Thursday, July 17 was a big news day. The world was shocked to learn that a Russian-made missile shot down a Malaysian Airlines jet with 298 on board as it flew over Ukraine en route to Kuala Lumpur from Amsterdam. Though flight 17 eclipsed the news cycle, there was another thing shot down on July 17.
Almost a year ago, Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott won a landslide election with a nearly single-issue campaign: repeal the carbon tax. On July 17, he made good on that promise, as the Australian Senate voted, 39 to 32, to abolish the “world’s biggest carbon tax”—a tax that was reported to “do nothing to address global warming, apart from imposing high costs on the local economy.”
Australia was one of the first major countries, outside of the European Union, to adopt a carbon price—first suggested in 2007 and passed under Labour Prime Minister Julia Gillard in 2011. Gillard’s campaign promise was: “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.” While she attempted to brand it a carbon price, not a “tax,” Sinclair Davidson, a professor in the school of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University, said: “the electorate had a very specific understanding of her words” and perceived it as a broken promise.
Australia’s carbon tax, according to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), was “recognized by the International Energy Agency as model legislation for developed countries.” WSJ reports that when Australia’s carbon tax was passed, the Brookings Institute “described Australia as an ‘Important laboratory and learning opportunity.’”
So, what do we learn from the “laboratory” the now-failed “model legislation” offered?
First, WSJ states: “The public hates it.” The (UK) Telegraph calls the tax: “one of the most unsuccessful in history” and points out that it is “unique in that it generated virtually no revenue for the Australian Treasury due to its negative impact on productivity; contributed to the rising costs that have taken the gloss off the country’s resources boom; and essentially helped to bring down Ms Gillard’s former Government.” The Telegraph, in an article titled: “Australia abandons disastrous green tax on emissions,” adds that the tax failed in “winning over voters who faced higher costs passed on by the companies that had to pay for it.” In Slate, Ariel Bogel claims the 2011 bill required “about 350 companies to pay a penalty for their greenhouse gas emissions.”
While Australia is, as WSJ put it: “the world’s first developed nation to repeal carbon laws that put a price on greenhouse-gas emissions,” it is not the only one to back away from such policies. New Zealand has weakened its emissions trading scheme; Japan has retreated from its pledges to cut greenhouse emissions and instead committed to a rise in emissions;Canada withdrew from the Kyoto protocol in 2011; England, where “the bill for green policies is rising,” has “so far resisted calls to expand tax on carbon emissions”; the European Union carbon emissions trading scheme—the biggest in the world and the heart of Europe’s climate-change program—is in dire straits; and, just the day after Australia’s news was announced, South Korea—whose planned 2015 emissions trading market launch would make it the world’s second largest—hinted at an additional delay due to projected costs to businesses.
The Telegraph offers this summary: “carbon trading mechanisms and green taxes have largely been a failure elsewhere and especially so in Europe where they have dragged on investment and threatened long-term energy security.”
These are important lessons in light of the renewed push for a carbon tax in the U.S. as evidenced by the partnership of President George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and liberal billionaire Tom Steyer, who are, together, calling for a climate tax.
According to the WSJ, the World Bank called Australia’s repeal, “one of the biggest international threats to the rollout of similar programs elsewhere.” The climate lobby is concerned as “Australia’s vote shows that the real obstacle to their dreams of controlling more of the world’s economy is democratic consent.”
In the U.S., similar efforts to reduce CO2 emissions by increasing costs to emitters, and therefore consumers—in our case, cap and trade—failed to achieve “democratic consent” even when Democrats had control. The people didn’t want it. So, the Obama administration now is trying to go around Congress with onerous rules and regulations on emissions.
As in the U.S., a carbon tax—or cap and trade—is not the only policy increasing energy costs to Australian consumers. In the U.S., we have the Renewable Portfolio Standard; in Australia the Renewable Energy Target (RET). Both require the addition of expensive wind-and-solar energy.
Jennifer Marohasy, PhD, who worked for twelve years as a scientist for the Queensland government, told me: “Of course while the carbon tax needed to be repealed, its abolition will go only some way to reducing pressures on Australian businesses and households. The so-called Clean Energy Act 2011 is part of a tsunami of regulation and legislation introduced over recent years that has seen the average electricity price in Australia increase by 70 percent in real terms. Next in line must be the mandatory RET, a government-legislated requirement on electricity retailers to source a specific proportion of total electricity sales from renewable energy sources including wind and solar, with the extraordinary costs serving as a hidden tax—paid by all electricity users.”
In the Australian Financial Review, Alan Moran, an economist specializing in regulatory matters, in particular covering energy, global warming, housing, transport, and competition issues, and Director of the Institute of Public Affair’s Deregulation Unit, agrees that the carbon tax is just one of the burdens holding down the Australian economy. He sees a cascade of programs for support of high-cost renewables and penalties for fossil-fuel use and “a bewildering array of subsidies and programs.”
Both see the RET as the bigger issue. Marohasy says: “In short, repeal of the carbon tax is a big symbolic win. But it’s mostly just window-dressing: to appease the masses. In the background, proponents of anthropogenic global warming who dominate our political class still very much control the levers of government and intend to continue to terrorize the population with claims of catastrophic global warming, while consolidating their rent-seeking through the RET.” She explained: “Money collected from the carbon tax went to government, money collected through the RET largely goes to the global warming industry.” Which is why some in the Australian Senate agreed to vote for the repeal—as long as the RET isn’t touched.
However, Abbott has stated: “All of us should want to see lower prices and plainly at the moment the renewable energy target is a very significant impact on higher power prices.” Time will tell how Abbott fares in the RET battle. But for now, he’s given the world a “learning opportunity” on climate change and energy policy.
Meanwhile, the climate lobby resorts to hyperbole to push its scare-mongering tactics. In closing her piece in Slate, Bogle whines: “As someone who has to live in the quickly cooking world Abbott leaves behind…” Perhaps she’s missed the data that the planet’s predicted warming hasn’t happened—despite ever-increasing CO2 emissions. According to satellite records, there has been no warming in almost 18 years.
May America learn from, as the Brookings Institute observed, the “important laboratory” of Australia’s foray into climate schemes.
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.
Ethanol damages your cars, small engines, food budget – and kills Gulf of Mexico animals
Ethanol and other biofuel mandates and subsidies got started when politicians bought into claims that we are rapidly depleting our petroleum, and fossil-fuel-driven global warming is boiling the planet.
Hydraulic fracturing destroyed the depletion myth. It also reminds us that “peak oil” applies only if we wrongly assume that resource needs and technologies never change. The 18-year “hiatus” in planetary warming has forced alarmists to change their terminology to climate change, climate disruption and extreme weather mantras – which allow them to continue demanding that we stop using the hydrocarbons that provide 82% of the energy that makes our economy, jobs and living standards possible.
In recent years, people have discovered that ethanol harms lawn mowers and other small engines. The fuel additive also drives up gasoline prices, reduces automotive mileage and corrodes engine parts.
Corn-for-ethanol growers make a lot of money. But meat, egg and fish producers pay more for feed, driving up family food bills. Biofuel mandates also mean aid agencies pay more for corn and wheat, so more malnourished people go hungry longer. This is not what most would call “environmental justice.”
The 10% blends are bad enough. 15% ethanol is much worse, and truckers say a highly corrosive 20% blend will be needed to meet California’s looming low carbon fuel standards.
US law mandates that ethanol production must triple between 2007 and 2020 – even though motorists are driving less and thus using less gasoline, which then means refiners need less ethanol to produce 10% blends. That “blend wall” (between what’s needed and what’s produced) is driving the push to allow 15% ethanol blends, which would void most car engine warranties.
The guaranteed income incentivizes farmers to take land out of conservation easements, pasture land and wildlife habitat, and grow corn instead. Just to meet current ethanol quotas, US farmers are now growing corn on an area the size of Iowa. Growing and harvesting this corn and turning it into ethanol also requires massive quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, fossil fuels and water.
Corn-based ethanol requires 2,500 to 29,000 gallons of fresh water per million Btu of energy – compared to at most 6.0 gallons of fresh or brackish water per million Btu of energy produced via fracking. Across its life cycle, ethanol production and use also releases more carbon dioxide per gallon than gasoline.
Now we learn that ethanol is bad for the environment in another way. It kills marine life.
A large portion of the nitrogen fertilizers needed to grow all that corn gets washed off the land and into streams and rivers that drain into the Gulf of Mexico, where they cause enormous summertime algae blooms. When the algae die, their decomposition consumes oxygen in the water – creating enormous low-oxygen (hypoxic) and zero-oxygen (anoxic) regions.
Marine life cannot survive in those “dead zones.” Fish swim away, but shrimp, oysters, clams, mussels, crabs, sea cucumbers and other stationary or slow moving bottom dwellers cannot escape. They just die.
Thousands of square miles of water off the coast of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas as far southwest as Corpus Christi can remain blanketed by a dead zone until fall winds or tropical storms or hurricanes come through. These events cool the water down, churn up the anoxic zones, bring in new oxygen supplies, and restore livability.
In 2012, nearly 2,900 square miles (about the size of Delaware) turned into a dead zone. Last year, because of much greater water flow from the Corn Belt, the region of animal cadavers covered nearly 8,560 square miles (New Jersey). This year, the zone of death could cover a more average Connecticut-size 4,630 to 5,700 square miles, say Louisiana State University, Texas A&M and other researchers, due to lower water flows; strong eddy currents south of the Mississippi Delta could also be playing a role.
A friend of mine recently observed vast stretches of green algae blooms in the normally “blue water” areas beyond the 15-mile-wide region where fresh Mississippi River waters mix with Gulf of Mexico salt water, in the Mississippi Canyon area south of Louisiana. The green zone extended to some 40 miles from shore, he said. As the algae die, they will create huge new suffocation zones, rising up into the water column, invisible from the air and surface, but deadly to millions of creatures that cannot swim away.
The dead zones also mean fishermen, crabbers, shrimpers and other recreational and commercial boaters must travel much further from shore to find anything, putting them at greater risk in the event of storms.
“More nitrate comes off corn fields than it does from any other crop, by far,” says Louisiana State University zoologist Gene Turner. The nitrogen drives the formation of dead zones, and the “primary culprit” driving the entire process is corn-based ethanol, adds Larry McKinney, executive director of the Harte Research Center for Gulf of Mexico Studies at Texas A&M University in Corpus Christi.
The US Geological Survey estimates that 153,000 metric tons of nitrogen fertilizer and other nutrients flowed down the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers in May 2013. That was 16% more than the average amount over the previous three decades. The enormous nutrient runoff is primarily the result of feeding just one crop: corn for ethanol, the USGS affirms. The lost seafood is worth tens of millions of dollars.
Fertilizer and pesticide runoff is substantially higher in wet years. But in dry years much of the excess chemical application just builds up in the soil, waiting for the next big rainy season to unleash it. The more acreage we put in corn for ethanol – and soybeans for biodiesel – the worse the fertilizer and pesticide runoff, algae blooms, dead zones and eradicated marine life become in wet years.
Water use is also skyrocketing to grow these biofuel crops. And if it weren’t for biotechnology, the problems would be far worse. GMO corn is engineered to need less water, and to kill insects that feed on the crops with far lower pesticide use than for traditional, non-biotech varieties. However, the same greens who hate hydrocarbons and promote ethanol and biodiesel also detest biotechnology. Go figure.
Some biofuel advocates tout cellulosic ethanol as a partial solution – because switchgrass requires less fertilizer, and this perennial’s roots help stabilize the soil and reduce runoff. But no one has yet been able to turn this pipedream source into ethanol on a commercial scale. Another potential manmade fuel could be methanol from natural gas produced via hydraulic fracturing, but greens continue to oppose fracking.
This algae boom, bust and dead zone phenomenon may not be an ecological crisis, and it’s been going on for decades. But why make it worse, with an expensive, engine-wrecking fuel that eco-activists, politicians and ethanol lobbyists pretend is better for the planet than fossil fuels? Why don’t biofuel boosters at least include this serious, recurring environmental damage in their cost-benefit analyses?
And why do we continue to tolerate the double standards? Environmentalists, politicians and bureaucrats come down with iron fists on any private sector damages involving fossil fuel or nuclear power. They have different standards for the “natural” and “eco-friendly” “alternatives” they advocate. Ethanol from corn is just one example. An even more grotesque double standard involves wind turbines.
Big Green activists and Big Government bureaucrats (especially Fish & Wildlife Service) let Big Wind companies kill eagles and other raptors, conduct deliberately insufficient and incompetent body counts, hide and bury carcasses, and even store hundreds of dead eagles in freezers, away from prying eyes. Using German and Swedish studies as a guide, Save the Eagles International experts calculate that the real US wind turbine death toll is probably 13 million or more birds and bats every year, slaughtered in the name of saving the planet from computer-concocted ravages of manmade global warming.
These policies are unsustainable and intolerable. The same environmental and endangered species standards must be applied to all our energy alternatives – and the ethanol quotas must be terminated.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
Last week, I discussed tax reform as the first component of a comprehensive agenda to restore booming economic growth, and the American Dream. This week, I will discuss a second essential component of such a growth restoration agenda: deregulation.
Last week, I attended and spoke at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas, organized by the Heartland Institute, the world headquarters for skeptics of anthropogenic (human caused), catastrophic, global warming. The event was co-sponsored by 32 organizations, demonstrating broad support for the Resistance. Nearly 700 people attended (a record among all 9 such conferences), with climate scientists from all over the world. Those included 64 speakers from 12 countries.
The event was broadcast live by CSPAN, and online by Heartland, where 6,000 more viewers watched at least some of it. The presentations are all still available online at http://climateconference.heartland.org/, where another 40,000 unique visitors have also watched them.
I came away from the conference convinced that the climate alarmists are right in at least one respect. The debate over anthropogenic, catastrophic, global warming is over. But it is the alarmists who have lost it. This is further confirmed by Australia this week repealing its carbon tax, with popular, newly elected, Liberal Party Prime Minister Tony Abbot calling the claim that humans are causing global warming “absolute crap.” Indeed, I as a lawyer and economist am intellectually fascinated by the subject, because the skeptics have by now so thoroughly trashed alarmist arguments.
Check it out for yourself. Read the latest Assessment Report of the establishment Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And read the three, thousand page volumes published this year of Climate Change Reconsidered II, written by the dozens of scientists in the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
I see no science left after that for any argument that there is any real serious threat of catastrophic, anthropogenic, global warming. The international scientists at the recent Heartland conference do not dispute the theory that “greenhouse gases” have some effect in heating the earth’s atmosphere. But there is no sound science showing that such heating would be so substantial as to threaten catastrophic results for humans, other animals, and plants.
Yes, sea levels are rising. But not any faster than they have for the last 12,000 years, since the end of the last ice age. The polar ice caps are not melting. The Antarctic is at record ice levels, and the Arctic polar ice cap has been restored. Some glaciers are receding, but others are still growing. The weather is not getting more extreme. The worst hurricanes, tornadoes, and other extreme weather are all in decline. Now that the alarmists have been exposed for these scare tactics, they have lost all credibility.
The only argument for catastrophic, anthropogenic, global warming now rests entirely on climate models, which not only have never been validated. They have been falsified now by the almost 18 years of no global warming, which more recently has trended towards global cooling. Spare me the comments by pop tarts, all of whom turn out to be on the government payroll, claiming oh no that cessation of any warming is not true. Too many alarmists have now admitted as much, and it is even being discussed now in the socialist party press.
The growing, yawning gap between the spiking temperature projections of these models and the flat reality not only discredits the models. It is now proving that the climate is not nearly as sensitive to carbon dioxide, or CO2, (a natural substance essential for the survival of all life on the planet, not “pollution”) as the alarmists have tried to claim. That has been proven as well by the up and down pattern of global temperatures going back to the start of the last century, and beyond, despite steadily rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere that entire time.
The NIPCC scientists and others at the Heartland conference argue that these climate patterns are more consistent with, and determined by, natural causes. Indeed, the most interesting and challenging scientists at the conference argued that these natural causes now portend a sustained period of global cooling.
Sebastian Luning, doctorate in geology/palaeontology, has been studying the history of solar cycles for 20 years at universities in London, Manchester, Wales, Vienna, and Bremen, Germany. He co-authored with Franz Vahrenholdt, long a leading environmentalist figure in Europe, the book The Neglected Sun, published in 2013. While the U.N.’s IPCC insists that variations in solar activity play no role in climate change, Luning emphasized at the conference that 99.98% of the total energy contribution to the earth’s climate comes from the sun. He postulated that slight changes in that huge force, as reflected in documented cycles of solar activity, would be the dominant factor in causing climate changes, rather than comparatively puny human activities.
Luning referenced a data set of reconstructed cycles of solar activity going back 9,000 years, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. That data set shows the most well-known recurring cycles of 11 years, plus cycles of 90 years, 210 years, 500 years, 1,000 years, and even 2,300 years. He argued that these cycles were the dominant causes of the up and down pattern of global temperatures shown in the historical temperature records, including over the last 150 years, when the industrial revolution began contributing to rising atmospheric CO2 levels.
Periods of high solar activity, such as sunspots and solar flares, correspond closely with historical warm periods, such as the Medieval Warm Period, running roughly from 950 AD to 1250 AD, and the Roman Warm Period, from roughly 250 BC to 400 AD. Periods of low solar activity correspond closely with historical cold periods, such as the Little Ice Age, running from roughly from 1300 AD to 1850 AD. The IPCC’s climate models, which purport to show catastrophe if we do not cease using the energy that fueled the industrial revolution (bitterly resisted by environmentalist reactionaries today), cannot reproduce the temperatures of the Little Ice Age, or these other historical climate variations. So climate hysterics have tried to deny these variations occurred in the past. But the variations proved too thoroughly evidenced in historic records for such ploys to prevail.
Luning concluded that taking the impact of these solar cycles into account would ultimately reduce the estimated climate sensitivity from an atmospheric doubling of CO2 to just 1 degree. That estimated sensitivity is already being forced downward from a previous high of as much as 3, or even 4, degrees, by the now sustained lack of global warming for almost two decades now.
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov is head of space research at the Pulkovo Obervatory in St. Petersburg. He is author of Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age (2013) and The Sun Dictates the Climate of the Earth (2009). In 2013, the European Scientific-Industrial Chamber awarded him a gold medal for exceptional achievements.
The Little Ice Age from roughly 1300 AD to 1850 AD was accompanied by several cycles of dramatically reduced sunspots and other solar activity. The Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot and other solar activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830.
Abdussamatov argues that similar patterns of sunspots and other solar activity began in 1990, which he says was the start of another solar decline, caused by a quasi-bicentennial solar cycle. He says that all 18 periods of substantial climate change over the last 7,500 years have been caused by such cycles. Indeed, he has charted such effects going back 800,000 years.
That quasi-bicentennial phase has already shown up in sharp declines in the much smaller 11 year solar cycles. He argues that a new Little Ice Age resulting from this solar decline can be dated as starting this year, which he first predicted about 10 years ago. The solar decline will continue, he says, reaching a new solar Grand Minimum period starting in 2043+/-11 years. That will be the beginning of what he calls a “solar autumn,” passing from the recent period of “solar summer.”
The decline will continue, he says, passing into “solar winter” in 2060+/-11 years. That will be the equivalent of a new Maunder Minimum, which was the deepest cold period of the Little Ice Age. By then, global temperatures will have fallen about 1.5 degrees from current levels, he expects. The decline will then stabilize at that level for another 50 years or so. Abdussamatov argues that to prepare for this, governments need to be maximizing economic growth, so that countries will have the economic resources to best deal with the new frigid climate. Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon also emphasized the role of the sun as the dominant factor in climate change.
Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, emphasized instead the role of natural ocean cycles in causing climate change. He has collected data showing 20 periods of global warming and 20 periods of global cooling since 1480 AD, each lasting for roughly similar periods of 27 years on average. These were caused, he said, by the cycles known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadel Oscillation (AMO).
On the basis of these historical cycles, in 1999 Easterbrook predicted 25 to 30 years of global cooling, as he estimated that the PDO began phasing from warm to cold in that year. That is the primary reason there has been no warming for almost 18 years now, with a slight cooling trend over more recent years. He says the 20 years of global warming before that were due to a natural PDO warming cycle, not mankind’s CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
Overregulation Squelches Energy Production, Costs Necessarily Skyrocket
Politicians and “journalists” who insistently express fervent belief in catastrophic, anthropogenic, global warming do so not because of any science they have read, but because they want to believe in it. That desire stems from the recognition that the theory provides the justification for wildly expanded government powers of taxation, spending and regulation that would displace markets and capitalism. This applies to President Obama and his Democrats, Federal, state and local, and major media outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post.
This is why Obama and his Democrats have so overregulated energy production that output of traditional fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas, and coal, on federal lands and other federally controlled areas (primarily off-shore) has declined sharply under President Obama, while such production on private and state lands has soared to record smashing levels. Today, America now has the resources to be the world’s number one producer of each of these energy sources, plus nuclear energy, which America originally pioneered, but since has ceded to other, rival economies.
This deprives America of the full scope of increased jobs, wages, income, and tax and royalty revenue that would result directly from a fully liberated energy boom as America reaches its renewed potential as the world’s number oil producer, number natural gas producer, number one coal producer, even number one nuclear energy producer. Clumsy overregulation has now killed the Keystone Pipeline, as Canada has given up on Obama’s misleadership, and decided to build a pipeline to its west coast to export its energy bounty to America’s emerging top rival China, which will soon surpass America as the world’s number one economy.
Moreover, the resulting supply of reliable, low cost energy from such an energy boom would fuel a broader, economy wide, boom. The fracking boom in natural gas production quickly earned an echo in the developing return of manufacturing to America’s shores.
But stunting the supply of traditional fossil fuels, plus adding the costs of unnecessary overregulation, will spike the cost of energy in America, as Obama boasted behind closed doors to deluded supporters in 2008, saying that under his plans, “the cost of electricity will necessarily skyrocket.” Forcing in addition a shift by regulatory requirement to necessarily much more costly “renewable” fuels like solar, wind, and biofuels will further skyrocket America’s energy costs.
These added costs are like an additional tax burden squelching the economy, just like the carbon tax that Australia just so wisely jettisoned. The Liberal Establishment told us the awful stagflation of the 1970s was the result of oil price spikes caused by Arab oil embargoes. But now that same establishment is telling us we must now voluntarily do the same thing to our own economy, for our own good.
Restoring maximum, booming, economic growth requires deregulation to remove this counterproductive overregulation, which the discussion above of the science of catastrophic, anthropogenic, global warming shows is not necessary. Restoring growth requires liberating energy producers to lead an historic energy boom directly creating millions of good paying jobs, spreading the 3% unemployment and booming wages of North Dakota across America. And producing burgeoning supplies of low cost, reliable energy that would spread the boom economy wide, through a renaissance of good paying jobs in manufacturing and other industries.
State governments should further contribute to the boom by repealing costly renewable energy mandates, and telling the EPA that if it wants states to adopt their own carbon taxes, or cap and trade, the states will see them in court.
Costs of Obamacare Regulatory Delusions
Both the Obamacare Individual Mandate and the Employer Mandate are regulatory disasters killing jobs and the economy in America. The Individual Mandate because exactly the opposite of what Obama promised it is sharply increasing health insurance costs by requiring the purchase of more extensive benefits than people want to pay for. That includes the costs of Democrat “fairness” in guaranteed issue and community rating, which are like requiring fire insurers to issue insurance policies at the same cost as for anyone else to those who call in to buy after their house is already on fire. And the Employer Mandate because it is adding these costs to employment, which is reducing jobs, at least full time jobs.
The Obama Administration was celebrating the labor report for last month reportedly showing an increase of 288,000 jobs. But those were all part time jobs, as the employer mandate does not apply to jobs of less than 30 hours a week, which is all that the economy is currently producing as a result. Full time jobs actually plunged by 523,000 last month. But part time jobs more suitable for teenagers skyrocketed by 800,000. As a result, overall, fewer than half of American adults are working full time. No wonder middle class incomes are falling so steadily, Obama’s misleading rhetoric notwithstanding.
Restoring booming economic growth requires removing all these costly, counterproductive, Obamacare regulatory burdens. More people would be covered through carefully constructed, free market incentives for health insurance, which free market economists have been advocating for 20 years. But the dishonest, so-called “mainstream” media won’t cover them, or tell anyone about it, because they will only support increased government power and control.
Dodd-Frank’s Regulatory Overkill
The Dodd-Frank legislation (Democrats thought it would be a great idea for those who caused the financial crisis to devise legislation to address it) imposes hundreds of new regulations on financial institutions that burden small and community banks the most. Instead of ending financial bailouts as advertised, the legislation actually institutionalizes them. The Justice Dept. is vigorously pursuing the same imaginary discrimination suits that led to the financial crisis in the first place, on the idea that denying loans to people who can’t pay them back is unfair and discriminatory.
This regulatory overkill has deprived the economy of the credit needed for a full recovery. Employers are constrained from gaining the necessary capital to start or expand businesses, killing the jobs and higher wages that would result. Consumers can’t get the credit necessary to support a booming economy. Restoring booming economic growth would require removing these unnecessary and counterproductive economic burdens.
Next week, we will discuss monetary policy reform, which may be the most important reform of all for restoring booming economic growth, and the American Dream.
The Labour Party, the main opposition political party in New Zealand, made headlines last week when it announced its proposed policy for trying people accused of rape. According to the party’s justice spokesman, Andrew Little, the party is proposing that the burden of proof be reversed in rape trials. In other words, people accused of rape would have to prove their innocence.
It is quite astonishing that any mainstream party in a Western democracy could actually entertain the idea of eliminating, even in one instance, the presumption of innocence. That presumption, which demands that the government never treat a citizen as a criminal until it has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they have actually committed the crime, is the Golden Thread binding together the whole of the Anglo-American criminal justice tradition. It is enshrined across laws and constitutions, and is even recognized in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
The government’s first role is the upholding of the law and the protecting of its citizens. That is fundamentally impossible if the government can brand citizens as criminals unless they can directly prove otherwise. The policy of the Labour Party, should it be implemented, represents a death knell to the legal protections citizens have come to expect and fundamentally deserve.
The avowed justification for the change in the case of rape is the indisputable fact that it is very hard to convict anyone of rape. It is true that convictions are difficult to achieve on a forensic level. It is also hard for people who have been raped to come forward at all, due to very real social pressures not to speak out, and the frequent tendency of societies to engage in victim-blaming. These are truly tragic problems, ones that are probably not addressed nearly enough by governments around the world. Rape is a horrific crime, and the victims of it are frequently scarred for life. The violation of one’s self in that way is one of the most grotesque that can be experienced. Governments the world over have done too little to address the problem.
But the underlying problem does not call for simply lowering the bar of what it takes to convict someone of the crime, and it certainly does not call for reversing the burden of evidence that is instantiated across the laws of all countries with British common law traditions. The Labour Party is groping blindly for a solution that will paper over social factors currently hampering investigations. The advocates of this policy are seeking a blunt tool by which to redress a clear injustice. But answering injustice with another terrible injustice is not the way forward.
It would be naive to assume that a policy of reversing the burden of consent in cases of rape would stop there. When the fundamental relationship between citizen and state in the investigation and prosecution of transgressions is shifted, even in one instance, it changes the relationship across the board. If underlying difficulties in enforcement of rape prosecutions is justification to reverse the burden of proof, why not do the same for other difficult-to-prosecute crimes? Where would it end?
Some pundits say slippery slope arguments are invalid, but they are unquestionably wrong in this case. The policy proposal of the Labour Party would permanently and irrevocably transform the entirety of the legal system. It might just take a few years for the case-law to accrete before people notice.
The Labour Party is not currently in power to act on this policy, and it would likely face substantial legal challenges in the courts were it to do so. But it is reflective of a dangerous strain in left wing political ideology that seeks to outright reject many of the sacred institutions of personal liberty and limited government to serve their myopic conceptualization of justice. When a position attacking a venerated precept like the presumption of innocence as a tool of the “patriarchy” to oppress women is met with anything but instant ridicule, there is a problem.
Rape, and all non-consensual violence, is monstrous and unambiguously evil. But a government demanding that citizens prove their innocence of a crime is also unambiguously evil.
Gambling and marijuana are corrupting the people and Michael Gerson is on it:
Two of the larger social trends of our time — the growth of payday gambling and the legalization of marijuana — have two things in common: They are justified as the expansion of personal liberty, and they serve the interests of an expanding government. The ideological alliance behind these changes is among the strangest in U.S. politics. Libertarians seek to lift governmental restraints on consensual acts. State governments seek sources of revenue without the political inconvenience of requesting broad tax increases. Both find common ground in encouraging and exploiting the weaknesses and addictions of citizens. (And business interests and their lobbyists, of course, find new ways to profit from reliable vices.) …
Parents no longer expect much help from government in reinforcing the cultural and moral norms necessary to the raising of responsible, successful children. But now some states are profiting from actively undermining those norms. Apparently, only consenting adults matter. Libertarian utopias are always childless. For the strongest ideological advocates of this approach, the outcomes are largely irrelevant. It ultimately doesn’t matter if teen drug use increases by X percent or gambling addiction rises Y percent. Ending “consensual crimes” is a matter of principle — not just on pot and slots but on heroin and meth. The idea of a political community upholding standards, in order to help other institutions (such as families) pass healthy cultural norms between generations, is anathema.
It goes on from there as you might expect. Peter Wehner joins in on the idea here, in the odd context of advocating policies that will appeal to… single women? Emphasis mine:
In addition, Republicans would be wise to enlarge the social issues they speak about. Liberals and the elite press will want to keep the focus on issues like contraception, abortion, and same-sex marriage. Republicans need to counter by speaking in compelling ways about the intellectual and moral education of the young, about education as the civil-rights struggle of this generation, and protecting children from harm, including drug use and standing against drug legalization. They need to speak about an agenda focused on social mobility and helping people gain the skills they’ll need to succeed in a 21st century economy. Republicans also need to make it clear they want to strengthen, rather than weaken, the social safety net, including about the purposes of government in ways that reassures rather than unnerves people, especially those who are most vulnerable.
I have difficulty with viewing these arguments from Wehner and Gerson (and David Frum) as anything but naive posturing. For Gerson, the aim seems to be that the drug war is something that is helping people, and backing off from it is bad for society; for Wehner, he seems to conclude that the path back to electoral success is doubling down on the drug war to appeal to single women and moms.
Given the logic of Gerson’s piece, I have a hard time seeing what shouldn’t be banned as a waste of money or a private vice in the name of his favored cultural norm. He argues that making something that is illegal legal – thereby reducing crime, reducing the prison population, and taxing the activity instead represents an expansion of government. I see no conceivable way this is accurate. On the drug front, the experience in Portugal completely goes against the idea that decriminalization breeds greater government dependency (fewer addicts using fewer social services, fewer people in jail and the courts, and so on). Yes, of course there will be some Americans who choose the simple life of welfare, Medicaid, and marijuana – but given that decriminalization of low level drug offenses also means that we will stop sending hundreds of thousands of young fathers to jail, the social dependency outcomes there are at worst a wash – and I would argue that over time, this will lead to dramatically less government dependency as opposed to the status quo for people bouncing in and out of prison.
Nothing has done more to increase government dependency than government drug policies which have dramatically increased the number of single moms who are pushed to look to government for help and become trapped by that help. There are 1.5 million kids in America who have a parent in jail, and of those in federal prison, half are there for drug related crimes. The continued criminalization of even low-level drug offenses has dramatically increased the burden on the welfare state and government dependency. How on earth does supporting a policy that often is the cause of making these women single moms by throwing their children’s fathers in jail something that will win the votes of single women?
On the gambling front: there is precious little evidence of a dramatic increase in dependency associated with areas around casinos, nor has there been an increase in the number of compulsive/problem gamblers despite the dramatic increase in casinos over the past several decades (the research on that also actually indicateseven fewer problem gamblers online, because they stop quicker). If Gerson wants to argue against something demonstrably unfair to the civic order, he shouldcriticize state lotteries, which are ever-present, cash-based, purposefully target poor areas, and actually doen’t make a lot of revenue for states. While casinos are typically gambling destination spots for the better educated middle class (they want people with more money to burn), state lotteries are only played by the dumb and desperate because of the ridiculous odds. State lotteries function as a regressive tax on people who don’t make enough money to pay a lot of taxes, while casinos function as a sin tax on people with disposable income. And if the latter is the unacceptable, we better start banning a lot of other things, too.
Here as in so many cases, those who are defending the status quo of American policy toward drugs and gambling, arguing against the current push for legalization, also demand that those who seek more liberty prove, beyond a doubt, that eliminating the current restrictive policy will have no negative outcomes. Gerson and Wehner would be better off presuming a default policy in favor of liberty and self-determination over the power of the state. Instead, we should demand a very high burden of proof from those who seek to restrict liberty and expand the state. If Gerson truly believes that the drug war represents a “political community upholding standards, in order to help other institutions (such as families) pass healthy cultural norms between generations,” then he must demonstrate how our these policies actually do that, and how helping parents enforce those norms is worth breaking up tens of thousands of families, instead of just ignoring the ample evidence of the failure of the drug war as irrelevant. Who knew that what was really crushing civil society all along wasn’t working class dads bouncing in and out of prison for non-violent crimes, but the creeping pestilence of pot, porn, and poker?
Perhaps they needs to revisit the understanding of what a Republic is. I’ve always thought John Wayne’s description, as Davy Crockett in The Alamo, is apt: “Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose.”
[Originally published at The Federalist]
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Thursday called on the state legislature to repeal the state’s Common Core education standards, national guidelines that are proving to be increasingly controversial in many states. Walker said he wants Common Core to be replaced “with standards set by people in Wisconsin.”
The following statements from education policy experts at The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution. For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely firstname.lastname@example.org and 312/377-4000.
“Pressure from the upcoming national elections has combined with years of steady grassroots pressure in Wisconsin to finally shift Gov. Walker towards giving some attention to Common Core. He had previously stated opposition to Common Core, but his Common Core solution included putting its chief proponent in charge of replacing it.
“If that remains his best idea, Wisconsin kids are still in for a weak curriculum and another decade of ignoring that monopoly education and the deterioration of the family are root causes of poorly prepared teachers, academic-lite curriculum, a culture that shirks the hard work and personal responsibility required for high achievement, and an attenuating citizenry.”
Research Fellow, The Heartland Institute
Managing Editor, School Reform News
“Now that the rank awfulness of the Common Core standards is finally becoming known, states are starting to back out. That is democracy in action, whereas the initial imposition of Common Core was a top-down, command-and-control approach done through a smoke-and-mirrors sleight of hand intended to look like private, state-led action. The fact that states are leaving the program proves that Common Core never was state-led and always was a big-government scam.”
Director of Research
The Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute is a 30-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.
The Australian Senate on Thursday voted to repeal the country’s carbon tax of $25 per ton, keeping a promise by new prime minister Tony Abbott to get rid of it. Australia becomes the first Western nation to repeal a tax on carbon dioxide emissions.
The following statements from climate and energy experts at The Heartland Institute – a free-market think tank – may be used for attribution. For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at email@example.com and 312/377-4000.
“The decision by Australia to repeal its carbon tax is further evidence that the global warming movement is now in global retreat. Australian voters realized the tax, which cost the average household more than $500 a year, had zero impact on the climate while it destroyed jobs and punished the poor and people on fixed incomes. Elected officials took longer to realize their mistake, but the right decision was finally made.
“The odds of a new international treaty with binding provisions being adopted at the next United Nations meeting in Paris in 2015, already poor, have dropped even further. People all over the world are seeing through the hype and exaggeration of politicians and environmental activists. They understand that there simply is no climate crisis, and they no longer are willing to passively accept the taxes, regulations, and subsidies passed at the height of global warming alarmism.
“Politicians who campaign on the promise of repealing such useless and destructive taxes and laws can expect to be rewarded at the polls. President Obama has given Republicans here in the U.S. a golden opportunity to make major advances this November. Australia has shown the way. Are they paying attention?”
The Heartland Institute
“Australia is the latest nation to realize expensive restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions punish living standards while accomplishing no real-world environmental benefit. Canada, Japan, Germany, Spain, the UK, and other nations have also been rolling back efforts to stifle conventional energy usage in the scientifically unsupportable war against carbon dioxide emissions.
“Money wasted imposing expensive energy restrictions could be better spent on education, housing, health care, nutrition, real environmental challenges, or simply allowing people to keep more of their earnings. Australia has seen the light and I expect more nations will soon follow suit.”
James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow for Environmental Policy
The Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute is a 30-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.
Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast sat down with the New American’s Bill Jasper during the 9th International Conference on Climate Change to talk about the origin and purpose of the conference. Boasting 64 speakers, from a multitude of disciplines, ICCC9 was the most “star-studded” climate conference yet.
Bast explained that when the Heartland Institute started looking seriously at the issue of global warming in 2006, its first aim was to find a way to make a difference. To do so, Bast conducted a “gap analysis” in order to find something missing in the climate skeptic movement. Heartland quickly hit upon the idea of a conference to bring together the world’s leading climate skeptics.
Bast explained that ICCC was born out of that idea:
“One of the things that was missing was an opportunity to bring all of these global warming skeptics together and develop some personal relationships, to develop a social movement. And unless people get to know each other and actually sit around the table and talk and bring their families together, they’re not going to form a social movement. It’s especially important when you have a minority point of view. You need that support network of friends and colleagues who agree with you.”
Bast spoke wistfully of the first ICCC as “a beautiful thing.” It was the first time these climate skeptics had met together. It sparked a wave of collaboration and new research projects. Science relies on cross-pollination of ideas, and there had been a marked absence of such collaboration in the field of climate skepticism. As organizer, Heartland played midwife to a burgeoning skeptic movement.
Bast had a lot to say about what he perceives to be an extreme bias in the way science is conducted and discussed in the mainstream:
“I think very few people realize just how imbalanced the debate is. There are estimates that we spend a billion dollars a day, globally, on global warming. Between subsidies for the researchers and all these programs to subsidize renewable energy, a billion dollars a day! That is an industry. That is a global warming industry, and its self-interest is to exaggerate the threat, to ignore any doubts, and to pursue one avenue, which is reducing emissions.”
A growing problem, according to Bast, is one of funding. Each time Heartland has put on an ICCC, it has had to dedicate a tremendous percentage of its manpower and resources to making it work. They are expensive, and Bast explained that each time he was always reticent to do it again. And he still was, even after the big turnout at ICCC9, saying, “I’m not sure we’re going to do a tenth.” It all comes down to money and resources, a subject Bast turned to more broadly when he described the plight of many climate skeptics who pay a high academic cost for holding their views:
“We need to find new sources of revenue and support for these skeptics. You’ve got very competent, very courageous academics like Willie Soon, and David Legates in Rhode Island. These guys are losing their academic positions, losing grants, losing all the usual awards and privileges that a successful career would bring. We have to create competing institutions, or set of institutions, that reward these guys.”
The problem to which Bast alluded, that the academic discipline of science has become a monolith, is certainly a serious one. It is a problem that even people who accept the mainstream view on climate change should acknowledge and try to fix. There was once a time when private research institutions were the dominant players on the science stage, in all the varied disciplines. A glut of government funding has made even private universities and institutes junkies for government cash. That desire for subsidies and grants can make scientists alter their research programs to better align with the views of those who have their hands on the tap.
Science as a discipline thrives in a marketplace of open ideas and competition. Any time a majority view seeks to not just defeat, but to strangle, opposition views, people should be worried. Accept anthropogenic global warming or don’t. Either way, don’t support a scientific establishment that is more concerned with raking in government funding than pushing the boundaries of human understanding.
At the Examiner, Gene Healy writes about why the Rand Paul/Rick Perry initial sparring is good for the foreign policy debate on the right. Whether it’s good or bad in the long run, I do believe it illustrates a number of challenges Republican candidates in 2016 will have to deal with, and the difficulty of assessing where the Republican base is headed at a time when few leaders have run in tandem with its shifting views on national security and foreign policy.
It should be clear, however, that Rand Paul has been elevated for three reasons, all of which are concurrent with the trendlines of Republican opinions to varying degrees. He has become the lone prominent voice on the national stage rejecting the nation-building approaches deployed by both parties in the past decade and a half; he has advocated for bringing home troops and withdrawing from or avoiding additional actions in hot spots around the world; and he has spoken to the distrust of government within the realm of security policy domestically.
It is actually this last arena in which the poll numbers have experienced the most dramatic change over the past year. The actions of the Obama administration in regards to invasions of privacy by the IRS and inappropriate actions by government officials in a number of different agencies have led Republican and Independent voters to shift significantly toward a total rejection of the established security policy. Today 77 percent of Republicans saying the National Security Agency’s spying intrudes on their privacy (even exceeding the 70 percent of Democrats!), a 27 point jump from before Obama’s presidency. 60 percent of Americans oppose the NSA collection of phone and internet data; 74 percent believe the NSA is violating their privacy rights; and a majority of Americans by a 13 point margin disapprove of the NSA itself, with again more Republicans than Democrats opposing the agency. Pew finds that almost 70 percent of self-identified Tea Partiers disapprove of the NSA – a demonstration of a shift on civil liberties that really did not exist as a phenomenon prior to the Obama era. It’s not hard to see why.
Yet even as this rising Republican suspicion of government surveillance and power has elevated Rand Paul beyond the anti-war backing of his father, I suspect it has not simultaneously led to an endorsement of Paul’s other policy views. It is notable that the same majority which wants to eliminate the ability of the NSA to spy on them also favors the prosecution of Edward Snowden. Republican primary voters don’t share the views of many Obama 2008 voters (and one suspects Rand 2016 voters) who remain incensed about the existence of Gitmo, CIA black sites, torturing bad guys, killing terrorists with drones… On all these scores, Republican voters do not display significant movement. In particular, they display no qualms about spying on foreign countries – indeed, most will agree we should absolutely be doing that in a time of an ascendant Russia and increased dangers in the Middle East. The problem this presents for Paul is that while they may be of the same mind on the NSA, the leftward portion of his base believes that Edward Snowden is a saint and Glenn Greenwald is his prophet, while the rightward portion believes both should be in jail. I don’t think he’s figured out how to deal with that yet.
As for the challenge for Rick Perry’s faction, which effects virtually every other realistic 2016 candidate, I think the back and forth with Paul reveals that non-neoconservative hawks are going to have to deal with their own discomfiting trend lines. Perry wanted to criticize Paul without having to also defend prior policy positions regarding Iraq – which Paul of course raised in his response oped. Here, Perry and his ideological allies would probably prefer to deflect: after all, just 22 percent of Americans believe the Iraq war was worth it. Even majorities of Republicans share that view, an indication that Republicans have, along with the rest of the country, largely rejected the ideas of Bush’s second inaugural as well as the view that national security requires sacrificing a significant degree of privacy. But I don’t think their candidates have come to share that view yet, at least not explicitly.
Now, this is not an indication that the Republican base is becoming anti-war, or anti-American power, or isolationist. It is an indication that they are opposed to costly lengthy humanitarian-minded missions without clear goals or conditions for victory which include putting soldiers in harm’s way doing just about anything outside the realm of what they think the military ought to be doing. The shift has been toward opposition of the international freedom agenda where it involves boots on the ground, using the military to nation build, and do a bunch of stuff that isn’t killing bad guys. And this opposition does not make one an isolationist – that label does not work when people like Jonah Goldberg have to defend themselves from being called isolationist because they didn’t want to get involved in Syria.
(As an aside: The danger in a Republican presidential primary is not to be tagged as an isolationist. It actually plays to Paul’s advantage to run with that attack, because of the rhetorical pivot it allows: “does opposition to nation-building make one an isolationist?”. No, the real danger for Paul is to be tagged as no different from an Obama-Kerry liberal. He is vulnerable on this count, and will likely remain so absent a change in his approach which includes more of an embrace of the realist policy legacy.)
Republican voters want someone who is genuinely neither neoconservative nor isolationist. They want someone who will reject the overreach of nationbuilding and sticking our nose into every conflict, reject internationalism and hypocritical spying on American citizens, and embrace a more traditional Jacksonian policy which says that if you hit us or if we see you’re going to hit us, we will use any and all Constitutional resources to hunt you down and kill you in your cave in the middle of the night.
This may seem rather simplistic. But Republican candidates are still struggling with this, and they will have to work it out before the question gets asked on the Iowa debate stage of “Was it right to go to war in Iraq? Would you do it again? And what would you do about the NSA?”
In a sense, this is just another consequence of Republicans losing the adult in the room status on security and foreign policy. The party has always included realists and idealists, and there was in the past a degree of trust that elected leaders could sound more like idealists but govern more like realists. Welcome to life in a political realm where that trust no longer exists.
[Originally published at The Federalist]
The appointment of Iowa’s Angela Tagtow, a controversial “environmental nutritionist” and local food activist, to head the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion is causing more headaches for the agency, already facing criticism about politicization of federal nutrition advice and its consequences for public health.
By using the government’s official dietary guidelines as a tool to advance her well-established environmentalist agenda, Tagtow would undermine the USDA’s mandate — to provide families with science-based, impartial nutrition advice.
The USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services administer the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which makes recommendations regarding the dietary guidelines mandated by Congress. The guidelines, now being revised, are the basis for federal food and nutrition programs and welfare benefits such as SNAP and educational campaigns, including MyPlate (formerly the food pyramid). The USDA touts them to be “authoritative advice for people 2 years and older about how good dietary habits can promote health and reduce risk for major chronic diseases.”
The fourth meeting of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee started Thursday and will conclude today.
According to Politico, recent advisory committee meetings raised eyebrows because “hot-button issues, such as diet and climate change,” are being discussed in an unprecedented way. The committee has even dedicated one of five subcommittees to “food sustainability and safety” to discuss how the food we eat contributes to climate change and how the government should recommend changes to our diets based on those concerns.
Sustainable food systems and environmental protection may be important, but these issues don’t belong in discussions of healthy eating.
That hasn’t stopped the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee from delving deeply into them over the past year. In the January meeting of the committee, member Miriam Nelson gushed about the importance of promoting foods that have the “littlest impact on the environment” and invited testimony from sustainability expert Kate Clancy, who argued it would be “perilous” not to take global climate change into account when dispensing dietary advice.
In April, a USDA spokesperson seemed to back away from the row by minimizing the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s role in policy-making, saying, “The committee is still in the early stages of its work, so it is premature to guess what their recommendations might be, and even more premature to speculate about what will be included in the final dietary guidelines.”
But the appointment of Tagtow to the USDA office responsible for not only developing and promoting the dietary guidelines, but advancing prominent programs such as MyPlate, suggests that the USDA is doubling down on raising the profile of our diet’s alleged effect on the climate and other issues that have more to do with political science than nutritional science.
For instance, Tagtow boasts that the mission of her consulting firm, Environmental Nutrition Solutions, “is to establish healthier food systems that are resilient, sustainable, ecologically sound, socially acceptable and economically viable.”
This isn’t nutrition. This is code language for politically charged activism. In what amounts to her policy platform statement, Tagtow writes that we should select meat and dairy products from animals that have been fed only grass diets.
She also repeats the myth that meat is an environmentally reckless form of protein, suggesting a plant-based diet instead. She says we should reduce our consumption of meat, lean or not, not because of any potential health benefits, but in order to “conserve natural resources and energy.”
Tagtow has suggested that Iowans could improve the state’s economy by eating only food grown in the state, at least part of the year.
She touted a Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture study, claiming that ” if Iowans ate five servings of fruits and vegetables per day, and Iowa farmers supplied that produce for three months of the year, these additional crops would add $300 million and more than 4,000 jobs to the Iowa economy.”
She fails to mention that in her utopian Iowa, residents wouldn’t likely enjoy the benefits of staples like oranges or pineapples for those months. Nor does she consider the devastation to Iowa’s agricultural community if her agro-protectionist ideals were implemented in other states.
Well, now she’s headed to the federal government to promote her narrow ideology.
The maxim that in government, “personnel is policy,” is especially true here, given Tagtow’s policymaking role. The priorities she’s spent her career advancing are far from the consensus among mainstream nutritionists.
Her appointment is a slap in the face to thousands of men and women in nutrition who daily work tirelessly and impartially to help Americans eat better. And it casts doubt over whether USDA is willing to dispense nutrition advice based on science rather than an activist agenda.
JEFF STIER is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He heads its risk analysis division. Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Originally published at www.jeffstier.org.
When asked to imagine the birthplace of our contemporary republican democracy, most educated people point to the democratic traditions of ancient Athens and to the institutions and offices of the Roman Republic. Yet, Athens was destroyed and its democracy destroyed centuries before the birth of Christ, and the Roman Republic succumbed to imperial despotism in 27BC. These shining examples continued to burn as embers of remembrance long after their practical extinction, thanks to a political and intellectual class dedicated to the preservation of ancient documents and knowledge. But while preserving the records, the successor states of both Athens and Rome were neither democratic nor republican in character.
It is not until the signing of the Magna Carta that most people trace a tentative rekindling of the concepts of limited government and representation. While far from a republican document, let alone a democratic one, Magna Carta represented the first time one of the European monarchies that arose from the ruins of Rome formally constituted a limited relationship between ruler and subjects (or ruler and barons as was the case at first).
The Magna Carta is still thought of as the nucleus of the British constitution. It represents a starting point out of which arose parliamentary primacy, and eventual parliamentary democracy. It was the concept of the natural and constitutionally guaranteed Rights of Englishmen, and their perceived impugning by taxation without appropriate representation, that spurred the American colonists first to demand redress, and then to open revolt.
This is the story most students in the English-speaking world are taught. A line is drawn through history showing the unbroken thread of liberty and limited government, from Greece to Rome to Britain, and finally to the United States where it reached its full and final flowering in republican splendor.
Yet this substantively Anglo-centric view leaves out several important episodes in the saga of republican government. If we cast our eye further afield we may find a far richer history than the textbooks permit. Casting our gaze northward to another island in the Atlantic we see another, independent birth of republicanism, one that has carried its own legacy to the present day. This is the story of Iceland and its discovery of representative government.
Iceland was first settled by Norwegian Vikings around 874AD. The impetus to leave their homeland appears to have been twofold. For some it was the desire to find new lands on which to build farms and to raise families. For others it was the desire to escape the authority of the Norwegian king.
These early pioneers found a fairly barren, inhospitable land, but they swiftly went about making a home for themselves. In many ways the settlers replicated life as it was on the Scandinavian mainland, with family and clan groups forming the primary centers of social life. Architecture and farming practices were successfully transferred wholesale.
The one thing the settlers did not bring along with them was an established government. No nobility or royal family staked claim to the Icelanders. Indeed, among the early Icelanders there was no central form of government at all. This state of affairs proved somewhat unstable, as no set rule of law resulted in feuds that cost many lives. Eventually the most respected and powerful clan leaders met to resolve these problems. As pragmatic as they were warlike, the Icelanders agreed to establish a permanent government to uphold a binding rule of law and to arbitrate disputes between individuals and families.
In 930AD this government took shape as the Althing, or assembly. It would be a sort of proto-parliament, with seats apportioned to the major families and regions. The Althing was to be a deliberative and legislative body, as well as central judiciary. No one was denied access to it by merit of birth.
It was settled that the permanent meeting place would be in a valley within easy riding distance of the major population centers. As a quirk of history, or maybe as an auspicious sign, the particular valley chosen happens to fall directly on the dividing line of two tectonic plates. On one side is the plate carrying most of Europe. The other, to the west, holds the eastern North American continent. The Icelandic pioneers could not know that, of course, but looking back on it through history, it dredges up a sense of symbolic importance. Here, in this rugged frontier, men with little or no education had settled on a break with the only way of governing they had ever known, a break as palpable as the split in the earth dividing the Old World and the New over which they met.
The imagination calls up images of these brave men who embarked on a new course, one with which they had no experience and no guidance from Greek or Roman forebears. As they met beneath the moon-cast shadows of ancient crags, they could hardly have known what a revolutionary path they had chosen to tread.
While far from as representative as what modern citizens would expect from a legislative body, the Althing was a remarkable first step in the direction of parliamentary governance. The body was large enough to include many landowners, not simply the mightiest in the land. It enacted a binding law that was recognized and respected by the citizenry with a remarkable zeal. The respect for the rule of law was inculcated in Icelanders in a time when much of the rest of the world was ruled by the fiat of kings or warlords. Even their kinsfolk in Scandinavia were subject to powerful kings and lords.
The difference in mindset between the Icelandic people and the Scandinavian society they left behind is perhaps best reflected in the extant legends and sagas of the two groups. Scandinavia is famous for its bloody epics detailing the exploits of mighty heroes who slay preposterous numbers of warriors and monsters. In Iceland, the sagas still have some of that blood and thunder. But the centerpieces of the stories tend to revolve more around intricate legal disputes and oratorical, rather than martial, brilliance.
Over the centuries, despite successive foreign invaders and occupiers seeking to quash it, the Althing has persisted, showing as much stubbornness as the Icelandic people. It remains the chief governing body of Iceland, though it now fits squarely in the mold of modern parliamentary democracy. It is the oldest extant parliament in the world. It is a living reminder of humans’ desire to rule themselves and to be free of arbitrary government. It is wise to reflect on the many paths nations have followed to the promised land of representative democracy. Doing so allows us to see its invaluable worth to humanity and to the enduring truth it upholds.
For years the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been issuing onerous rules applying to the use of fossil fuels that has caused increases in energy prices and contributed to the economic malaise that has befallen the country since the end of the last recession in 2009. The latest assault occurred June 2, 2014 with the EPA’s issuing its Carbon Pollution Standards requiring a 30 percent reduction below the 2005 level in carbon pollution from existing power plants by the year 2030. 2005 was a year of high carbon pollution for the United States with total carbon dioxide emissions of 6.723 billion tons and 2.642 billion tons for electric power generation. A 30 percent reduction in power emissions by 2030 is 0.793 billion tons leaving no more than 1.85 billion tons of carbon emissions for electric power generation.
For the EPA, carbon pollution means carbon dioxide, the trace gas necessary for life on the planet; not the dirty soot older people remember turned snow black in the winter, ruined laundry hung outside to dry, and coated cars parked outside. This is a direct attempt to deceive the public about the nature of the hazard being foisted upon them.
PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFITS EMPHASIZED
Along with usual stopping catastrophic climate events due to global warming, carbon pollution standards were pushed from the standpoint of health benefits. The May 31, The Guardian carried an article “Obama heralds health benefits of climate plan to cut power plant emissions” which described a presentation President Obama made, with white-robed individuals in the background, in an asthma ward at the Children’s National Medical Centre in Washington, DC. The President said, “just in the first year the plan would reduce asthma attacks by 100,000 and heart attacks by 2100″. A 7-page report from The White House “The Health Impacts of Climate Change On Americans” list their claims of health problems from global warming. No mention most health problems occur in the winter.
On June 2, EPA Administrator Gina McCarty announced EPA’s Carbon Pollution Plan calling attention this plan reduces illnesses like asthma by reducing carbon pollution. Ms. McCarthy said, “The first year these standards go into effect, we’ll avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks-and those numbers go up from there.”
“No one really knows what causes asthma. We do know asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways. Causes of asthma symptoms vary for different people. Still, one thing is consistent with asthma: when airways come into contact with an asthma trigger, the airways become inflamed, narrow, and fill with mucus. Allergies with asthma are common problem. Eighty percent of people with asthma have allergies to airborne substances such as tree, grass, and weed pollens, mold, animal dander, dust mites, and cockroach particles. In one study, children who had high levels of cockroach droppings in their homes were four times more likely to have childhood asthma than children whose homes had low levels. Asthma exacerbation after dust exposure is usually due to dust mite allergy.”
A devastating July 11, 2011 article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution by University of Georgia Emeritus Prof. R. Harold Brown “Politics of asthma have outrun the science of the condition” destroys arguments by the EPA power plant emissions cause asthma. EPA claims ozone causes asthma; but Prof. Brown cites studies show a negative correlation of asthma attacks with peak eight-hour ozone concentrations. Air pollution would be thought to be worse in urban areas; but asthma rates are as high in rural areas as urban areas. A 2004 global report on asthma cited asthma incidences among adults as 10.9 percent in the U. S., 2.1 percent in China, and 2.2 percent in Russia; all countries with far more polluted air than the U. S. A 2001-2004 CDC study reported 14.6 percent of U. S. born women, 4 percent of Mexican born women, and 6.8 percent for immigrants born elsewhere claimed they had asthma. Additional studies, most in Europe, show children born on farms with lots of livestock contact are less likely to have asthma.
To add more confusion to causes of asthma is a new study reported June 6, 2014 in Health Daily News “Too-Clean Homes May Encourage Child Allergies, Asthma: Study” reported children from dirty homes were less likely to have wheezing coughing by age 3. The study is still in infancy.
An article by Brian Palmer titled “How Dangerous Is Asthma?” claimed people are more likely to die from drowning than asthma in the U. S. Deaths due to asthma have fallen from 2 per 100,000 in 1998 to 1 per 100,000 in 2010.
“Air pollution not correlated with asthma hospitalizations” is reported by a JunkScience.com study. Soot and smog were not correlated with emergency admissions for asthma at a large Los Angeles hospital over the two-year period 2010-11. Los Angeles is one of the most polluted areas in the United States.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, 0.04 percent, occurring in our atmosphere and its slight increases have no effect on causing asthma or stimulating its attacks. Claiming asthma reductions by a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from electric power generation in the next 16 years is totally false. It may be the EPA’s calling “wolf” for years on power plant pollution that causes parents to keep their children inside homes where actual air pollution is more severe.
There is some thought increasing ozone in the atmosphere stimulates asthma attacks. Weather alerts given in cities about impending bad air is due to ozone increases caused by automobiles. One source of atmospheric ozone is due to ethanol being mixed with gasoline as a renewable fuel. A December 14, 2009, report by Stanford University researchers “Ethanol results in higher ozone concentrations than gasoline” shows vehicles running on ethanol generate higher concentrations of ozone than those using gasoline, especially in the winter. This could create new health concerns in areas where ozone hasn’t been a significant problem before. Further evidence of ethanol causing ozone is shown by studies in Sao Paulo, Brazil “Study Links Ethanol To Higher Air Pollution. These studies showed higher ozone pollution during times of greater ethanol use due to ethanol’s lower prices.
This is an example where the EPA attacks a non-problem, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, and creates a real problem by pushing use of ethanol as a mix with gasoline. An analogous situation occurred in 2011 when the EPA attacked mercury from effluents of coal-and oil-burning power plants with its Mercury and Toxic Substance (MATS) Rule and supervised elimination of incandescent light bulbs with replacement of mercury-containing compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. A May 3, 2011 paper by James H. Rust “Do New EPA Regulations on Power Plant Mercury Effluents Make Sense” shows mercury emissions from power plants are negligible compared to natural mercury emissions; while mercury concentrations in small areas in homes from CFL breakage posed potential severe environmental hazards.
THE GLOBAL WARMING PITCH
The EPA has long claimed carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels causes catastrophic global warming (CAGW). Thus its 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide from electric power generation from 2005 levels should reduce global warming. CAGW is stated to cause increased flooding, drought, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, sea level rise, Arctic ice melting, etc. The EPA maintains scientific support for carbon dioxide threats are a series of 5 Assessment Reports by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) released since 1990 with the most recent in 2014. These documents are accepted without question.
To counteract omissions, half-truths, and false statements in these reports, the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was formed in 2003. Since 2009, NIPCC has released 6 Reports that give authoritative, easily-read information about vast amounts of experimental data showing negligible influence of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels on climate, benefits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, financial losses from mitigation, and proper role of adapting to climate change. NIPCC is supported by three non-profit organizations–Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Science and Environmental Policy Project, and The Heartland Institute.
A host of data exists to show all catastrophic events alleged caused by CAGW occurred in the past when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were lower and constant. For many weather events, rates of occurrences recently declined. In addition, lack of global warming the past 16 years, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased the highest rate in thousands of years, is conveniently ignored. NIPCC reports cover all these omissions.
A lifetime could be spent studying past global temperatures, theories about causes of climate change, and failures to predict the future. Three recent examples are of interest:
A June 24, 2014 article by P. Gosselin “Laughing Stock Met Office—2007 “Peer-Reviewed” Global Temperature Forecast A Staggering Failure” reports an August 10, 2007 Science article claimed global temperatures would rise 0.54 degrees F. from 2004 to 2014 and at least half the temperatures after 2009 would be above the highest recorded (1998 super El Nino) up to that time. In actuality a cooling of 0.025 degrees F. occurred over the ten-year period and no temperatures were above the 1998 temperature.
Since 1890, the U. S. Weather Service has collected temperature data across the country that is stored in the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). This data is published by USHCN and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). In the last few decades, this data has been adjusted as reported “Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS”. The measured data set shows a decline in US temperatures since the 1930s. However, after adjustments to the data, the cooling trend since the 1930s had been changed to a warming trend. More recent analysis is reported as “Just Hit The NOAA Motherlode”.
An article by Tom Harris in the June 30, 2014 Washington Times quoted a statement by President Obama to the League of Conservation Voters on June 25 in Washington. President Obama said, “We know that carbon dioxide traps heat. We know that the levels of carbon dioxide are higher than they’ve been in 800,000 years. We know that the 20 warmest years on record for our planet all happened since 1990 — and last month was the warmest May ever recorded.” President Obama got his information from NOAA (May 2014 warmest ever and 1.33°F above the 20th century average 58.6°F), for which the preceding paragraph shows doctors their data. However, if you examine satellite temperature data from the University of Alabama at Huntsville you get the following numbers: May 2014 temperature 0.59 degrees F., May 1998 temperature 1.01 degrees, and May 2010 temperature 0.83 degrees—all temperatures above the global average from 1981 to 2010. The Wood For Trees data site, which contains British HADCRUT 4 global mean temperature data, also showed May 1998 was warmer than May 2014. This is another example of shaky data used to promote EPA’s policies.
IS THE REST OF THE WORLD YAWNING?
The EPA and President Obama hailed their carbon dioxide reductions would convince the rest of the world to cut back on use of fossil fuels.
After EPA’s Carbon Pollution Standards announcement, Reuters published China announced a plan to cap carbon dioxide emissions due to remarks by Chinese Professor He Jiankun at a conference in Beijing. These remarks were quickly undone when Professor He made a later statement, “What I said today was my personal view. The opinions expressed at the workshop were only meant for academic studies. What I said does not represent the Chinese government or any organisation.”
In another Reuters announcement “German state allows Vattenfall to expand brown coal mining” points out the East German state of Brandenburg will mine 200 million tons of brown coal from 2026.
Another follow-up is Robert Wilson’s article “What a difference a decade makes: an updated reality check on the global energy system” for the Energy Post. He reported China in a decade and a half built the equivalent of the entire American electricity grid. “China today consumes 4 billion metric tons of coal and has a commitment to 500 GW of new coal capacity. It is unlikely China’s coal use for electricity generation will be significantly lower 30 or 40 years from now.” China’s carbon dioxide emissions are twice that of America’s today.
Even if carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels had an effect on global warming, it is apparent the United States reduction of 0.8 billion tons by 2030 would have no measureable effect on climate change.
EPA’s Carbon Pollution Standards are a difficult requirement to explain that are based on their descriptions of carbon dioxide Emission Rates in pounds of carbon dioxide per Megawatt-hour electricity produced for each state for the years 2012 and 2030. The connection to a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from the year 2005 is not apparent. Readers are invited to predict sacrifices for their states.
Some facts are known. The population of the U. S. in 2005 was 296 million, 317 million in 2013, and predicted 373 million in 2030. This is a 26 percent increase in U. S. population from 2005 to 2030 and an 18 percent increase from 2013 to 2030. Thus a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 to 2030 means a 44 percent reduction on a per capita basis.
Some information about possible cost escalations of the Carbon Pollution Standards are in a June 2 article by James H. Rust “President Obama’s and EPA’s Attack on Fossil Fuels”. The EPA thought their rules would encourage use of cap-and-trade programs in individual states to force reductions in carbon dioxide output. Ten states currently have cap-and-trade programs–nine states in the North East and Mid Atlantic Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and California. RGGI started January 1, 2009. Cap-and-trade went into effect in California January 1, 2013.
The ten states with cap-and-trade have mandates for renewable energy generation—solar and wind energy–called renewable portfolio standards (RPS). Thirty three states have RPS with Hawaii the highest RPS of 40 percent renewables by 2030. California has the second highest RPS with a requirement of 33 percent by 2020. Nineteen states have all sector electricity rates above the national average and all have RPS. With exceptions of Hawaii, whose majority of electricity is generated with oil, and Alaska; the ten states with cap-and-trade have the highest electricity rates in the nation. The March 2014 average cost of all sector electricity for the ten states with cap-and-trade is 14.84 cents per kilowatt-hour (kw-hr)–44 percent higher than the average of 10.32 cents per kw-hr for the nation.
It is apparent EPA’s insistence on a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will increase electricity prices. Individual states will suffer more than others.
WHAT ARE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES?
At her public announcement June 2, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy made the following comments about the economic consequences of the Clean Power Plan:
“I know people are wondering: can we cut pollution while keeping our energy affordable and reliable? We can, and we will. Critics claim your energy bills will skyrocket. They’re wrong. Any small, short-term change in electricity prices would be within normal fluctuations the power sector already deals with. And any small price increase—think about the price of a gallon of milk a month—is dwarfed by huge benefits. This is an investment in better health and a better future for our kids.
In 2030, the Clean Power Plan will deliver climate and health benefits of up to $90 billion dollars. And for soot and smog reductions alone, that means for every dollar we invest in the plan, families will see $7 dollars in health benefits. And if states are smart about taking advantage of efficiency opportunities, and I know they are, when the effects of this plan are in place in 2030, average electricity bills will be 8 percent cheaper.
For over four decades, EPA has cut air pollution by 70 percent and the economy has more than tripled. All while providing the power we need to keep America strong.”
We think of economic growth in terms of total amount; but a more accurate measure is increase in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. A June 6, 2014 article in The American Thinker by Sierra Rayne “How Environmental Regulations Hurt The Economy In One Graph” shows U. S. economy growth on a per capita basis has slowed since 1970 compared to the time period 1929-1970. From 1970 to 2010, the U. S. population increased from 203 million to 309 million and GNP per capita increased from $24,000 to $49,000. However, based on the growth rate over the period 1929-1970, per capita GDP would have been $84,000. Sierra Rayne thought the procession of environmental acts (1970 Clean Air Act, 1972 Clean Water Act, 1973 Endangered Species Act, and 1987 Montreal Protocol) may have been the catalyst to slow down the nation’s rate of economic growth prior to 1970. The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan will only add to regulatory burdens and increased economic slowdown.
Heidi Moore of The Guardian wrote June 6 “The fault in our starry-eyed ‘recovery’ : 2014 looks like we are going bust again”. The article disputes economic data put out by the government on unemployment, economic growth, and wealth of most Americans. This shows EPA’s hit on the economy by unnecessary regulations on fossil fuel use is unwarranted.
Prof. Anthony Kelly’s multi-referenced report “Climate Policy and the Poor” for the Global Warming Policy Foundation found actions to restrict fossil fuel use has far greater impacts on the poor whether they are from developed or developing nations. In addition, many adverse consequences are due to implementation of renewable energy sources–solar, wind, biofuels, and biomass–as substitutes for fossil fuels. He further states the religions of the Western World place assisting the poor as their first priority and yielding to calls for programs to mitigate climate change are counter to this argument.
Carbon dioxide is a necessary chemical to sustain life on this planet. It is an airborne fertilizer that increases plant yields and bigger plant root systems that makes them more drought resistant. A report on social benefits of carbon dioxide for agriculture alone is estimated at $3.2 trillion from 1961 to 2011. Benefits from 2012 to 2050 are estimated to be $9.8 trillion. It may be the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from 310 parts per million (ppm) in 1950 to 400 ppm today is the reason the planet can feed the population increase of 2.5 billion in 1950 to 7 billion in 2013. These benefits from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide make any suggested economic benefits from carbon dioxide curtailment by the EPA irrelevant.
The public should remember electrification was voted The Outstanding Engineering Achievement of the 20th Century by the National Society of Professional Engineers and other scientific organizations. This is due to inexpensive, abundant, reliable electricity has contributed more to the health and pleasures of life than any other scientific accomplishment by man. Any activity to reduce its reliability and increase costs is a threat to the health, safety, and economic welfare of the nation. The few articles that follow show EPA’s carbon pollution plan serves that purpose.
A June 16, 2014 report “Ensuring Adequate Power Supplies For Tomorrow’s Electricity Needs” for theElectric Markets Research Foundation calls attention to a host of issues affecting the reliability of our electric grid system. Extreme cold during the 2014 winter caused price spiking and loss of reserves in parts of the country, in particular the Northeast. Coal-fired power plants scheduled for retirement in 2015 were needed to maintain power supply. Increased reliance on intermittent sources such as solar and wind, that may not be available when needed, may cause system reliability problems. The trend to using natural gas for new plant construction and conversion of existing power plants to natural gas may cause future problems over pricing and availability of natural gas in future times of urgent demand. All of these issues are solutions for reducing carbon dioxide emissions demanded by the EPA. Thus EPA’s rules jeopardize the national grid reliability.
A paper by Martin E. Rock, P.E., J.D. “Here’s the dirt on the EPA’s new ‘Clean Power’ Plan…” published June 18, 2014 by energy industry leader EUCI outlines numerous problems with the EPA plan. One comment is “Another dirty little secret is that market forces have reduced GHG emissions more in the US since 2005 than in any other country in the world without any intervention by EPA. US innovation, free market capitalism, and gas exploration has allowed for dramatic reductions, and these trends indicate even steeper future reductions than does the EPA’s Plan for the next 15 years. Perhaps someone should tell the EPA the obvious truth about this situation: ‘If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it.’”
Matt Ridley wrote an article June 19 for the Financial Post “Junk Science Week: IPCC commissioned models to see if global warming would reach dangerous level this century. Consensus is ‘no’” that analyzed worst predictions from the latest IPCC Report. The worst set of conditions on greenhouse gas increases led to a temperature rise of 2.1 degrees C. “The IPCC produced two reports last year. One said that the cost of climate change is likely to be less than 2% of GDP by the end of this century. The other said that the cost of decarbonizing the world economy with renewable energy is likely to be 4% of GDP. Why do something that you know will do more harm than good?”
International events in 2014 illustrate the dangers of the United States not exploiting its abundant reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas. The March 24, 2014 article by James H. Rust “Putin’s Gift To America’s Energy Independence” points out the role of energy in foreign affairs in the 20th century and Russian President Putin’s aggressive role in the Ukraine being fueled by their providing substantial amounts of natural gas to Western Europe. The Ukraine Crisis and unsettled events in Iraq are great gifts to stop the environmental movement’s eliminating fossil fuel production and insistence on relying on solar, wind, ethanol from corn, etc. as energy sources. The EPA’s Carbon Pollution Standards will force shutdown of numerous coal-fired power plants and a shift to less polluting natural gas. This leaves the United States in a position to having less natural gas available for export and thus less importance on the international stage. Renewable energy sources are of no consequence in conduct of foreign policy. Do we want peace and prosperity or “green energy”, poverty, and the possibility of nuclear war?
A House Subcommittee on Energy and Power had a hearing June 19 on the EPA Clean Energy Plan reported as follows:
“Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) compared EPA’s promises for its power plant proposal to the administration’s failed promises of Obamacare. He criticized the administration for misleading the American people about the plan’s impact on jobs and energy prices and overall feasibility and flexibility, saying, “You may say you don’t demand something, but the inherent nature of the rule – the only way it can be reached without the federal government’s squeezing the state – will be to shut down coal.” Watch the exchange HERE.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) highlighted the hardships states would face in complying with EPA’s plan, and questioned EPA’s assumptions about electricity generation in states. Shimkus also asked what would happen if EPA did not approve a state’s implementation plan. She replied, “EPA will move forward with a plan. … We are not focused on that right now.” Watch the full exchange HERE.
Upton concluded, ‘As with the health law, another train wreck is coming – unless Congress does something about it. It’s time to start being honest with the American people about this expensive power plan, and that process started with today’s hearing.’”
Possibly the greatest dangers to the nation lies in what happens after EPA implements its Carbon Pollution Standards.
On June 30, the EPA announced their climate change adaptation programs that are summarized as follows:
“EPA’s policy is consistent with the President’s Climate Action Plan and Executive Order 13653 on Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change, which calls on the federal government to strengthen the adaptive capacity of its programs and operations. The new policy updates the EPA policy first issued in June 2011, and includes the following directives:
- Modernize EPA financial assistance program to encourage climate-resilient investments;
- Provide information, tools, training and technical support for climate change preparedness and resilience;
- Implement priority actions identified in EPA’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan and Implementation Plans;
- Focus on the most vulnerable people and places;
- Measure and evaluate performance of climate adaptation actions;
- Continue EPA planning for climate change-related risk; and
- Coordinate with other federal agencies”
Later that day EPA announced their proposed rule Standards of Performance Solid Waste Landfills. This rule would increase removal of methane gas from landfill emissions to 66 percent.
On July 10, EPA made a news release “EPA Proposes to Replace and Reduce Harmful Greenhouse Gases” which is a program to prohibit use of hydrofluorocarbons “used in aerosols, motor vehicle air conditioning, retail food refrigeration and vending machines, and foam blowing.” “This action is estimated to reduce greenhouse gases by up to 42 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2020.” By 2020, natural emissions of carbon dioxide would have been about 3,600,000 million metric tons or human-produced emissions of 150,000 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Not much effect on global warming no matter what the cost of these EPA rules.
CITIZEN ACTION NOW
The climate adaption program could make EPA a powerful master that dictates to all departments in the government. Already the Departments of Energy, Interior, Agriculture, and Defense have numerous programs that promote President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. I am on distribution lists for News Releases from all these agencies. My observations are each agency is trying to out-perform the others in their attempts to come up with programs that please the Whitehouse. What comes to mind is the fealty of vassals to their lord back in medieval times. The EPA may be the new lord. One example is the U. S. Navy’s “Farm to Fleet” program that has a long term goal of 50 percent biofuels for its fleet needs. It would be cheaper to buy oil wells.
With a country that has budget deficits of $1.5 billion per day, these programs could help sink the nation into an insurmountable level of debt in a few years. It is time to tell the EPA “You have done enough”.
By coincidence, sixty years ago on June 9, 1954; U. S. Army lawyer Joseph Welch told Senator Joseph McCarthy, “You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency.” Welch’s remarks stopped McCarthy’s harassing people alleged as Communists. Maybe these remarks will stop this useless harassment of the nation’s abundant, economical, reliable, and geographically distributed fossil fuels.
EPA provided a means to make written comments on the Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule that are due byOctober 16, 2014. EPA will have hundreds of thousands of favorable comments from environmental groups. Use information from this document to send EPA your comment telling them “You have done enough.”
Al Gore is at it again. He was just in Australia (he should hire Weatherbell.com to help him avoid the “Gore effect” – Brisbane recorded its coldest temperature in 103 years during his stay) and told BBC, “This [climate change] is the biggest crisis our civilization faces.”
A statement like that, which echoes much of what State Secretary John Kerry says, is very serious indeed, so perhaps Al Gore should answer a couple of basic questions.
Some points first. CO2 in the atmosphere is portrayed in proportions that distort it in the same way a picture of an ant under a microscope would distort its size in relation to the environment around it.
A pretty intimidating creature.
Next, CO2 has no linkage with the globe temperature in the geological time scale, nor in recent times (as the Pacific started to cool, so did temperatures), as plainly seen in the charts below.Left is CO2 vs. temps, middle: model busts, and right: closeups of latest temps
The CO2 graphics are on a scale similar to showing an ant under a microscope and then claiming these monster creatures are taking over earth. The correct scale of CO2, since it is measured in parts per million, is to show it on a scale from zero to a million instead of the way it is portrayed most commonly, which makes it look like increases can take over the world. It is 400 parts per million total and increases 1.8 parts per million a year. Since it is impossible to create a chart like that in millions, and CO2 would not show up anyway because its contribution is so small, I will try to be more realistic. It looks more like the following chart in relation to the total atmosphere. In this case, I will use the graphic of CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere (.04%).
Another way of putting it: Here is Beaver Stadium at Penn. State filled to capacity with 107,000 people.
The current percentage of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to picking 43 people out of 107,000. The yearly increase from the U.S.: ¼ to 1/3 person to that crowd.
Consider this: The yearly increase in the level of CO2 from all sources is 1.8 ppm. (ppm = parts per million). There are arguments as to how much of this is due to man. To make sure that I give my opponents the benefit of a doubt, I will assume all of that increase is because of man.
Now remember, the heat capacity of the atmosphere is only 1/1000th of the ocean’s. That means when we are talking man’s input of CO2 into the entire planetary climate system, the fact is the part we put into the air only has 1/100th of the greenhouse gas effect, the primary one being water vapor. Water vapor makes up just 4% of the atmosphere, and the atmosphere only has 1/1000th the heat capacity of the ocean. Common sense reasoning shows that the effect of CO2 has to be boxed in by all this. But let’s continue, shall we?
The EPA estimates that the U.S. contributes about 1/5th of the CO2 man emits, which would be .20 x 1.8 ppm, or .36 (that’s point 36) ppm. I am not going to use smaller estimates of the U.S. contribution, which are as low as 10%. As I said, I am assuming all the increase is from man, which is also arguable. But I want to consider the worst case scenario.
So let’s keep this short and sweet. Two question for Mr. Gore:
1.) What is the perfect temperature for the planet?
2.) Do you really believe that the U.S.‘ contribution of .36 parts per million of CO2 has any provably measurable effect on weather/climate?
Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.
Originally published at The Patriot Post.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced on Monday, June 1, a power-plant proposal that seeks a 30% carbon dioxide emissions cut by 2030 from existing power plant, based on emission levels from 2005. With this proposal, the main piece of President Obama’s Climate Change Agenda has been set in motion. Although the rule is scheduled to be completed one year from now and will give flexibility to the states, it will regulate carbon emissions from hundreds of fossil-fuel power plants across the U.S. The 600 U.S. coal plants will be hardest hit by the standard.
As reported by the EPA (International Energy Agency), the cost of decarbonization since the last estimate of two year ago has increased by 22% due to the growth of coal power far outpacing renewables in carbon dioxide production. It would now cost $44 trillion to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the world’s power generation industry to levels that would curtail global warming to 3.6 degrees through 2050, a safe level agreed to by international leaders.
As most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor. Common sense alone should be enough to alert the Obama administration, yet there is sound science, that spending $44 trillion to limit temperature rise by 3.6 degrees by 2050 wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans other than cause an economic disaster.
Between 1940 and 1970 temperatures fell even as CO2 levels increased. According to Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry and other notable scientists, public debate is moving away from the 15-17 year pause in any Global Warming to a period of Global Cooling. Why then would the temperature rise a few degrees by 2050? Because the ‘Sun Sleeps’, according to Danish Solar Scientist Svensmark, who has declared that “global warming has stopped and cooling is beginning…enjoy global warming while it lasts.”
Nicolas Loris, an economist who focuses on energy, environmental land regulatory issues at The Heritage Foundation, compares the EPA to a misbehaved child who is recklessly doing what it wants at the expense of others without any supervision. He has proposed that Congress cut the EPA budget, just as parents might punish children by taking away their allowance. Loris suggests ten areas for Congress to cut that would prevent the EPA from implementing regulations “that will drive up living costs for American families for little, if any, environmental benefit.” Loris further recommends that the EPA “eliminate programs that are either “wasteful, duplicative, or simply not the role of the federal government”, and then goes on to list program that Congress should cut immediately.
Cuts could be made to rein in the EPA, as outlined in the plan put forth by Nicolas Loris, but Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director for the Heartland Institute, and one of the nation’s most respected and widely cited experts on air and water quality, climate change, and biotechnology, broke ground in revealing his comprehensive plan to reform the EPA in his remarks as a Keynote breakfast speaker at Heartland’s recent International Conference on Climate Change held in Las Vegas from July 7 – 9. Jay Lehr, Ph.D. introduced a legislative plan to replace the United States Environmental Protection Agency with a Committee of the Whole of the State Environmental Protection Agencies, utilizing a phased five-year transition period.
Jay Lehr’s comprehensive EPA plan follows:
In 1968 when I was serving as the head of a ground water professional society it became obvious to me, and a handful of others, that the United States did not have any serious focus on potential problems with its air quality, drinking water quality, surface water quality, waste disposal problems as well as contamination that could occur from mining and agriculture. I held the nation’s first Ph.D. in ground water hydrology which gave me insight to understand the problems. I was asked by the Director of the Bureau of Water Hygiene in the U.S. Department of Health to serve on a panel to study the potential to expand their oversight into a full Environmental Protection organization.
We collectively spoke before dozens of congressional committees in both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate calling attention to mounting environmental pollution problems. We called for the establishment of an Environmental Protection Agency and in 1971 we succeeded. I was appointed to a variety of the new agency’s advisory councils, and over the next 10 years we helped to write a significant number of legislative bills which were to make up a true safety net for our environment. They included: THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (later to be renamed THE CLEAN WATER ACT); THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT; RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT; THE SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT (which surprisingly covered deep mines as well); THE CLEAN AIR ACT; THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, RODENTICIDE AND FUNGICIDE ACT; and finally THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT we now know as Superfund.
All of these acts worked extremely well for the protection of the environment and the health of our citizens, with the exception of the Superfund Law, which proved to be far too over reaching and wreaked havoc with American business, as after the fact companies operating within the law were fined countless dollars and required to pay huge sums for cleanup of waste disposal that had been within the law at the time of the activity.
From 1981 activists groups recognized that the EPA could be used to alter our government by coming down heavily on all human activities regardless of its impact on the environment. It is my strong opinion that no single law or regulation has been passed since 1981 which benefited either the environment or society.
The power of environmental activists to take control of the EPA, and all of its activities, was slow and methodical over the past 30 years to the point where EPA is all but a wholly owned subsidiary of environmental activist groups controlling 10% of the U.S. budget.
For over 20 years I have worked tirelessly to expose this story to the public beginning with my 1991 book, ‘Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns’, where 50 other environmental scientists joined together to describe the manner in which their own fields had been hijacked and distorted to allow fear mongering of an unconscionable nature.
I believe that the current structure of the U.S. EPA can and should be replaced now by a Committee of the Whole of the outstanding 50 state Environmental Protection Agencies, which in nearly all cases have long ago taken over primary responsibility for the implementation of all environmental laws passed by Congress or simply handed down as fiat rulings without congressional vote or oversight of U.S EPA.
When the agency was established in 1971 the federal government had no choice but to oversee all regulations of the initial seven safety net laws. Rapidly, however, every state established an independent agency which filed for and were granted primary control of the implementation of all the existing laws. With only rare exception, each state is now under full control of the regulatory program. They are continually harassed to be sure that no one evades the heavy hand of the dozens of new regulations passed yearly over the past three decades, which have strengthened the initial laws, but have not benefited either our environment or the health of our citizens. Instead, they deter our economy and the right of our citizens to make an honest living without endangering the environment.
With 30 years of experience, these 50 state environmental agencies are ready to collectively take over the entire management of the nation’s environment. Only the USEPA research laboratories should be left in place to answer continual scientific questions, which would no longer be under the heavy hand of Washington politics.
Eighty per cent of what is now USEPA’s budget could be eliminated, while 20% could be used to run the research labs and administer the Committee of the Whole 50 State Agencies. A relatively small administrative structure will be needed to allow the collective states to refine all existing environmental laws in a manner more suitable to the primary requirement of protecting our environment, without thwarting national progress in all industry and the development of our natural resources and energy supplies.
USEPA could be phased out over five years with a one-year preparation period, followed by a four-year program in which 25% of the agencies activities would be passed to the Committee of the Whole each year beginning with those activities least critical to the nation. The Committee of the Whole will be made up of representatives from each state from each significant area of concern. The Committee of the Whole will be divided up into subcommittees reflecting exactly how USEPA is set up, although many programs and offices within USEPA may be eliminated at the will of the states. Offices, for instance, whose primary purpose is oversight of the state agencies.
The Committee of the Whole would quickly determine which regulations are actually mandated in law by the Congress and which were established independently by USEPA, believing that legislation allowed them such latitude. Rules written clearly into legislation would be recommended for continuance or considered for request that the Congress take another look at regulations that the Committee of the Whole deems unnecessary in their current form.
Regulations clearly not supported by writings within legislation would be considered by the applicable subcommittees and the whole committee for alteration by a two-thirds vote of the Committee of the Whole.
Until the Committee of the Whole acted upon each individual regulation, all regulations would remain in force. Many regulations would give states latitude to act while others would be required of all states by a two-thirds vote of the Committee of the Whole.
Each state would be funded to increase their staff to include people whose primary jobs would be to serve on subcommittees of the Committee of the Whole overseeing the issues previously overseen by the current USEPA.
This phase out of USEPA could be done in an orderly manner within five years. Oversight of the existing USEPA research labs would eventually be seeded to a subcommittee of the whole.
When one considers how the USEPA was initially set up, along with the growth of the state agencies, this is actually a logical endpoint that could have begun 30 years ago.
The specific details of the five-year transfer from the Washington D.C. based USEPA and its 10 regional offices would be carried out as follows.
The Federal Budget for environmental protection will be reduced from $8.2 billion to $2 billion.
The manpower will be reduced from over 15,000 to 300, who will serve in the new headquarters to be located centrally in Topeka Kansas to allow the closest contact with the individual states and reduce travel costs from the states to central headquarters of the Committee of the Whole.
The 300 individuals working in Topeka, Kansas will come as six delegate/employees from each of the 50 states. The personnel currently working at more than two dozen research centers will remain in place until the Committee of the Whole chooses to make changes.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency is presently divided into 14 Offices which include the following:
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
OFFICE OF AMERICAN INDIAN ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICE
OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS
OFFICE OF POLICY
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
OFFICE OF FAIR AND RADIATION
OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OFFICE OF WATER
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNCIL
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
In the first year of transition all employees of USEPA will be informed of the five-year transition period allowing them ample time to seek other employment opportunities both from the Washington D.C. offices and the ten Regional offices that parallel to a large extent the activities in Washington. Additionally. during year one the two offices relating to Indian issues (American Indian Environmental Office and International and Tribal Affairs), will be transferred to THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS which should welcome this responsibility, along with about half of the monies budgeted for them within USEPA. During this first year all 300 employees relocating from our 50 states (six each) will begin work in the new Topeka, Kansas offices to be established early in year one.
A Chairman of the Committee of the Whole will be elected by the 300 delegate employees to a three-year term early in the transition after which the 300 employee/ delegates will be assigned to sub committees simulating the offices which exist in Washington, D.C.
During year two all activities of the Offices of Policy, Administration and Resource Management, as well as Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, will be transferred to Topeka from Washington, D.C. and the Regional Offices.
Years Three, Four, and Five:
In year three all activities of the Offices of Air and Radiation, as well as Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, will be transferred to Topeka. In year four the responsibilities of the Office of Water and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response will move to Topeka. In the final year the remaining Offices of Chief Financial Officer, General Council, Environmental Information, and the Office of the Administrator will have their responsibilities moved to Topeka.
During each year of transition members of the Topeka staff will be assigned for periods of time to both the Washington D.C. Offices and the Regional Offices to study the activities of the existing units. It is quite likely that as the office responsibilities are transferred to Topeka, the Committee of the Whole of the 50 state agencies will choose to totally eliminate some of them.
It is also anticipated that if some D.C. offices experience an early excessive attrition of employees relocating before the phase out of their office, an earlier transfer of responsibility to Topeka may be required.
As monies are freed up in the transition from 15,000 federal employees to 300, each state will be allocated $20 million to enhance their new independent responsibilities and replace the six employees transferred to Topeka. In addition to that use of one billion dollars (50 x $20 million), it is anticipated that the management of the Topeka offices and the continuation of the research and development program will require a second billion dollars allowing the permanent reduction of a $8.2 billion federal outlay for environmental protection down to a total of $2 billion.
Not only will large sums of money be saved by this transition, but the efficiency and quality of environmental protection will be enhanced by placing power and responsibility in the hands of the individual states. It is well known that government closest to the location of the governed is the best for all. Most states will embrace this plan, as it gives them the authority they have always sought and the funding to carry it out.
At this point in time, it should be recognized that it is absurd to think that 50 outstanding state environmental protection agencies with over 30 years of experience require the over sight of 15,000 federal employees. It made sense in the agencies first decade of the 70′s’, it has made no sense since then. Today the EPA is an agency whose value has long since disappeared. The new oversight by the collective Committee of the Whole of the 50 state agencies will carry out the needs of the nation more effectively and more efficiently with dramatically reduced costs in line with how our republic was established to operate.
Jay Lehr, Ph.D. was a Keynote speaker on Wednesday, July 9, at 8:00 AM PDT Listen to Lehr’s remarks here.
[Originally published at Illinois Review]
In his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described the “memory hole,” a chute leading to a vast incinerator into which all unwanted documents were cast. The memory hole served as the ultimate form of state censorship, destroying any trace of information deemed to pose a threat to the regime. Thanks to a ruling in May by the European Court of Justice, a genuine digital memory hole has come online.
The ruling concerned the so-called “right to be forgotten,” wherein individuals and firms have the right to have old stories and information published online about them taken down at their request. Ostensibly a way to remove out-of-date or spurious information from readers’ online searches, the reality has taken on a much darker, quite Orwellian turn.
Several businesses have begun the process of “scrubbing” their records. In other words, they file requests with Google to remove access to certain articles. This has resulted in many pieces of genuine journalism suddenly becoming impossible to access. The implication is clear: citing their right to be forgotten, firms and individuals can muzzle the press.
This poses a very sticky issue for defenders of individual rights. Many liberty-conscious individuals have invested in technologies that allow them to search the internet anonymously and to avoid the prying eyes of governments and businesses alike. Privacy is an ever scarcer commodity in this Information Age and people have belatedly come alive to the risks they face in it.
The memory hole is a threat to everyone. While it may purport to being a protection of people’s privacy, it is in fact a mechanism by which some individuals and groups can manipulate internet searches without any means of appeal. When it is a legal right to be forgotten, it does not much matter whether there are multiple internet service providers to choose from; they are all muzzled by the net non-neutrality created by the ECJ’s ruling. If the ruling spreads, to America and farther afield, the latter-day Renaissance of the free press enjoyed by web users will be brought to an abrupt close.
While it may be embarrassing to have damaging information floating forever online, it is a necessary component of the openness demanded by the people born into this era. The press cannot be silenced because what they say is embarrassing. People have a right to access the information made public online and journalists have a right to publish their work without fear of it being shut down for sake of those they would expose.
On Wednesday afternoon, Salon’s Lindsay Abrams — who declined to cover Heartland’s latest climate conference — upbraided the NewYork Times for recently profiling “skeptic” climate scientist John Christy and not sufficiently denouncing him and his views.
It’s a weird thing. Against all odds, the Times committed an act of objective journalism — or what passes for that in today’s politicized MSM — with a classic contrarian piece titled “Though Scorned by Colleagues, a Climate-Change Skeptic Is Unbowed.” Maybe it was an accident on the part of the Times, but Abrams didn’t want it to go unpunished. Can’t step out of line, you see.
I read both the Times piece and Abrams’ critique of it at Salon titled “New York Times’ Climate Skeptic Debacle: How a New Profile Sets Back Science.” The subhead at Salon makes sure (literally) that no one misses the point:
Paper of Record Issues Bizarrely Sympathetic Treatment of Prominent Skeptic John Christy, Totally Misses the Point.
Having recently returned from working with the media for Heartland’s Ninth International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas — and having already written two rebuttals to prominent journalists to set the record straight about what happened there — I couldn’t resist sending an email to Ms. Abrams. Enjoy it, below:
Interesting article today. I had hoped to simply put aside your distaste for the New York Times committing the journalistic sin of reflecting the tiniest bit of sympathy for the esteemed Dr. John Christy and get right to critiquing your essay. But that is impossible because your objections to what was a reasonable and fair New York Times piece seem so small and baseless to me. What is so objectionable — what “missed the mark” — about the following?[Paraphrase] A soft lead that opens with Christy relating how scientists who disagree with his analysis of the climate data refuse to shake his hand.
That is certainly true, and a great way to frame for readers of the Times how Christy is willing to listen to and be cordial towards “the other side” of the climate debate. Should the Times have not mentioned this because it portrays Christy as the better man? You seem to be saying: Yes. That is rather uncharitable. Indeed, Christy was quite the gentleman for not embarrassing the rude, contrarian scientist by revealing his name.
But in speeches, congressional testimony and peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, he argues that predictions of future warming have been greatly overstated and that humans have weathered warmer stretches without perishing.
This is demonstrably true in the scientific record. See the presentation by Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore at Heartland’s latest climate conference.
Christy’s willingness to publicize his views, often strongly, has also hurt his standing among scientists who tend to be suspicious of those with high profiles.
This is laughable. To use just one high-profile alarmist scientist as an example, James Hansen has leveraged his former position at NASA to publicize himself without shame. Hansen has certainly testified more frequently in front of Congress than Christy has, and even got himself arrested on purpose to draw attention to his view that human CO2 emissions have doomed future generations to eco-calamity.
For these offenses, Hansen was punished with more attention, including a high-profile “Ted” lecture. I think it’s safe to say Hansen’s antics didn’t “hurt his standing” among his alarmist peers.
The Times continues, quoting Christy:
“I detest words like ‘contrarian’ and ‘denier,’ ” [Christy] said. “I’m a data-driven climate scientist. Every time I hear that phrase, ‘The science is settled,’ I say I can easily demonstrate that that is false, because this is the climate — right here. The science is not settled.”
Dr. Christy was pointing to a chart comparing seven computer projections of global atmospheric temperatures based on measurements taken by satellites and weather balloons. The projections traced a sharp upward slope; the actual measurements, however, ticked up only slightly.
Such charts — there are others, sometimes less dramatic but more or less accepted by the large majority of climate scientists — are the essence of the divide between that group on one side and Dr. Christy and a handful of other respected scientists on the other.
What is the objection? That the New York Times allowed Christy to deny that he is a “climate denier”? That’s the truth, as the Times story acknowledges by noting the difference between the observed climate data and the “sharp upward slope” of the climate models that have been wrong for decades. (BTW: The scores of “other” published alarmist models were wrong at least 95 percent of the time.) For a larger discussion of these dynamics, see presentations by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. Patrick Michaels at Heartland’s latest climate conference.
“Where the disagreement comes is that Dr. Christy says the climate models are worthless and that there must be something wrong with the basic model, whereas there are actually a lot of other possibilities,” Dr. Mears said. Among them, he said, are natural variations in the climate and rising trade winds that have helped funnel atmospheric heat into the ocean.
So there is a dispute. Dr. Christy says there is “something wrong with the basic model” the “consensus” scientists use — they are nearly universally and dramatically wrong, after all — and other scientists say the heat they predicted is hiding in the ocean. The larger burden of proof in this dispute is on the “consensus” scientists, who have yet to find the hidden heat in the oceans. Why? Because they can’t find compelling data to support it.
Did the Times “miss the mark” by merely suggesting to an informed reader like yourself that Christy might have a point? (BTW, many “skeptics” at Heartland’s latest climate conference are big “natural variation” advocates, so even the critical source the Times found to counter Christy concedes a key “skeptic” point.)
I’ll stop breaking down the Times’ profile of Christy with this last excerpt:
Dr. Christy has been dismissed in environmental circles as a pawn of the fossil-fuel industry who distorts science to fit his own ideology. (“I don’t take money from industries,” he said.)
He says he worries that his climate stances are affecting his chances of publishing future research and winning grants. The largest of them, a four-year Department of Energy stipend to investigate discrepancies between climate models and real-world data, expires in September.
“There’s a climate establishment,” Dr. Christy said. “And I’m not in it.”
Ask any of the scores of scientists who have presented at Heartland’s climate conferences: Finding the alarmist climate models wanting puts one’s career in jeopardy, and affects one’s “chances of publishing future research and winning grants.” Or, you could simply watch Pat Michaels’ presentation at our climate conference last week. He makes the point, from experience, quite emphatically.
Your objection to this last bit from the Times is this:
Wines dismisses that in a parenthetical comment from Christy (“I don’t take money from industries”), and leaves it at that.
This, again, plays right into Christy’s desire to be seen as misunderstood — he’s been careful to avoid associations not just with polluting industries, but with most of the groups dedicated to spreading climate denial. He doesn’t attend the Heartland Institute’s annual climate denial conferences, he told the Times’ Andrew Revkin several years back, because he wants to avoid “guilt by association.”
Christy is welcome at our conferences, because there is no “guilt by association.” As I explained to Slate’s Will Oremus the other day — and we explain in more detail here — Heartland is not funded by fossil fuel corporations. Indeed, no corporate gifts amount to more than 5 percent of Heartland’s annual budget, and no corporate gifts finance our climate conferences or the Climate Change Reconsidered series of scientific reports by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
(BTW: I just have to note that the foreground of the photo that accompanies the Times piece on Christy features the latest NIPCC report, “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts.”)
Yet Christy’s perspective on global warming — that the effects will be mild, and potentially even beneficial — is more or less aligned with those voiced by the participants in Heartland’s most recent conference, which took place last week. Aside from a few remaining loonies, most deniers have by now conceded the two most basic facts of climate change: that the climate is changing, and that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are at least partially responsible.
Putting aide the “loonies” crack, this passage is accurate! Most scientists and policy experts who have presented at Heartland’s conferences haven’t recently “conceded” that truth. They have stated it plainly for years. As I explained to Oremus, if you came to our conference yourself, you would have heard that from scientists in the hall between sessions and been disabused of your wrong-headed thinking about scientific climate “skeptics.” You can still watch the video presentations yourself.
Speaking of Oremus, you write:
Christy’s not special in this regard. Instead, he’s part of a growing movement that Will Oremus, writing in Slate, describes as an effort to rebrand climate denial as “climate optimism”: the idea that climate change, while real, isn’t something worth worrying about — and certainly not worth making an effort to mitigate. In some ways, this is even more dangerous than flat-out denial, which is at least easy to shut down; climate optimism, instead, conflates science with conservative political ideology …
That “rebrand” was Oremus’ doing, not ours, but it has a nice ring to it: “climate optimism.” It accurately reflects the majority of viewpoints expressed by scientists — none of whom deny that climate change is “real” — who presented at Heartland’s latest climate conference, and the previous eight. To quickly sum up:
1. Global temperatures rose in the 20th century.
2. CO2 is a “greenhouse gas,” and it’s likely that human emissions of CO2 was responsible for some of the warming of the 20th century.
3. Global temperatures have not risen in the 21st century (and for nearly 18 years) according to observable data.
4. That fact suggests human CO2 emissions are not a primary driver of global temperatures, especially since even the warming of the 20th century is within natural variation — with natural factors being a much stronger force.
5. So we should think twice about re-ordering the world’s energy economy — and depriving the developing world of much-needed cheap energy to raise them from poverty — without stronger scientific justification.
For a fuller rebuttal of the myths climate alarmists falsely attribute to skeptics, a one-stop summary is provided in this excellent and humorous presentation by Christopher Monckton at our latest conference.
Here’s a bonus remarkable view by many climate “skeptics”: We are living in a world that is starving for even more CO2 in the atmosphere! Again, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tackles that controversial subject rather well in his presentation.
But that’s the thing about “skeptic” scientists, such as Dr. Christy: They continually challenge each other with science from multiple disciplines to foster a greater understanding about what is really happening to our climate. To do otherwise — to think the “science is settled” — is what it really means to “deny science.”
Letter to the Editor
Wind and solar are parasitic power producers, unable to survive in a modern electricity grid without the back-up of stand-alone electricity generators such as hydro, coal or gas. And like all parasites, they weaken their hosts, causing increased operating and transmission costs and reduced profits for all participants in the grid.
Without subsidies, few large wind/solar plants would be built, and without mandated targets, few would get connected to the grid.
Green zealots posing as energy engineers should be free to play with their green energy toys at their own expense, on their own properties, but the rest of us should not be saddled with their costs and unreliability.
We should stop promoting parasitic power producers. As a first step, all green energy subsidies and targets should be abolished.
The same man who was one of the lead architects in creating the Common Core State Standards Initiative, David Coleman, has now redesigned the Advanced Placement United States History (APUSH) course and exam. Aside from the fact that these huge changes have received almost no media coverage (possibly because the Common Core advocates at the Gates Foundation are now funding education coverage by NBC) and they greatly remove control from parents, teachers, and students, the revision aims to teach a biased version of American history that largely focuses on the supposed faults of our country rather than our accomplishments.
While multiple practice exams for the course were previously available to the public online, the College Board, the organization responsible for AP tests, will now only release a single practice exam to teachers of the course. If a teacher discloses the content of the sample exam, he will be penalized and possibly stripped of his right to teach Advanced Placement courses. This lack of transparency is an attempt to silence the public as well as to foster reliance on the state for education. Since students can no longer self-prep for the exam, they must take the course to discover what material will be covered on the exam.
Additionally, the redesigned course severely limits individual teachers’ flexibility in teaching the material. Previously, APUSH teachers received a five page overview of how to teach an AP course, now the College Board published a 142 page frameworkdictating specific topics teachers must cover as well as the manner in which they must be covered. Unfortunately, teachers are forced to use this framework if they want to give their students a chance to succeed on the exam and receive college credit for the course.
Along with the grand encroachment on teacher’s freedoms in the classroom, the material presented in the framework is clearly biased to portray American history from a Leftist point of view. The course morphs the discipline of history into a subject that more closely resembles sociology. The framework does not emphasize student knowledge of important figures and events that shaped our great nation but rather the development of “historical thinking skills” with much emphasis on changing roles of race and ethnicity, gender, social classes, and power relations throughout our country’s history. In fact, the required themes and objectives are: “Work, Exchange, and Technology; Identity; Ideas, Beliefs, and Culture; America in the World; Environment and Geography; Politics and Power; Peopling” with no mention of figures and events.
The philosophy behind the revision of APUSH is flawed in itself, but the view of history it seeks to present is historically dishonest and utterly dangerous to the future of our country. The most blatant inaccuracy is evident in the framework’s discussion of the Founding of our nation. Incredibly, George Washington is only mentioned in passing reference to his Farewell Address not in regards to his heroic sacrifices as a general and the first leader of our country. Furthermore, no other Founding Fathers are mentioned nor are any of the events or principles that led to the American War for Independence.
Most amazingly, neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution are mentioned in great detail or even listed as suggested reading (however Betty Friedan’s The Feminist Mystique is suggested reading, placing it and other biased sources above some of the most important documents to the American people). The theories and principles behind these two founding works are never discussed and neither is any mention of how our government is organized. The lack of import placed on these essential documents does a great disservice to the future voters of this country and further promotes a reliance on the state for educating voters with what it deems necessary rather than allowing individuals to think for themselves.
What the framework does mention regarding the Founding of our nation (and in every historical period following) is the apparent tension and inequality among various minority groups. This topic is a major theme of the new course at the expense of the study of influential people and events that formed and maintained the United States. While it may be important to study the trends and conflicts between groups in America, it is academically dishonest to slant history to overwhelmingly focus on these aspects without, for example, mentioning major battles or political conflicts during the Civil War, the Gettysburg Address, the fact that Lincoln was assassinated, key details and motives in World War I, or even Hitler’s existence and prominence in World War II.
The new APUSH model is far from objective in what it chooses to cover (such as discussing Wilson and FDR the most of any other presidents or important figures) as well as the manner in which it is covered. States’ rights and capitalism are continually criticized and linked with inequality, while the federal government is seen as the champion of social justice from policies like the New Deal to the Great Society. While negative aspects of limited federal regulation are highlighted and even blamed for everything from the South’s belief in slavery to the Great Depression, the counterargument to big government is never discussed.
The revision to the Advanced Placement United States History course claims to promote “historical thinking skills,” but in reality it simply fosters indoctrination and historical inaccuracy. If David Coleman and the College Board were truly interested in “thinking skills” they would have designed a transparent course that presents the facts and allows students to draw their own conclusions. Instead the College Board has chosen to tell students what they must think about American history and to withhold some of the most important aspects of our nation’s history from the next set of leaders in this country.
Image originally published at http://vyturelis.com/emanuel-leutze-washington-crossing-the-delaware-describes-the-historical-event-when.htm
A portion of the UARG v. EPA case was about the EPA’s “Tailoring Rule” in which it “tailored” a statutory provision in the Clean Air Act—designed to regulate traditional pollutants such as particulate matter—to make it work for CO2. In effect, the EPA wanted to rewrite the law to achieve its goals. The decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority, stated:
“Were we to recognize the authority claimed by EPA in the Tailoring Rule, we would deal a severe blow to the Constitution’s separation of powers… The power of executing laws…does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.”
Had the EPA gotten everything it wanted, it could have regulated hundreds of thousands of new sources of CO2—in addition to the already-regulated major industrial sources of pollutants. These new sources would include office buildings and stores that do not emit other pollutants—but that do, for example, through the use of natural gas for heating, emit 250 tons, or more of CO2 a year.
The Supreme Court did allow the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions from sources that already require permits due to other pollutants—and therefore allowed the EPA and environmentalists pushing for increased CO2 reductions to claim victory because the decision reaffirmed the EPA does have the authority to regulate CO2 emissions. However, at the same time, the decision restricted the EPA’s expansion of authority. Reflecting the mixed decision, the Washington Post said the decision was: “simultaneously very significant and somewhat inconsequential.”
It is the “very significant” portion of the decision that is noteworthy in light of the new rules the EPA announced on June 2.
Currently, the Clean Air Act is the only vehicle available to the Administration to regulate CO2 from power plant and factory emissions. However, the proposed rules that severely restrict allowable CO2emissions from existing power plants, and will result in the closure of hundreds of coal-fueled power plants, bear some similarities to what the Supreme Court just invalidated: both involve an expansive interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
It is widely believed that the proposed CO2 regulations for existing power plants will face legal challenges.
Tom Wood, a partner at Stoel Rives LLP who specializes in air quality and hazardous waste permitting and compliance, explains: “Although the EPA’s Section 111 (d) proposals cannot be legally challenged until they are finalized and enacted, such challenges are a certainty.” With that in mind, the UARG v. EPA decision sets an important precedent. “Ultimately,” Wood says, “the Supreme Court decision seems to give more ammunition to those who want to challenge an expansive view of 111 (d).” Wood sees it as a rebuke to the EPA—a warning that in the coming legal battles, the agency should not presume that its efforts will have the Supreme Court’s backing.
In his review of the UARG v. EPA decision, Nathan Richardson, a Resident Scholar at Resources For the Future, says: “In strict legal terms, this decision has no effect on EPA’s plans to regulate new or existing power plants with performance standards. … However, if EPA is looking for something to worry about, it can find it in this line from Scalia:”
When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate “a significant portion of the American economy” . . . we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign an agency decisions of vast “economic and political significance.”
Cato’s Andrew Grossman adds: “The Court’s decision may be a prelude of more to come. Since the Obama Administration issued its first round of greenhouse gas regulations, it has become even more aggressive in wielding executive power so as to circumvent the need to work with Congress on legislation. That includes … new regulations for greenhouse gas emissions by power plants …that go beyond traditional plant-level controls to include regulation of electricity usage and demand—that is, to convert EPA into a nationwide electricity regulator.” Grossman suggests: “this won’t be the last court decision throwing out Obama Administration actions as incompatible with the law.”
Philip A. Wallach, a Brookings fellow in Governance Studies, agrees. He called the UARG v. EPA case “something of a sideshow,” and sees “the main event” as EPA’s power plant emissions controls, which have “much higher practical stakes.”
The UARG v. EPA decision is especially important when added to the more widely known Hobby Lobby and NLRB cases, which is aptly summed up in the statement by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers’ General Counsel Rich Moskowitz: “We are pleased that the Court has placed appropriate limits on EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. By doing so, the Court makes clear that an agency cannot rewrite the law to advance its political goals.”
Justice Scalia’s opinion invites Congress to “speak clearly” on agency authority. It is now up to our elected representatives to rise to the occasion and pass legislation that leaves “decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance’” in its hands alone. Such action could rein in many agency abuses including the heavy-handed application of the Endangered Species Act and public lands management.
It would seem that the UARG v. EPA decision—while “somewhat inconsequential”—is, in fact, “very significant.” With this decision the Supreme Court has outlined the first legislation of the new, reformatted, post 2014 election, Congress.
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc., and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.