EPA strangling US industry for Big Green

Official portrait of Environmental Protection ...Image via Wikipedia
Rich Trzupek:

When carbon cap-and-trade legislation officially died in Congress last year, many environmentalists lamented defeat while coal and oil proponents celebrated victory. As a scientist who has been working in the environmental industry for decades, I found both reactions misguided. Subsequent events have -- I am sorry to say -- proven me right. Thanks to the most aggressive and radicalized Environmental Protection Agency in history, the Obama administration is strangling America's energy sector in the name of greenhouse gas reduction.

But then cap and trade was never really about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It was about raising revenue. The United States has long had multiple emission reduction programs in place, and these will continue to grow. Thirty-three states have Renewable Portfolio Standards programs, which force gradual declines in fossil fuel power generation. Some portions of the country have (or will have) regional trading programs in place. Energy conservation mandates abound.

All of these efforts, and many others, have been spectacularly successful. Recently released EPA data shows that America is back down to mid-1990s levels of emissions. On a per capita basis, greenhouse gas emissions in the United States declined by 16 percent over the last decade. That reduction is almost 50 percent better than what the 15 richest nations in Europe (the EU-15) achieved in the same time frame, even though Europe has had a cap-and-trade program in place.

So has the Obama administration or EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson seen fit to celebrate this remarkable achievement? Of course not. Obama and his EPA despise hydrocarbons in any form, be it oil, coal or natural gas. Under Jackson, the EPA has issued a plethora of new rules designed to ensure that: a) no new coal-fired power plants of any substantial size can ever be built again in the United States, and b) existing coal-fired plants will slowly be crushed under the weight of multiple, ludicrously stringent new regulations.

...
The Obama administrations carbon phobia will do more damage to the economy and any enemy could. This should be an issue in the 2012 campaign and it is one the Democrats will have a tough time defending.
Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more