 Changing the Climate Today, join me in a short thought experiment on clean energy, clean air, and clean science. There are no screaming, sign-carrying activists, no dogmatic scientists editing facts to scare the public, no heavy-handed government programs to save the world from you and me. With those distractions removed, look around at the way we all do our daily business, how we enjoy the benefits and pay the costs, then critically examine where our energy, our air and our science have gone wrong. Finally, think about common sense solutions that might fix those things. Now come back to the real world of activists, scientists, and governments, and let’s see what we may have gained from that moment of clarity. Glaring problem number one: we have a spectrum of energy sources, but we imagine that there’s a single magic wand called “clean energy” that will shortly solve all our problems. There’s not. The reality is that America gets 85% of its energy from fossil fuels, demonized as “dirty.” All the “clean energy” – wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, biomass, and so forth – gives us only 15% of what we need to live. Common sense says we’re going to need all those sources for several generations while we build up “clean energy” to levels that can sustain America’s people, so finding ways to quickly reduce the “carbon footprint” of fossil fuels is as important as the vital campaign to build out the “clean” technologies to supply our needs. No single source is perfect – or even adequate. In short, “The Mix is the Fix.” Energy: We face a Congress seriously considering highly complex, big government, magic wand “cap-and-trade” schemes like the 684-page “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power” bill (S. 1733, introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, and Sen. John Kerry, D-MA). Here we have command-and-control, top down demands and penalties pretending to be a “market,” but selling paper “carbon credits” instead of real energy products. We also face the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a program proposed by seven Western governors, including California's Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), and four Canadian provincial premiers, based on the troubled cap-and-trade systems of Europe and Japan, with their own command-and-control scheme selling paper, not products. A report commissioned by the Colorado-based Western Business Roundtable found that the WCI "imposes significant new costs on consumers and retards job creation in the Western U.S. over the coming decade" but would offer "no scientifically measurable benefit in terms of reduced global climate temperatures as far out as the year 2100" – “all pain and no gain,” as one critic said. What would common sense say about that? A good start would be, “Less stick, more carrot,” then, “More product, less paper.” So, concerned citizens, consumers, affected workers, and threatened businesses should push Congress to offer incentives to reduce carbon emissions without committing economic suicide. Can we do that? Yes, we can. The American public historically rallies behind tax, regulatory and legal reform in all kinds of issues, and “clean energy” is no different. In fact, if you dig through the piles of legislation already introduced in Congress, you can find a number of far-sighted reform bills that encourage greater “clean energy” production from all energy resources, and even new technology to clean up fossil fuels and get legal challenges through court faster. There’s the Clean, Affordable, Reliable Energy Act (S. 1333, introduced by Sen. John Barrasso, R-WY), which would actually authorize increased production of energy on American soil instead of enforced paper trades that would reduce it. And there’s the American Conservation and Clean Energy Independence Act (H.R. 2227 introduced by Rep. Tim Murphy, R-PA); which not only would allow outer continental shelf oil production, but would also provide for legal reforms to speed lawsuits through the courts and eliminate “bounty hunter” legal fees. And the American Energy Innovation Act (H.R. 2300, introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-UT), which is a sweeping reform bill “to provide the United States with a comprehensive energy package to place Americans on a path to a secure economic future through increased energy innovation, conservation, and production.” Now, that’s common sense! Clean Air: Unfortunately, common sense also tells us that in order to fight for something, we sometimes have to fight against something else. In this case, the “something else” is administrative abuse. The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to regulate six different types of carbon emission with a bureaucratic public relations trick that they’re calling “The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule.” The only tailoring is some snipping and padding to the English language. The rest is blunt-instrument rules establishing mandatory new “thresholds” – translated, that’s “limits” or “caps” on 1) carbon dioxide (CO2); 2) methane (CH4); 3) nitrous oxide (N2O); 4) hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); 5) perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and 6) sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). The proposed rules would “tailor” the limits to include only large facilities emitting over 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year, the nation’s largest emitters – including power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities. The “tailoring” rule shows EPA’s generosity and benevolence by not affecting small farms, restaurants and other small facilities – at least not until they turn on the electricity, or fill up the gas tank, or repair the sidewalk, when the price would tailor both their pocketbooks and their sanity. It’s not clear that EPA has congressional authority to do that under the current Clean Air Act (CAA), but the EPA is notorious for “mission creep,” claiming more authority than they really have and hoping nobody sues them for it – or passes a law against it. That has led a number of citizen groups and businesses to form a coalition that will fight EPA’s “GHG Tailoring Rule” in court. Every now and then an alert Member of Congress sees through the smokescreen and introduces a bill to cut agency “tailoring” down to size, like Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and 148 co-sponsors, did with H.R. 391, a bill “To amend the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to the Act.” Clean Science: Federal agencies are using climate change as a justification for the expansion of their regulatory powers, relying on what is now seen as flawed science to make political decisions. Recently leaked documents, computer models, and damning e-mails between centralized scientific institutions show a long and persistent pattern of censoring the work of scientists whose findings showed that global warming was not the problem being claimed. Thus, a substantial fraction of climate science never got published because powerful “gatekeepers” denied access to peer-reviewed publication. That shows up the supposed “consensus” of scientists as artificial. Nevertheless, President Barack Obama issued an executive order October 5, 2009, instructing environment-related agencies to “participate actively in the interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force,” and prepare “a strategy for adaptation to climate change.” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar created a "climate change response council" to coordinate the department's eight bureaus and offices, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, primary enforcer of endangered species laws. FWS released its “proposed Climate Action Plan” in September with this notice: Climate change must become our highest priority. Consequently, we will deploy our resources, creativity and energy in a long-term campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and safeguard fish, wildlife and their habitats. Common sense tells us that’s bureaucratic arrogance arising from over-reliance on science that has been corrupted by dogmatic “gatekeepers” with a political agenda that subverts their scientific responsibility. We now have good reason to doubt their claims of “knowledge” and “truth,” and “certainty.” What is a concerned citizen to do? Any American can challenge attempts by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to inject climate impacts as part of the NEPA process – the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not authorize such power.
And any American can join with other like-minded people in a public campaign to promote incentive-based, sound-technology government policies. Any American can learn how sound government policies will be more effective in creating jobs and reducing emissions than any highly complex, big government “cap-and-trade” schemes or “tailored truth” EPA rules. That kind of public response can change America’s present climate of dread and guilt into a climate of hope and constructive action. |
Coming Soon! Ron is available to speak at your next convention or seminar. Call 425-455-5038 Latest Report Releases:
Latest Book Releases:
|
|||||||||
