reference ¶ Case. The subsequent negative impacts on GDP and ¶ employment will exert additional downward pressure on ¶ disposable income and consumer spending.¶ In the Policy Case, GDP is expected to average ¶ about $51 billion lower than in the Reference Case¶ to 2030 (Table ES-3), with a peak decline of nearly ¶ $104 billion in 2025. These substantial GDP losses ¶ will be accompanied by losses in employment. On ¶ average, from 2014 to 2030, the U.S. economy will ¶ have 224,000 fewer jobs (Table ES-3), with a peak ¶ decline in employment of 442,000 jobs in 2022 (Figure ¶ ES-1). These job losses represent lost opportunities ¶ and income for hundreds of thousands of people that ¶ can never be recovered. Slower economic growth, ¶ job losses, and higher energy costs mean that annual ¶ real disposable household income will decline on an ¶ average of more than $200, with a peak loss of $367 ¶ in 2025. In fact, the typical household could lose a ¶ total of $3,400 in real disposable income during the ¶ modeled 2014-30 timeframe.¶ The economic impact will vary significantly across ¶ the nine U.S. Census Divisions examined. Because ¶ California’s cap and trade program and the Regional ¶ Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) that includes nine ¶ Northeastern States are included in the Reference ¶ Case, these regions are not significantly affected by ¶ federal CO2¶ regulations. The cost of compliance for ¶ state-based regimes in these regions will already ¶ result in significant economic impacts, including high ¶ electricity prices, making the discussion about federal ¶ regulations less relevant. Despite California’s lead in ¶ compliance, however, the remaining states will drag the ¶ Pacific region down moderately in the early years. The ¶ Northeast, on the other hand, will see little additional ¶ impact on its already high and increasing electricity ¶ rates from the imposition of a federal CO2¶ regime.¶ The need to replace large portions of the coal ¶ generation fleet in the midcontinent Census Divisions ¶ (East North Central, East South Central, West North ¶ Central, and West South Central), however, means that ¶ these regions will experience the bulk of the economic ¶ distress in the early years, followed by the South ¶ Atlantic4¶ in the latter years.¶ Overall, the South Atlantic will be hit the hardest in ¶ terms of GDP and employment declines. Its GDP ¶ losses make up about one-fifth of total U.S. GDP ¶ losses, with an average annual loss of $10.5 billion and ¶ a peak loss of nearly $22 billion in 2025. This region ¶ also will have an average of 60,000 fewer jobs over ¶ the 2014-30 forecast period, hitting a 171,000 job loss ¶ trough in 2022.¶ The West South Central5¶ region also takes a big hit, ¶ losing on average $8.2 billion dollars in economic ¶ output each year and 36,000 jobs. AT: Warming Impact TurnEPA regulations can’t solve warming-at best it would only decrease temperatures by .05 degrees by 2100 -sources are biased and receive money and tax exemptions from the green industry That’s David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, president and executive director of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, 6/5/14 David, president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit educational organization devoted to both people and the environment, Craig Rucker is CFACT’s executive director, “EPA’s next wave of job-killing CO2 regulations", June 5 2014, canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63564 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.
David, president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit educational organization devoted to both people and the environment, Craig Rucker is CFACT’s executive director, “EPA’s next wave of job-killing CO2 regulations", June 5 2014, canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63564 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.¶ Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014 2014 -> For want of a nail 2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six 2014 -> United states patent and trademark office 2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus 2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now 2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender Download 0.68 Mb. Share with your friends:
|