The regulatory death of energy in the U.S.

By |2014-05-29T13:18:13+00:00May 29th, 2014|CFACT Insights, Guest Insights|7 Comments
Before President Obama took office in 2009, the amount of electricity being produced by coal-fired utilities was approximately 50% of the total. Today it is approximately 40% and, when the Environmental Protection Agency regulations take effect as of June 2, more such utilities are likely to close their doors. The basis for the regulations is utterly devoid of any scientific facts.
poweroutagesEnvironmentalism, as expressed by many of the organizations that advocate it, is, in fact, an attack on America, its economic system of capitalism, and its need for energy to maintain and grow its business and industrial base. Electricity, of course, is also the energy we all use daily for a multitude of tasks ranging from heating or cooling our homes to the use of our computers and every other appliance.

The EPA regulations are said to be necessary to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) which the Greens deem to be a “pollutant” in our atmosphere. It is not a pollutant, despite a Supreme Court decision that identifies it as such, but rather a gas vital to all life on Earth, used by all vegetation for its growth. CO2 is to vegetation what oxygen is to all animal life. Humans, all seven billion of us, exhale CO2!

Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition and a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, notes that the Earth’s atmosphere “is not a greenhouse” and “does not have a glass roof. It uses convection to redistribute heat very quickly.” The claim for several decades has been that CO2 has an effect on the Earth’s surface temperature, but Forbes points out that “water vapor is a far more effective agent for insulating the Earth and preserving its warmth than carbon dioxide,” adding that “there is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is a significant cause of global warming.”

Indeed, even though the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has increased, Forbes points out that “Close examination of past records shows that temperature tends to rise before CO2 content rises, sometimes centuries earlier.”  Significantly, at the same time Greens have been crying out against emissions of CO2 from coal-fired utilities and other sources, the Earth has been in a cooling cycle now verging on 18 years!

The EPA is lying to Americans regarding carbon dioxide and, worse, its proposed regulations will reduce the number of coal-fired utilities and drive up the cost of electricity for Americans.

One of the many Green organizations, Earthjustice, claims that “Climate change threatens the world as we know it—and the chief culprit is fossiapocalypticl fuel burning. To avert ecological disaster, Earthjustice is pushing for a shift from dirty to clean energy to stabilize our climate and build a thriving sustainable world.”

There is literally nothing that mankind can do to “stabilize” the Earth’s climate. While the Earth has been going through climate change for 4.5 billion years, there is no evidence that anything mankind does has any effect on it. The change the Earth has encountered, as mentioned, is a cooling, a far different scenario than the “global warming” claims of the past three decades or more.

Tom Richard, the editor of, notes that “Arctic sea ice has rebounded to higher and higher levels each year. Antarctica is actually gaining in size and there has been no increase in droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, ‘extreme weather’, flooding, et cetera.”

Reducing CO2 would have zero benefits, while at the same time the EPA regulations would have a dangerous and totally unnecessary effect on CO2 emissions from plants producing electricity. Other nations around the world are actually abandoning “clean energy” — i.e., wind and solar power — in favor of building many more coal-fired plants to meet their need to provide energy for their populations and their economic growth. China and India are just two examples.

To support its claims of the forthcoming EPA regulations, EarthJustice is claiming that climate change “hits people of color the hardest” and that power plants “disproportionately impact Latino communities.” It noted “the moral obligation of faith community to act on climate change and support carbon pollution limits.” This has nothing to do with the actual facts of climate change and CO2 as noted here and is a blatant political campaign to secure support from these groups.

The reality, as noted by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a policy research organization founded by former Senate leaders from both parties, was quoted in the May 26 edition of The Wall Street Journal:  “A 25% reduction (of CO2) with a 2015 baseline might make it impossible for some companies to operate.”  The article  notes that the cap-and-trade policies of emissions allowances that the EPA is putting in place “amounts to a hidden tax” on a whole range of electrical generation and industrial plants that produce CO2 emissions. The EPA will likely use the term “budget program” to avoid “cap-and-trade”, a proposal that was rejected by Congress.

Writing in Commentary, Jonathan S. Tobin, said that the new regulations on carbon emissions “will have a potentially devastating impact on America’s more than 600 coal-fired power plants,” noting that “the move was made possible by Supreme Court decisions that ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had the right to regulate (CO2) emissions, giving the President virtual carte blanche to remake this sector of our economy without requiring congressional consent.”

In July, the Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, will hold its ninth international confereTher nce on climate change. Previous conferences have brought together some of the world’s leading authorities on meteorology and climatology to debunk the decades of lies Greens have told about climate change and global warming.

The President has put “climate change” high on his list of priorities and it is an attack on the nation’s ability to affordably and extensively provide the guillotineenergy needed to meet current needs for electricity and reducing our capacity to meet future needs.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is on record saying that the President’s bogus “climate change” policy could cost the U.S. economy $50 billion a year and force more than a third of coal-fired plants to close by 2030. The Heritage Foundation says “The plan will drive up energy prices for American families and businesses without making a dent in global temperatures.”

This is a form of regulatory death for the nation and comes straight out of the Oval Office of the White House.


  1. Marie June 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM

    Some people can’t see the forest for the trees! I read some of Holdren’s theory. What these pseudo scientists are pushing is population control and control of the worlds resources. They have been “at it” since the 60’s. While they self righteously proclaim social justice and equality, they want a population of 2 to 3 billion instead of 7 billion. That’s the bottom line. Everything else is a distraction. Plenty of food, energy and wealth scares them silly. The are the culture of death, disease and famine. They are actually causing scarcity. Hitler only wanted blue eyed, blond, smart people too. We saw how that worked out.

  2. Schlibdiver June 1, 2014 at 9:38 AM

    The AGW Grand Plan.

    Global Warming was never about climate change! “Climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” – IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer

    Sierra Club Touts Economic ‘De-Growth’: ‘We have to de-grow our economy’ to ‘temper climate disruption, and foster a stable, equitable world economy

    UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres laments U.S. democracy is ‘very detrimental’ in war on global warming.

    Global warming prof. Kevin Anderson – who has ‘cut back on showering’ to save planet – asserts economic ‘de-growth’ is needed to fight climate change

    NASA scientist James Hansen endorses book which calls for ‘ridding the world of Industrial Civilization’ – Hansen declares author ‘has it right…the system is the problem’

    Warmist Helen Camakaris suggests that the threat of CO2 is so large that we need “a new kind of democracy” where voters have less power and warmist “experts” have more power.

    Tapia Granados in the online Marxist magazine, The Monthly Review, argues that the current capitalist system “has to die to allow for human progress” such as dealing with supra-national issues such as global warming. Threats such as these are so serious, he believes, that not only capitalism, but also national government must go. Only world socialism, it seems, can save us. “Capitalism will have to disappear to allow for a system more in agreement with the present stage of human civilization. That stage has led us to form a global society in which national states and governments have become historical relics, increasingly unable to cope with worldwide problems that require worldwide solutions.”

    Gus Hall, National chairman of the Communist Party: “Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible.”

    Christine Stewart Canadian Environment Minister said, “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

    Louis Proyect of Columbia University, “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”

    Havel Wolf member of the Seattle Audubon Society says: “The Communist Party USA’s environmental program “presents a viable plan to carry out on the long march to socialism.”

    According to A Layman’s Guide to Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming
    “Fear of AGW provides a way to engage everyone in the movement. Socialists of all stripes no longer have to spew Marxist notions that turn most people off; now, they can talk the science of global warming and hurricanes and massive floods and such, and, using fear, trample the average guy into their socialist goals of stifling capitalism, growth, and having the government take over the economy through this environmental back-door.”

    Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S Undersecretary of State for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the UN Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

    Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
    Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.

    “We have wished, we eco-freaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!” – Steward Brand, writing in the Earth Catalog.

    “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.” – Dave Forman, founder of Earth First.

    • deadman932 June 2, 2014 at 12:08 AM

      You MIGHT want to look at what Oil Companies themselves are acknowledging:

      Look at their statements on BOTH sites… OIL COMPANIES ACKNOWLEDGE GHG’s (green house gas emissions) are a result of human activities and are now putting out propaganda designed to convince consumers that BOTH COMPANIES are “committed to doing something about it.”

      It’s not “JUST” that SCIENTISTS are saying your view is WRONG — NOW it’s also Oil Companies themselves. This indicates to any rational mind that the data has grown so strong that Oil Companies themselves are willing to forgo the higher profits they’d get by continued denial…in favor of simply acknowledging the data has become overwhelming.

    • human June 2, 2014 at 8:01 AM

      Are we to believe the Human race has grown so large that it’s placing pressure on the environment and natural resources? like fish and fresh water?

  3. Yosemite Sam the Fisherman June 1, 2014 at 11:49 AM

    Let me say that I have been, and am still politically conservative my whole life. I appreciate to varying degrees the debates from both sides of the issue of the coal burning topic. In recent times a large coal burning plant in Pennsylvania had fought to avoid installing scrubbers on their stacks to reduce emissions by something on the order of 90% or so. The GE parent company owned power plant resisted government mandates to reduce emissions, but was compelled to do so because of the court case which basically states that another state cannot pollute the air of surrounding states. It has been reported this power plant, one of the larger power plants that are operated, has installed the scrubbers, and that power rates have not gone up, and are not projected to go up in any significant fashion as a result of this. This whole political debate from both extreme factions, left and right, are using red herring distractions to argue this topic of “forcing coal stacks to install scrubbers”. The real issue is not carbon in the atmosphere, it is mercury, sulphur, and other nasty chemical by products spewed out from these stacks. They go in to our water, and our air, and the air just plain smells bad. I grew up in the 60’s and remember what it was like to walk to school in the winter when our whole neighborhood had coal burning furnaces. The air in the whole town was horrible!! Either we clean up these smoke stacks, or we will need to go to other energy sources which are cleaner, and potentially more expensive than installing scrubbers in the end result. Everyone should be able to agree with cleaning up the air. I have lived within 5-20 miles of coal burning power plants which do not have latest technology scrubbers, and it is nasty to try to go out and walk or work when the smoke is coming in the wind. I am a proponent of less government in ways, but the lung problems, immune problems, and problems which are related to air and water pollution are showing up in all kinds of epidemic cancers which continue to grow. If it costs us a 5% increase in utility rates to take out 90% of the worst toxins in the coal smoke, what is the big deal here? This whining by the political right is out of order, as is the whining by the far left. We need to let common sense prevail on issues like this, and do the right thing instead of getting caught up in extreme imaginations and theories on both sides where it comes to inflated cost estimates by the right, and the red herring distractions about carbon reduction being the most important issue from the left. Anyone with me on this??

  4. MsgtGdubb June 1, 2014 at 1:52 PM

    When is the congress going to establish a Congressional Swat Team, and raid the white house and arrest the criminal in chief, and his motley crew of liars and thieves.?

  5. climate`-skeptic June 2, 2014 at 7:41 AM

Comments are closed.