Obama v. the Environment
 

Custom Search

 

Obama is wrong about energy

 



  

help fight the media

 

 

 

 

Items are archived in the order of discovery.  Previous year at button "2010" in left column.
Obama Sidesteps Hill With EPA Carbon Limits
NewsMax.com is reporting that the Obama administration will use government agencies and the Clean Air Act to push through its global warming agenda after failing in Congress.  FoxNews.com reports that on January 2nd, new carbon limits will be set and the Environmental Protection Agency will then draw up regulations requiring companies to get permits to release greenhouse gases.

Fox said the administration, which points to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling for its authority, plans to have preliminary rules in place by the summer with final rules set for 2012.  American Enterprise Institute scientist Ken Green told Fox the regulations are "job killers."

"Regulations, period -- any kind of regulation is a weight on economy," he said.  "It requires people to comply with the law, which takes work hours and time, which reduces the profitability of firms.  Therefore, they grow more slowly and you create less jobs."

Fox also cited a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Rep Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Americans for Prosperity president, Tim Phillips, that called for "Congress to overturn the EPA's proposed greenhouse gas regulations outright.  If Democrats refuse to join Republicans in doing so, then they should at least join a sensible bipartisan compromise to mandate that the EPA delay its regulations until the courts complete their examination of the agency's endangerment finding and proposed rules."
Obama’s EPA Pushes UN Socialism -- Err, "Environmental Justice"
Susan Stamper Brown says the United Nations’ (UN) current plan to discuss a treaty proposal granting more rights to "mother earth" than humans is nothing more than an elaborate attempt to re-market the climate change program in a neatly wrapped package called "environmental justice."

The UN proposal, drafted by Bolivian socialist president Evo Morales (the same guy who claims that eating chicken causes male baldness and homosexuality), is similar to a new Bolivian law which elevates trees, animals, insects and "living things" to the same level as humans.  Raised to this new level, mother earth and her "living things" would be assigned an authorized representative to hear complaints brought on their behalf and would have the right to seek financial compensation for damages.

All bug-stomping humans beware: Morales’ proposal does not stop at financial compensation but goes a step further to execute judgment upon the guilty by organizing a "tribunal for climate justice."

During an interview at the 2009 Climate Change Summit, Morales said his plan to save the planet included ending luxury and consumerism, while destroying capitalism and forcing rich nations to settle their "climate debt" to the poor.  Morales said capitalism is "the worst enemy of humanity.

It may be just me, but does it seem that the human race has gone stark raving mad that some would think it is reasonable to ascribe human rights to grass and bugs?  One can only hope that someone will also provide delegates with a clean sandbox to play in during recess, provided someone is there to monitor the rights of the sand fleas.  It is tempting to dismiss this plan by Morales as ridiculous as the UN naming Iran to a women’s rights panel last month, but it seems Morales has ready and willing partners in the U.S. administration.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson spoke last week at the Power Shift 2011 conference assuring an audience of young, impressionable minds that the EPA has "restored science to its rightful place as the backbone of everything the Environmental Protection Administration does, and that includes the science of climate change.  We are using that science to take action on climate change."

Layman terms: Cap-and-Trade legislation based on junk science failed, so the Obama administration used the EPA to go through the back door.  No wonder some prefer the EPA be defunded.

Highlighting her list of accomplishments, Jackson revealed her crème de la crème was expanding "the conversation on environmental justice" -- that "unfinished business" -- in "low and minority neighborhoods."  Jackson reassured the activists that Obama needed them to stay focused on promoting their beliefs that "there is no difference and choice to be made between a healthy economy and a clean and healthy environment."

Van Jones, the past Obama White House "Green Czar" who resigned in 2009 after his "green socialism/environmental bias" leanings surfaced, also spoke.  During the conference, Jones placed an Atlas-sized burden on the shoulders of these easily influenced kids when he told them that "the entire planet, the children of all species are banking on you."  Jones assured the audience that although he loves "rich people," he intends to cash in on their money to fund the green movement cause.

In a January 30, 2005, Miami Herald editorial, former Greenpeace co-founder and president, Dr. Patrick Moore said he left his own organization because "much of the environmental movement, made a sharp turn to the political left and began adopting extreme agendas that abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism."  It’s only gotten worse.  The once wholesome and worthwhile goal to protect the planet was hijacked and turned into a pseudo religion -- by some who care more about transferring America’s wealth than they do the environment.
Obama's Other Hand
Investors Business Daily says that while we were distracted by Obama's birth certificate show-and-tell, his EPA releases its guidelines, expanding federal power over the nation's waterways, ponds and puddles, under the Clean Water Act.  America's economy and freedom are at stake.

These guidelines will take effect after a 60-day comment period and will serve as a reference for environmental agencies in determining their jurisdiction over a particular body of water, large or small.  They will eventually morph into binding regulations as damaging to our economy and freedom as the EPA regulation of carbon dioxide emissions.

The 1972 Clean Water Act was originally intended to protect the "navigable waters of the United States" -- you know, the kind boats travel down.  It was broadly and quickly interpreted to any pool of water in America capable of supporting a bathtub-variety boat.  The word "navigable" was forgotten and ignored, and the act's scope expanded to the point that water that collected after a rainstorm was considered a "wetland" worthy of environmental protection.  A 2006 U.S. Supreme Court case from Michigan produced five different opinions and no clear definition of which waterways were covered.  This essentially left the government with a clean slate on which to write its own interpretation -- which was just about everything.

House Agricultural Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., says the expanded EPA guidelines would let the government "regulate essentially any body of water, such as a farm pond or even a ditch."  A bipartisan group of 170 congressmen wrote a letter to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers urging them not to issue the expanded guidelines.

The American Farm Bureau Federation said in a statement that the guidelines "take an overly broad view of 'waters of the U.S.'  It would serve as a road map for EPA and the Corps to designate nearly all water bodies, and even some on dry land, as subject to federal regulations that dictate land-use decisions."

Not just agriculture but energy production is affected.  The EPA recently revoked the coal mining permit for Arch Coal's Spruce Mine No. 1 in Logan County, W.Va.  The permit was issued four years ago and since then Arch Coal, which provides 16% of America's supply, has followed every jot and title of the rules it was told to operate under.  It didn't matter -- after an investment of $250 million in the mountain-top mining operation, which when fully operational would have employed 215 miners directly and 300 indirect jobs in support services, it was ordered to shut down.  These were, no pun intended, "shovel-ready" jobs.

As we have warned, the EPA said it was acting under the authority of the Clean Water Act, saying the mine employed "destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend."

The EPA is currently suspending 79 such surface mining permits in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.  It says these permits could violate the Clean Water Act and warrant "enhanced" review.  EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says she's not against coal mining, but wants to see it "done in a way that minimizes impact to water quality."

This is not about clean water any more than cap-and-trade is about climate change.  It's about increasing government power over our every aspect of our lives.  The power to regulate is the power to destroy, and part of the administration's goal of raising energy prices to the point green energy looks acceptable if not attractive.

Obama said the whole "Birther" controversy was a distraction from other more important things.  That's just the way he wanted it.
Comments . . .
***  
 

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2011
All right reserved