President Obama's new envirocratic and anti-growth “climate action plan” ignores genuine science, tramples representative government, spells economic ruin and — like so much federal grandiosity — clearly wasn't subjected to proper cost-benefit analysis.
Blame-mankind “scientists” can't explain global warming's virtual halt since 1997 while U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide have fallen to 1994 levels. Yet Mr. Obama — defying his radical agenda's rejection by Congress — plans to decree by executive fiat that Americans must pay dearly to avert the supposed ills of “carbon pollution.”
Hiking electricity costs and killing jobs en masse, his Environmental Protection Agency will shutter existing coal-fired power plants and make new ones impossible. Expect him to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline over its supposed effect on total carbon emissions, though Asia will burn the Canadian oil it otherwise would carry — and to squander more taxpayer dollars on “green” boondoggles.
All this, though even halting all U.S. CO2 emissions immediately would have only negligible climate effects. That speaks volumes about his plan's cost-benefit failings.
Thankfully, Obama can't circumvent congressional control of the federal purse strings. “Congress should move immediately to defund as much of this as possible,” says Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Energy and Environment. That's the last, best hope for stopping this monstrous plan.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.