Environmental Blackmail
Several relevant sections are below.
"Up to this point, Congress has seemed unwilling to pass global warming legislation, largely because of the perceived economic damage that would ensue. A 2007 MIT study suggested that cap-and-trade would cost the average American family $3,900 each year in economic losses and taxes. A more recent Heritage Foundation study reached a similar conclusion. Even candidate Obama said, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” What Obama is saying to Congress today is: If you don’t pass cap-and-trade, which I have already acknowledged is costly, I’ve got something coming down the pike that will be even costlier. It’s a very cynical—and very risky—strategy.
United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer explained the strategy to reporters in Copenhagen: “If I were a businessman, I would say, ‘Please, please, please do a deal in Copenhagen, and please, please, please make it market-based.’ Because if we fail to get a market-based deal here, and if the U.S. Senate fails to pass cap-and-trade legislation, then the EPA will be obliged to regulate. And every businessman knows that taxes and regulations tend to be a lot more expensive and lot less efficient than market-based approaches.”
An unnamed White House official was more explicit, telling Fox News, “If you don’t pass this legislation, then . . . the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”
Interetingly, this dovetails nicely with a quick exchange I had with Thomas P.M. Barnett at his blog. Here is the exchange:
"Barnett: ...Climate-gate only proves that world-class scientists are big-ego, high-maintenance types that, left to their own devices, are about as petty as a bunch of junior high school girls.
Big surprise to some, less so to others, but "proves" nothing...
Me: "Climategate" certainly does not refute the theory of manmade global warming. It does, however, raise questions about the severity of the crisis and the time frame we are dealing with.
Barnett: Agree completely.
Good news is, with power shifting to emerging pillars like India and China, little-to-no chance for too-fast responses to carry the day.
Reality is as reality does."
The key is to not ignore the potential for global warming as many skeptics want, but to not go insane and throw our economy into the toilet. One good way to begin to be serious about this is to embrace nuclear power. There are serious waste and security issues associated with this, but it is certainly clean from an emissions standpoint.
Categories: Environment GlobalWarming EPA Obama
Tags: Environment GlobalWarming EPA Obama
When looking at radically restructuring our economy, and at a time of weakness, it seems prudent to step on the accelerator lightly, not push the pedal to the floor when dealing with this. "Climategate" ought to not to be an excuse for complete inaction, but it should cause the actions taken to be more pragmatic.