By Alan Caruba
When President Obama announced on
March 31 that he intends to ensure that the U.S. will slash its “greenhouse gas
emissions” 26% below 2005 emissions levels by 2025 in order to keep pledges made
to fulfill the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, he failed to mention
that such levels would be comparable to what they were in our Civil War era, 150
years ago.
He also failed to mention that the
U.S. has made no such pledges as regards the 1992 “Kyoto Treaty” which was
resoundingly rejected by the U.S. Senate when then Vice President Al Gore
brought it back from the U.N. conference.
There is no need, globally or
nationally, to reduce such emissions. It would be a crime against humanity,
especially for the millions that would be denied electrical power or would see
its cost rise exponentially. “The President has no credible evidence to back up
his claims,” said H. Sterling Burnett, a Research Fellow with the free market
think tank, The Heartland Institute.
“Obama’s climate actions are likely to cause far more harm to people, especially
the poor, than any purported threats from global
warming.”
“Global warming” and “climate
change” are attributed to the use of fossil fuels to manufacture and transport
ourselves and our goods, and to create electrical energy, despite the fact that
the Earth, its oceans and land areas naturally generate such
gases.
There are, for example, more than 1500
potentially active volcanoes and countless others under the oceans. They produce
billions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases that are identified as
“greenhouse gas emissions.” The human contribution pales in comparison to
natural sources such as the warming ocean surface which releases CO2.
Even so, CO2 constitutes a mere 0.04%
of the atmosphere. There is no evidence CO2 plays any role in the Earth’s global
temperature.
Do these “greenhouse gas emissions”
trap heat? Apparently not because the Earth has been in a natural cooling cycle
for the past eighteen years breaking and making records for snow and ice. In the
1970s scientists were predicting a new Ice Age. Ten years later they were
predicting “global warming.”
Why then is the President intent on
slashing “greenhouse gas emissions” when (1) the Earth is not a greenhouse and
(2) doing so would harm our economy for decades to come?
The answer lies in his promise to
“fundamentally transform” a nation that does not need transformation except for
the reduction of the size and scope of the federal government. Its economic
system is the best in the world. Its military is the strongest. Its agriculture
feeds Americans and is exported to other nations.
As David Rothbard, the president and
co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive
Tomorrow (CFACT), a free market think tank, noted in the wake of Obama’s
announcement, “The President will have to bypass the law-making process and use
executive orders and regulations” to achieve his goal of slashing emissions. “To
do so requires tortured readings of the Clean Air Act and other current
laws.”
Significantly, “the President offers
no suitable replacement for the lost generating capacity beyond pointing toward
wind and solar which is not up to the task.” When Obama took office, coal-fired
plants provided 50% of U.S. electricity. It is now down to 40% and headed lower
if Obama has his way.
Rothbard warns that “Global warming
campaigners see this presidency and the Paris U.N. Summit as the best chance
they are likely to see to take control of American energy. The ramifications are
disastrous for American freedom and prosperity.”
This brings us to the what John L.
Casey, founder of the Space and Science Research
Corporation, (SSRC), an independent scientific research organization in
Orlando, says about the forthcoming November 30 to December 15 U.N. climate
conference in Paris which he describes as “doomed” and that’s the good news.
Its
announced goal of imposing global limits on greenhouse gas emissions will not be
mandatory and “President Obama has effectively gutted any meaningful agreement
among the major industrialized nations, by having granted to the planet’s
largest CO2 producer, China, free license to build as many coal power plants as
they wish, and emit as many gigatons of greenhouse gases as they wish until
2030.”
This is, in fact, a
global trend as many developing nations such as India do the same thing. Nor
will they suddenly shut down electricity production fifteen years from
now.
This huge, international
farce formerly known as the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, began
as an international treaty created in 1992. The U.S. Senate refused to ratify
the Kyoto Treaty, but pledges to reduce greenhouse gases were made by 33 out of
195 countries, called their “Intended National Determined Contribution” are the
main feature at the forthcoming Paris conference.
For all the media
attention the President will try to generate for this idiocy, Ken Haapala,
president of the Science and Environmental Policy
Project, says “It is unlikely that the current Senate would approve a
binding agreement.” Haapala notes that
lawmakers that include the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen.
James Inhofe (R-OK)m and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), “have all insisted that the
international agreement the U.N. is working on is a treaty and cannot be
enforced without Senate approval.”
Sen. McConnell warned,
“Considering that two-thirds of the U.S. Federal government hasn’t even signed
off on the Clean Power Plan and 13 states have already pledged to fight it, our
international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a
binding, unattainable deal.”
While most Americans have concluded that “global warming” or “climate change” are low on their list of fears President Obama has elevated this hoax to the top of his agenda for his last two years in office, along with the deal that would give Iran the opportunity to build a nuclear arsenal of weapons.
He doesn’t want to
“transform” America. He wants to destroy it.
© Alan Caruba,
2015
No comments:
Post a Comment