As for me, I continue to be amazed at the notion that climate change is a huge
problem that we must somehow stop, even if we have to smash our struggling
economy to do it! Yes, we need to make wise use of our resources and take
reasonable care of our nests but the idea that controlling carbon emissions to
the extreme will do much to help the worldwide environment is truly a stretch of
the facts and an illusion that would not come to pass.
Why are we even listening to the EPA? The idea that CO2 is the driver for
climate change is all based on flawed studies and models. Right now we have no
idea what the driver is, and there is no proof.This is just one
issue in a long string of issues that government scientists have used to make a
@ Happy Valley: How do you propose we get heavy metals needed for batteries for
electric cars without mining? We both know what would happen if any corporation
had released toxic mining waste into rivers don't we? What do you think
will happen to the wonderful EPA for doing it? NOTHING! Zip, zero nada! Talk
about liberal delusion!
Mountanman said: "The EPA released millions of gallons of pollution into
pristine rivers in Colorado, NM and Utah! Yep, the EPA is just a wonderful
protector of the environment, isn't it?"Why was all that
toxic waste there? Did the EPA put it there, or leave it there?orThe free market that allows for extractive industries to
privatize the profits while socializing the costs?I thought you
conservatives were all about responsibility, or is that only for the poor or
individuals, corporate America gets a free pass though? It would
seem that anything other than "all or none, black and white" is the
binary brain a conservative devolution?I prefer the EPA over the
corps would never do anything dangerous to increase their bottom line.
Markets don't change just because. Many times they need a nudge in the
right direction. For decades we drove cars that were horribly inefficient
because we were told that better cars couldn't be made. Then CAFE
standards came into play, and remarkably I now commute to a work in a luxury car
that gets over 40 mpg. It would be wonderful if companies innovated
just to do so. But woking in the Oil and Gas industry, I can tell you some
industries haven't become better at what they do, simply because they
haven't had to. Until fracking came along, the way we extract energy from
under the earth's surface hadn't changed in over 100 years. How we
produced end customer products hadn't changed either. Now that margins
are narrowing, there is a scramble to make processes more efficient.Innovation sometime needs a shove. And congress can provide that incentive.
I am not prescribing what that might be... could be a carrot, could be a stick.
But I agree with the writer - what is going on now in government is because
congress has failed to act proactively on their own.
The EPA released millions of gallons of pollution into pristine rivers in
Colorado, NM and Utah! Yep, the EPA is just a wonderful protector of the
environment, isn't it?
Former Rep. Inglis has become a pariah in his own party because he believes that
global warming is real and we should do something about it.
For the "free marketeers" above, a little fact-checking:Energy isn't a free market. For electricity, we are beholden to utility
monopolies that sell us polluting power whether we like it or not. Most
utilities (e.g., Rocky Mountain Power, UAMPS, Rural Electrical Co-ops) are all
heavily invested in coal, and they don't want to have to innovate to clean,
price-stable sources (e.g., wind, solar). They can simply pass pollution and
price-volatile costs of fossil fuels to ratepayers. That's the beauty of
monopoly.Oil is largely controlled by OPEC and Mideast dictators and
royals. The whole reason oil prices have fallen is so that Saudi Arabia can try
to push American oil producers out. With Iran's oil soon to hit the world
market, watch oil fall even further. Now, all fossil fuels enjoy
significant government subsidies -- from use of cheap, government-developed
water to railroads that get cheap loans to elimination of severance taxes and
government-built pipelines. Obama has proposed eliminating those subsidies, but
the GOP is opposed because of "jobs" and "profits."
JCS - For what it's worth, the proposal in the op-ed is to repeal the EPA
program and replace it with one that doesn't involve EPA.
Rep. Inglis is to be commended for challenging his own party to think. However,
he represents a small minority within its ranks. Despite the optimism of his
lede sentence, few in the GOP have made it to the step of looking for solutions.
Most are still endlessly mired in two ideological tar pits: 1) a rejection of
climate science and the elevation of science denialism (not just climate, but
also evolution) to a litmus test for conservatism, and 2) a reflex rejection of
any initiative associated with President Obama. Until they move past these two
obstacles, the GOP will only be the "Party of No" and never be the party
of innovative ideas.When it comes to climate, the GOP is still at
denial. They will have to work their way through anger, depression, bargaining,
and acceptance before they can start to think about solving the problem in a way
that conforms to conservative principles. And there are conservative
solutions—policies that achieve an end while maximizing freedom,
exploiting free markets, and minimizing government. But most of the GOP would
rather "Just Say No" than think about them.
Giving "credits" or "incentives" is not an option. America is
bankrupt and China has no more money to lend. Raising taxes or
charging "fees" is not an option. Businesses will just pass those taxes
or "fees" on to the consumer. The consumer, who is working as a greeter
at Wal-Mart, because all of the manufacturing jobs have been driven off-shore by
over-regulating industry, has no money to pay those passed on taxes and
"fees",Just as petroleum replaced whale oil and kerosene
replaced candles, new methods and products will eventually replace coal and oil.
We're not there yet. Solar is not cost effective for the little guy who
is under-employed. He just can't afford to buy $10,000 or $20,000 worth of
solar panels and "nasty" lead-cell batteries.It's time
to back off and let the market drive technology instead of letting uneducated
and uninformed politicians levy taxes to fund their pet projects.
This is literally nothing but empty talking points. It is hot air. It offers
absolutely no ideas, no proposals, no initiatives, nothing, nothing, nothing.
Except basically three political propaganda points that are 100% free of
substance. Is this the Republican program? And did the editors even bother to
read this drivel before publishing it, or did they merely take the RNC work
product and obey when asked to print it? I am astounded! This is a poor way to
conduct dialogue on serious issues.
No reasonable person can deny that the consequences of EPA over regulation have
been catastrophic. The EPA's use of scare tactics to attack private
industry have been devastating to the economy. When the energy
sector suffers, the poor and minority groups take the brunt of the damage. As
an example, one need only look at the Hopi Indians. The public must
resist the EPA's efforts to become a law unto itself. Just as the people
eventually deposed Kaiser Wilhelm II, Americans must likewise bring the EPA
A rising carbon fee/tax is NOT a market-based approach, it is an artificial
corruption of economic principles. When alternative energy sources become
reliable and economical enough ON THEIR OWN, people will adopt them willingly.
Forcing these new sources, or further taxing the current ones, only hurts
everyone. Except, of course, the alternative energy companies and their
lobbyists who are trying to get the government to force us.