Well according to former Democrat, and now Independent, Joe Lieberman and some other ‘climate change’ nut by the name of Tim Profeta, who heads up something referred to as the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University, we should all now be applauding Barry for his plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. But, also according to these same two ‘climate change’ advocates, politics, thankfully, will prevent the new standards from making much of an impact. It was these two men recently got together and co-authored an article published in that left of center publication, Politico.
Barry just this week announced his latest proposal to combat that which does not exist by using his executive powers to cut carbon emissions by an average of 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Now I’m sure it goes without saying that the environmentalist crowd was thrilled with Barry’s efforts while those with a bit more commonsense were very much opposed to this latest attack by Barry on the gas and oil industry, properly characterizing what Barry has chosen to embark upon as being nothing short of a "war on coal." Barry chooses to ignore completely the resources that would make this country energy independent.
If executed exactly as it has been proposed, Barry’s little ‘climate change’ initiative, which is to be regulated, of course, by his rabidly out of control Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could reverse the United States’ long-standing policy of sitting on the sidelines. At least that’s how Lieberman and Profeta put it in their idiotic little article. You see, it was following the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the international ‘treaty’ mandating industrialized countries to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, that the U.S. Senate voted, and rightfully so, to disavow the economy-killing document.
But global warming and its supposed effects have garnered increasing attention over the years, primarily with those on the left end of the political spectrum. But these two go on to observe, "There is no reason for optimism that any time soon there will be enough votes in Congress to adopt comprehensive legislation that will stem the tide of harmful climate change." They make the statement, "Congress’s continuing failure to even begin to deal with the challenge of climate change has left President Obama and the EPA with no choice but to use their legal powers to try avert a climate catastrophe. It would be irresponsible not to do so."
But being the devoted believers that they are, they stubbornly maintain that ‘climate change’ continues to remain a very viable threat and one that we will someday all be made to deal with. And even though the entire theory is based on nothing more that faulty science and data seriously manipulated by those on the political, and scientific, left, over time, they claim, the supposed reality of climate change, and the havoc wreaked by greenhouse gas emissions, will force Congress to act. But their claims are nothing more than pure propaganda because there is absolutely no basis in ANY scientific fact that backs them up.
These two go on to write, "The EPA regulations cannot solve the issue on their own. The agency’s actions, however, can stimulate the innovation in the states necessary to design smart approaches to reduce pollution that can be translated across the country. And if those programs succeed, they may also help us build political consensus to act, because their example will show that we do not have to choose between addressing climate change and growing the economy." But the actual fact of the matter is that there is NO issue that is in need of being solved. Other than to point out that this is all just a lie.
Barry’s proposal calls for states to play a leading role in cutting carbon emissions, allowing for a cap-and-trade market, and encouraging states to develop ways to reduce the reliance on coal. For the time being, according to Lieberman and Profeta, "this week’s actions by Barry and the EPA are the best we can do to address the problem in the politics of today." The BEST we can do? How is it that the BEST we can do involves the forcing of Americans, who are already seeing their disposable income shrink to almost nothing because of the rapidly rising costs of food, healthcare and gasoline, to spend even more on electricity for their homes?
No comments:
Post a Comment