The Environmental Protection Agency is one of the country’s most dangerous polluters, striving to blanket our economic life in a suffocating ideological miasma.
The EPA’s poisonous ruling that carbon dioxide — “a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas” — constitutes a “threat” to public health and the environment has been endorsed by the Obama administration and now the U.S. Court of Appeals in DC. If it is never rescinded, economic growth will suffer. Representative democracy will also suffer, given how Congress has been bypassed here.
Just FYI, we’d be dead ducks without carbon dioxide. The notion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant must flabbergast all plants, which blithely use carbon dioxide as a critical component in photosynthesis, thereby making all carbon-based animal and human life possible. (Damn you, plants!)
Unproven assumptions regarding the extent to which industrial activity adds to greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — even the extent to which the planet has warmed and will warm further, or to what extent any variation in average global temperature is even a special problem, let alone a catastrophic one — lie at the hemorrhaging heart of EPA’s hubris.
EPA officials suppose that they can smartly operate a globe-wide climate machine by increasing the expense or reducing the supplies of the fossil fuels that we use to warm our homes, drive our cars, operate our assembly lines. No, bureaucrats can’t centrally plan the earth’s atmosphere. But they sure can make it harder for people to survive and prosper.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
7 replies on “EPA Won’t Stop Polluting”
This isn’t about carbon dioxide, the atmosphere, the planet, or even about the health of people. None of those things matter. This is and always will be about power and taking it away from the individual. Money is power. If the people have none, they have NO power. How many die as a consequence is of small moment.
Water vapor has 1800 times the effect of CO2 on the earth’s temperature. If the amount of Co2 doubled, it would still be a minor effect. In the past, the CO2 levels were several times higher without much effect on temperature. If we totally shut down our economy, stopped ALL energy use, it would lower the earth’s temperature by 1/50th of a degree by 2050. And while we are collapsing our economy and the engines that support our lifestyle and way of life, the rest of the world continues on building coal fired plants as fast as they can. They will do what they do and all we are doing is ensuring that we no longer have a voice as viable player in the world economy.
And the EPA won’t say a word against cigarette smoke.
This is the present excuse for a controlled economy by the elitist/statist/collectivist groups.
Economic controls were first justified on the theory that a planned economy, with state investment guidelines, would provide the most rapid and even growth, to the best benefit of the general population. That, empirically failed.
Hard core environmentalism is now the favored motivation and conveniently cannot “fail” as socialism did. If there is an environmental disaster, it is because there was not enough regulation or compliance, if there is not a disaster, then it is the regulation which saved us from one so let’s enact more for even greater safety and benefit.
Win-win for the statist elitists, with the destruction of individual freedom and slowing of advancement for the the society as a whole being the cost.
The “leaders” are more than willing to pay that bill in exchange for the power, and will go to the grave telling you it is for your own good.
The fact they condemned hundreds of millions of people to death or disease by malaria by the ban on DDT never seems to be accounted for.
Having gotten away with that, keeping people in the cold and dark in mild in comparison.
Perhaps we can shortly commence lowering carbon dioxide emissions by refusing or rationing medical care to surplus emitters such as seniors, elderly, victims of chronic disease, retardation and /or birth defects, moving them along to the non-polluting phase.
Such would have environmental and economic benefit to the society as a whole (as long as you never consider the individual).
The CO2 controllers base all of their tyranny on several either blatantly false or else unproven and unproveable assumptions.
That CO2 is other than a minuscule effect.
That we are responsible for climate fluctuations even though NASA says the sun has multiple orders of magnitude more effect.
That we CAN do anything about it.
That we should.
I’m reminded of the saying, “Just because you’re not paranoid doesn’t mean someone isn’t out to get you.” Global carbon arithmetic and most of the science I’ve read – in layman’s terms on both sides of the ‘warming’ issue – convinces me CO2 and other effluent of fossil fuel use significantly adversely and perhaps catastrophically (within the next few decades) affects human life.
Assuming that’s true, then what do we do about it? The global regulatory model loved by statists will only make things worse – e.g. the EPA coercion pointed out by Paul. As with other environmental effects – e.g. duck feces coming down the river – on one’s property, or on people’s natural resources in general, the only prudent and effective way to handle them is by the property damage model and as a matter of common law or case law.
In that manner, you’re dealing with an objective principle of damage. Such as, ‘case law holds that duck feces are harmful above a certain threshold and no one may inflict duck feces on another without suitable compensation.’
But the globalists and the statists, too, love emergencies, and will overstate them for power and control purposes. My view is that too much carbon is a serious threat and potentially an emergency, which needs to be mitigated by case law based on ‘property rights.’ And, speaking of maintaining control and power, you cannot forget the Oil Cartel, which has zero interest in paying the full costs of its product. You can visit the BP-Gulf disaster (http://brianrwright.com/CoffeeCoasterBlog/?p=1451) (or Exxon Valdez) for an illustration.
My sense is Big Oil buys a lot more scientists than Big Government. Leaving the average human being damned if does and damned if he doesn’t… go along with one or the other. I also believe we are dealing with the fallacy of the false alternative here: Big Oil vs. Big Govt. And a genuine resolution would come if advanced forms of energy were to be invented and developed. My guess is such new clean energy technology is suppressed and classified away… because it would spell the end of the Big Oil/Big Mess cartelocracy overnight.
bw
[…] A Little Common Sense — The Edge of Tomorrow — Standing on the verge of a technologically educational revolution.U.S. Supreme Court Lets Cuba Travel Case StandThe Answer Is Within Your Reach.Common Sense ConspiracyCommon Sense with Paul Jacob […]