Global warming alarmists having profound impact on economy; checks and balances
By JR Hoeft | Friday, June 10th, 2011 | PolicyWell, score a victory for global warming alarmists and a loss for the citizens of Virginia.
The EPA just managed to cause a coal-fired electrical plant to shudder shutter its doors in the 9th Congressional District because of its un-checked, un-restrained, independent and arbitrary power.
Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) issued the following statement regarding American Electric Power’s (AEP) decision to close the coal-fired Glen Lyn Plant in Giles County and retire generating units at the Clinch River Plant in Cleveland by December 2014:
“This is what I have been talking about. More burdensome EPA regulations, more jobs lost. The cost of complying with these regulations is closing one plant in the 9th District and reducing generation at another. Why can’t the EPA recognize that their actions kill jobs and destroy the economy not only in Southwest Virginia, but nationwide? These regulations should not be implemented unless they are absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, many of the EPA’s recent actions are geared for small gains in the environment at the large cost of hundreds of jobs.”
Let’s be honest, global warming, when used as an economic bludgeoning tool, is part of the finanicial crisis we’re in today.
Indeed, just this week the CEO of “Government Motors” proposed a $1 gas tax increase so that we’d buy more fuel efficient cars. He proposed it as an alternative to the other government idea: changing fuel efficiency standards. By forcing automobile manufacturers to build more efficient vehicles, production costs go up and will be passed onto consumers. Either way, it’s the global warming alarmists who are taking food off of people’s tables!
The goal of both ideas is to force a BEHAVIORAL change on citizens, not actually fund the government as part of its enumerated powers.
The global warming theory is clearly having an impact on the financial climate of our country; policies developed because of belief in the theory is already putting people out of work, increasing taxes, and making products more expensive.
These ideas which attempt to regulate the buying habits of citizens should be rejected because this is not why taxes were created. And having an agency make policies by fiat without having to answer to the people – all the while putting people out of work – has to be at the forefront of our policy debates. It’s not about whether or not you believe in global warming – it’s about the proper role of government and our national fiscal health.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
36 Responses to "Global warming alarmists having profound impact on economy; checks and balances"
JR,
I have recently been exposed to arguments from the US Navy that tidal high points have been going up in recent years. They decline to point to point to causes, only point to the facts.
I am not 100% convinced that greenhouse gasses are the only cause, but I have to bow to the science that without our atmosphere trapping some of the warmth we get from the sun, our planet would be frozen. If that explanation is a truism, can not the makeup of that same atmosphere impact how much heat is trapped?
If the government should not get involved in influencing human behavior, let us withdraw police protection from certain neighborhoods and watch barbarism take over.
JR,
Don’t you mean “shutter”, or am I wrong?
The events over the past couple years makes me rather pessimistic (is that spelled right?), perhaps 1984 will be here by 2024.
LD,
You are correct that the planet has a balance of forces between geophysical and biological factors which makes the surface habitable over long periods of time. It is prudent for people not to significantly disturb the natural balance. Of course that natural balance has produced repeated ice ages or tropical swamp like conditions over much of the planet depending on interactions having nothing to do with humans. Remember the glaciers in Michigan?
There is no way to stop climate change. For one thing the Sun is getting progressively hotter for physical reasons. The only issue is whether people do something to cause a runaway loss of balance. There has been no evidence put forth to either support that doomsday scenario or even that the policies advocated by the leftists would have any appreciable effect on restoring said balance. The documented fudging, concealment and cherry picking of data by the global warming gurus are clear evidence of Lysenkoism. Lysenko was a Soviet scientist who came up with genetic theories pleasing to Stalin. He got funding for his projects, stopped the funding of critics and falsified data. Sound familiar?? CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and the cap and trade nonsense has been shown to be corrupt every place it has been tried. Moreover it won’t affect CO2 levels. Even Scientific American, a leftist group of scientists, have criticized the Dems global warming programs as wrongheaded. Instead of calling for a thorough reevaluation of the data and reassessing their “solutions”, Dems and their fellow travelers in academia are doubling down. What conclusion do you draw?
While is it EPA regulations that are forcing AEP to take these compliance actions, it has little or nothing to do with climate change. These regulations pertain to the fine particle pollution provisions of the Clean Air Initiative and also to ground water contamination by coal ash. Very much like the debate over mountain top removal coal mining, we have to make decisions on what cost we are willing to accept in pollution of the air and ground water with heavy metals and other known carcinogens for the sake of jobs and cheap energy. Paging Erin Brockovich.
Val,
Very well put. Global climate change is proven science; human activity as a cause is an unproven theory. As I have posted on BD before, when the Earth warmed up from the last ice age, there were an estimated 5 million people on the entire globe and their carbon footprint consisted of camp fires and flatulence. So what caused the Earth to warm up? It obviously wasn’t human activity.
If I may, I would like to add one fact. Cap and trade was invented not by climate scientists but by economists who now largely discredit the theory as unworkable.
“Why can’t the EPA recognize that their actions kill jobs and destroy the economy”
Readers should someday learn to accept the fact that EPA does in fact recognize this, and that is why they do it. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers and a bill like a duck, it’s a duck.
Why is it so hard for people to accept that these things are being done deliberately? Is the environmental lobby really that powerful and well-funded, or is the government really on their side and opposite ours? Does crashing the economy make it easier or harder for government to get what it wants, namely consolidation of power? Has government power receded or advanced since the “economic crisis”? Has the rate of advance diminished or accelerated? Is this an accident, or is it “not letting a good crisis go to waste”?
P.S. Cap and Trade was invented by Goldman Sachs, who were a founding member of the carbon exchange (which has since gone kaflooie).
Can’t post links, so google
“Human Events The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade”
Lisa Jackson at the EPA needs to be replaced.
Jamie,
That is a little heavy on conspiracy theory, don’t you think? There is an old saying, “Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.”
BTW, Goldman Sachs may or may not have capitalized on cap and trade theory, but the concept itself has been a popular topic in economics for over 50 years.
After redesign and refurbishment, why couldn’t they drop a reactor module they cut out of a submarine during decommissioning at the coal plant to trade for AQCR emission reduction credits? They are tiny compared to coal fired boilers, we already paid for them, Naval reactors are the safest in the world, and since they both make steam they could share the same infrastructure. You could truck them in, and they could be added as modules to an existing coal facility to add as much capacity as needed. Aside from the discussing the technical details of the physics and energy density of a Naval reactor, architecture of the system, additional security and additional monitoring, etc., Newport News Shipyard would make a great place to re-engineer and do the recycling. And before the naysayers and anti-nuclear and political cretins attack, this is just a thought, however strange it may be, to play the EPA air quality game and the up and coming carbon trading scams.
Tim J,
Actually, installing air scrubbers and other pollution abatement mechanical measures would be far cheaper than converting the generation facilities to nuclear, even if it was practical to do so. And, BTW, I have remained an advocate of nuclear electricity generation for many years now, both after Three Mile Island and after Fukushima.
The problem here is that AEP has made a business decision to close production capacity rather than expend the capital to meet pollution abatement standards. You can argue until the cows come home about whether the standards are reasonable or not–where you stand on that issue depends, literally, on where you stand. If you live in the southwest of Virginia, drink and breathe the water and air there, and don’t have family members who work for AEP, then you probably think that the EPA might be a little too lax. If you live in NoVa and want cheap and reliable electricity, then you probably find the EPA regulations oppressive.
In politics, it always comes down to “Me,” doesn’t it?
Tim,
The fuel for those babies is so remarkably specialized (so as to have long life before refueling) that it would be prohibitively expensive to do as you suggest. The core design is completely different, making refueling it with “standard” 4-6% enriched stuff, as far as I know, impossible.
That doesn’t mean that other modular designs couldn’t and shouldn’t be pursued. They should. Has anyone mentioned that the U.S. now imports uranium? Isn’t someone trying to site a uranium mine right here in Virginia?
HisRoc,
“That is a little heavy on conspiracy theory, don’t you think? There is an old saying, Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.”
The old saying is oft-cited; my problem is, I have adopted the most cynical viewpoint, and everything now makes perfect sense. Goldman tried to capitalize on carbon, even sponsoring a new exchange created for the purpose, but the prices for carbon credits collapsed and the exchange failed. But imagine, a new financial exchange, based purely on false science, backed by the firepower of the legal systems of global governments, selling the right to discharge carbon, and printing for themselves the “rights’ they sold! That’s not conspiracy, that’s fact, and they damned near got away with it. The pieces were all in place, except for the U.S. rejecting Kyoto.
The outcome would have been: government regulatory power increases (win), Wall Street gets rich (win), and the unwashed masses pay for it all (lose). Call it anything you want; it’s not a conspiracy if they really are out to get you.
Jerry Z-
I’m homophobic. I get my homonyms wrong all the time. Thanks. I’ll fix it.
HisRoc,
This just in, and right on cue:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375961521636474.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop
WASHINGTON The U.S.’s top nuclear-power regulator “strategically” withheld information from his colleagues in an effort to stop work on a controversial proposed waste dump, according to a report by the agency’s internal watchdog, a finding likely to inflame debate about how to handle the nation’s nuclear waste.
Jamie,
I, too, tend to adopt the most cynical viewpoint, something that gets me often criticized right here on BD. The problem that I have with conspiracy theories is based on my experience working in The Pentagon. Conspiracy theories rely on the continuing cooperation and concealment by all parties to the conspiracy. No whistle-blowers, no disaffected members of the conspiracy, and no inadvertent leaks of information. Hollywood conveniently dispenses with these failures of the conspiracy with an omnipotent evil force that chases down the source of the leak in explosive car crashes or subtle assassinations. Real life is rarely that sinister or interesting.
To me, conspiracy theories give far too much credit to the ingenuity and intelligence of very fallible human beings.
Jamie,
That proves my point, wouldn’t you agree? Instead of remaining concealed, the “conspiracy” is now exposed in the Wall Street Journal.
Peace.
Hisroc says: To me, conspiracy theories give far too much credit to the ingenuity and intelligence of very fallible human beings.
You are spot on. But beware the androids.
HisRoc:
Why is it a requirement that plans be carried out in secret? You are applying a meaning to the word that I do not.
con·spir·a·cy
noun?/k?n?spir?s?/?
conspiracies, plural
A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful
– a conspiracy to destroy the government
The action of plotting or conspiring
– they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
Jamie, Have to agree with you also, now that I’ve drawn the cynical view, I can see things in a more clearer perspective. The point that’s being missed is that the political parties and the media have adopted this working with the world (UN) mentality and that the masses are too ignorant to understand what’s best for them. This is why you have a media that monitors the masses.
I haven’t seen a city council yet that wasn’t on their own agenda…but if you take a cynical look, it all makes sense. Who cares about your jobs, your retirement, your light bulbs or your fuel? We know better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apmkoAzoIGE
Guess your right…it isn’t a conspiracy. They’re right their in the open. Just think, this organization help setup Norfolk’s Master Plan. Sounds ominous, doesn’t it?
http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=11454
Has this become the “Bilderberg Blog”?
Here soon, we should be looking at legislation to provide internet access since the UN declared it a Human Right.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/un-declares-internet-access-a-human-right
By the way, the UN declared war on Libya…but not Congress.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3475731/WORLD-DECLARES-WAR-ON-GADDAFIbr-UN-votes-for-military-actionbr-to-aid-rebels.html
And you thought you had a voice.
As for coal plants, they’re gone. Obama said he was going to bankrupt them. And there’s no other organization that puts an environment back together than a strip mining company. And they don’t do it with other people’s money.
RAOTFLMAO.
Good one, Tim.
JJ, for a reasonable amount of money, I will send you a map with the locations of the secret black helicopter bases, the draft constitution of the North American Union, diagrams of the 200 mpg fuel injection system that the oil companies are suppressing, and pictures of the aliens that are being dissected at Area 51.
Tim J and HISROC,
ICLEI is the biggest Global Warming alarmist there is. Nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas are only pipe dreams. All our energy is either imported or solar.
I provided you with facts straight from the horses mouth. If you wish to accept it…that’s your choice.
I heard references to people like you…I believe it was “Useful Idiots.”
Oh, and JJ, for no extra charge I will throw in an autographed copy of the “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”
What a deal!
Tim J and HISROC, My useful idiot comment was unnecessary.
JJ,
I am afraid that your facts are coming from somewhere south of the mouth of a north-bound horse.
But, keep it up. The comedy value is priceless.
HISROC, Please stop it…I told you the “Useful Idiot” comment was unnecessary. So, quit proving it to be true.
Well, Hell. I guess that means that you’re not interested in a copy of Amelia Earhart’s secret FBI flight plan issued by J. Edgar Hoover?
How about George Bush:
A freebie.. The draft constitution as well as all secret documents mentioned herein are located at a storage vault located deep in the back of Mt. Rushmore.
If global warming is such a concern, why not embrace the relatively inexpensive option of “garden hoses to the sky”? As opposed to destroying the economy.
High energy costs kill economic growth. The EPA and current administration wants higher energy costs. They need to be stopped.
Why do they want higher energy costs?
They say to save the planet.
They say that man made CO2 is causing “global warming”.
There has been no “global warming” for the last 15 years.
Forbid the EPA and government from making any regulations concerning CO2.
I don’t care about global warming.
I don’t know if there is global warming or not, I am not a scientist, maybe there is, maybe there isn’t, I tend to believe that there is global warming. What I do know is that there is a lot of non-sense surrounding the global warming issue and that a lot of people seem willing to lie to convince people one way or the other.
As an example we have those pitiful polar bears who can’t catch a chunk of ice out into the ocean to hunt their food, oh the misery! No more polar bears the commercials say! Can you imagine it ? All the polar bears in the world, gone, just because we human beings can’t get a handle on global warming.
Lies. Polar bears aren’t going anywhere. Polar bears have been around for MILLIONS of years, evolution, you know ? Yet the global warming folks only show us graphs back approximately 2 thousand years, ever wonder why that is ? It’s because it has only been about 10 thousand years since the end of the last glacial period and the earth was MUCH hotter then than it is now! What were polar bears doing to feed themselves then when conditions were much warmer than they are now ? Maybe they all just died out and then a whole new polar bear evolved in the last 10 thousand years ? Not damn likely. What’s much more likely is that polar bears aren’t stupid and they can figure out how to get food no matter where they are, and it is a good thing since these polar bears who have been on the planet for millions of years have been through many different ice ages and glacial periods just the past 800,000 years, with inter-glacial periods with much hotter temperatures than we have now.
Polar bears aren’t going anywhere, trees are going anywhere, fish aren’t going anywhere, there is no animal or plant alive today that hasn’t seen much higher global temperatures than they are experiencing right now and that they are going to experience anytime in the near future. The earth has had no less than NINE inter-glacial periods in the past 800,000 years separated by very long periods of glaciation. If you want something to complain about, complain about glaciation, having most of North America covered in ice doesn’t sound like much fun to me. Human beings may hunt animals to extinction, human beings may cause environmental problems with deforestation that cause the loss of genetic diversity on the planet, etc, but global warming isn’t going to kill anything that it wouldn’t have already killed in the past 800,000 years.
For all we know global warming could be saving us from another glaciation, and that is part of the point, we just don’t know! Not only do we not know if or how much we might be warming the planet, even if we are warming the planet we don’t know if that is even a bad thing! Climate change folks point to the fact that warmer temperatures may cause more storms, changes in weather patterns, deserts in some areas and flooding in others, my thought on that is, so what ? Even if that is true, different isn’t always bad, for all we know more hurricanes might help us get a handle on beach erosion, or give a much needed boost to spotted owls or something, we don’t know, we are human beings, we cannot see all ends. Maybe the planet creates us so that we would warm the planet up and break the chain of ice ages so that plants and animals can thrive in peace on the planet, we don’t know. What we DO know that spending money on something we don’t need to spend money on is a bad thing.
I don’t mean to pick on the PETA crowd, Republicans have told their share of global warming fibs too, it isn’t just polar bear love that causes distortions. The thing is, I understand why Republicans are pressing so hard, the article at the top of this thread explains that well enough, raising the cost of energy production is not good for anyone and it really does take food off of people’s tables, but what I don’t understand is why are people who are concerned about global warming so damn concerned ? What is their agenda all about ? It ain’t about polar bears, not if they are honest, there is something else going on there. Why make a distortion like only highlighting the past 2 thousand years of the temperature record if you actually want to have an honest and open discussion about the issue ?
I don’t care about global warming either or rather I am quite bored by it all.
However go look at Blue Virginia. Carbon pollution will destroy the world, must act now (raise Taxes), Republicans want to destroy the world. Over and over.
David Evans can explain what is going on better then I can.
David Evans, who was a consultant for the then Australian Greenhouse Office until last year, said: “The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of any warming is based on a guess made in 1980 that was proved totally wrong by scientists as far back as the mid-Nineties.
The whole thing is now a train wreck. Although no one started out to scam or mislead, really the climate scientists are a bit corrupt now as they know they are exaggerating, but there are now too many jobs, industries, trading profits and political careers riding along on this nonsense to admit it is just that.”
So it is really just about money.
I worry about “green stealth taxes”.
Wow could the EPA leave companies alone for once. The administration while doing its job correctly is doing the exact opposite of what it promises. Jobs! Closing the plants means more people unemployed. The coal plants are providing reliable electric power sources and electric power to hundreds of people everyday across the country. Coal is our number 1 energy production in the US but we sell most of it to China when it be cheaper to just keep it here and use it ourselves. It costs us less that 5 cents to run a microwave for 1 hour off coal power but we’d rather send the coal to China for the money they offer. It doesn’t make since to close plants when your opening new ones like the surry coal plant in virginia. Anyways great article and sad to see Obama get his way again.
Leave your response