Monday, December 7, 2009

Now I'll sleep better knowing the EPA has my back

Today, the EPA announced that "greenhouse gases are harmful to humans".  Awesome.

The EPA and the White House have said regulations on greenhouse gases will not be imminent even after an endangerment finding, saying that the administration would prefer that Congress act to limit such pollution through an economy-wide cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Nevertheless, the EPA has begun the early stages of developing permit requirements on carbon dioxide pollution from large emitters such as power plants.  The administration also has said it will require automobile fuel economy to increase to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2016, another push to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.


Basically, the EPA just declared that they are now the regulators of power and transportation in the U.S.  And where did they get this power?  In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act.  (Excuse me for a moment while I take our pollution-spewing "dog" outside and shot him dead.  The thing has been polluting my house all day.  I would have done it sooner, what with his constant breathing and setting off the carbon dioxide sensor all day everyday, but until now, I didn't know it was harmful to me.  Thanks for the heads up Supreme Court.)

So the Supreme Scientists Court determined that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases were pollutants under the Clean Air Act (and what heartless bastards would vote against such a well-named bill?  It'd only be better if it were the "Clean Air for Our Children and Elderly Senior Seasoned Citizens Act") but that "the EPA must determine if these pollutants pose a danger to public health and welfare before it can regulate them."

I'm assuming that the Supreme Court justices were hoping that such "determinations" might include a list of people who have died as a result of these greenhouse "dangers".  If not deaths, than surely they were hoping for a list of American citizens who have had to have lung transplants due to these pollutants being in the atmosphere.  If none of these people could be found, then I'm sure they'd appreciate some scientific proof that there is such a thing as anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2.

But, since none of these are possible, the EPA is just going to proclaim that greenhouse gases are harmful and get along with the regulating already.  Don't we citizens know it's a CRISIS?  As Gordon Brown so helpfully pointed out, "Negotiators (at the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen) have 50 days to save the world from global warming."  (It should be noted that this prediction was made about 49 days ago.  And while we may be too late to save the world, our government is going to spend us/regulate us into debt anyway).

From the MSNBC story, I also learned that  
Obama planned to talk with former Vice President Al Gore at the White House on Monday as the president prepares for his appearance on Dec. 18 at the climate summit in Copenhagen. Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work toward combating climate change.
Rest assured that former Vice President Gore left for this meeting in August, as it takes quite a while to walk/bike from his home in Tennessee to the White House in Washington.  He is walking, right?  I mean, combating climate change is SOOOOOOO important, that everyone should do their part and leave their fossil-fuel guzzling private jets in the hanger, right?  There's no way that a photo-op at the White House (rather than a phone call or internet-conference from the comforts of their homes) is more important that GLOBAL WARMING CLIMATE CHANGE, right? 

Also, I wonder where Former Vice President Gore is going to be pitching his tent made of animal hides that he hunted for and stitched together himself.  He's not going to sacrifice his effort combating climate change to satisfy his own personal comfort by staying in a hotel that uses electricity and fossil fuels from companies that have not yet been "permitted" to emit such pollutants, is he?  If so, doesn't he care about my health?  Doesn't he care about the health of millions of little boys and girls and seasoned citizens throughout the U.S.?  Doesn't he care about saving the world enough to sacrifice his own comfort?

But I highly doubt that Al Gore is going to be hoofing it to D.C., nor will he set up camp in the Rose Garden.  For as the Instapundit points out:
Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges. If they were really worried about global warming they’d be doing this by Skype. But they live in a culture of entitlement. Energy conservation and carbon limits, like taxes, are for the little people.
Ann Althouse pointed to a story from Salon about a grad student's efforts to put himself through school without accumulating debt.  It is a facinating story.  One that I believe many global warming believers would like to see each citizen live out.  This man chooses to live a meager and frugal life, one that I'm pretty sure has a minimal carbon footprint.  And isn't that the ultimate goal of this move by the EPA, to limit carbon emissions?  While this man chose this lifestyle, many or most American's would not choose to live this way.  Some people choose to live a life with a minimal carbon footprint.  Other people have bigger worries than the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is not an industry or business or citizen that will not be affected once the EPA starts regulating carbon output.  The companies, industries, and citizens within favor of the EPA bureaucrats will be able to buy their carbon penance credits from the priests regulators of the church of global warming Environmental Protection Agency, while the little guys get screwed.

So what is the price the American citizens are willing to pay to protect the environment?  When does solving global warming (even if it's too late to stop, as some suggest) become cost-prohibitive?  What luxuries are American's willing to hand over to the environmental movement?  What luxuries will be ripped from our hands by the philosopher kings in D.C.?  What technologies of the future will be lost because the Government has already picked the winners (solar, wind, ethanol) in the race to find our next fuel?  What freedoms/luxuries/amenities do I enjoy today that I will not be able to enjoy tomorrow because they are deemed "harmful"?

I guess only time will tell since no one can see into the future (no matter what Al Gore's computer models tell you).  But from where I'm sitting, the future looks quite dim.

UPDATE:  After rereading this post, I want to make one more point.  I don't begrudge Al Gore (or anyone else) for utilizing private jets and living in large homes or enjoying any of the other technologies our modern world has.  It is my goal to one day enjoy such luxuries.  But I do begrudge Al Gore and his ilk regulating these technologies while continuing to enjoy these technologies themselves.  As Glenn Reynolds so often says, "I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis."

1 comment:

  1. Yikes - I didn't end up looking too good in this post, now did I?

    I absolutely agree with you that until we have some sort of scientific evidence to back up the claims, the claims fall on my deaf ears. -Rach