Climate Change Guilt Distraction

“There is such a thing as being too late when it comes to climate change.” — Obama

And so, because we may be too late to save the Earth or humanity (let that sink in for a minute), President Obama has unleashed what the New York Times has called “the strongest action ever taken in the United States to combat climate change.”

Well thank God we have a plan. Because time is running short and we all may be dead soon. Right? Yeah, right. From NRO:

The president will instruct U.S. power plants to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by just under one-third (32 percent). How that is to be achieved and at what cost is … not Barack Obama’s problem. States will have until 2018 — comfortably remote from any presidential election — to submit their plans, and until 2030 to implement them.

The thing that frustrates so completely about the climate change debate is that, like so many of the high and mighty pronouncements from the left side of the political divide, if you point out that the science is almost always contentious and subject to shift radically from year to year, and even from scientist to scientist, those who have eaten the holy wafer of the body and blood of The Sacred Cult of Enviromentalism will declare you a DENIER (read: hater of the Earth and all good things) and VERY, VERY STUPID.

Of course, they often can’t entertain the idea that climate change is a policy position given to the same political maneuvering as any other policy issue tied to big, big money. And is therefore twisted and shaped to resemble the most dire of circumstances so that fools may be inclined to part with their money. Also from NRO:

A few things are going on here. One is that the president is positioning himself to ride into Paris on a white charger when world leaders convene there to negotiate a broad emissions treaty — a treaty that the U.S. Senate under Republican control is unlikely to ratify. The ratification of the treaty is not the object; the rejection of the treaty is the object, giving Democrats a low-cost opportunity to engage in moral preening on the environment and to tsk-tsk Republicans and their purportedly anti-science attitudes. The second thing that this accomplishes is that coal companies, business organizations in coal-heavy states, and their political allies — not habitual friends of the progressive wing of the Democratic party — will be obliged to spend millions or billions of dollars and countless man-hours defending themselves against the new mandate, while hedge-funders long on politically connected green-energy companies — prominent sponsors of many Democratic endeavors — will be enriched.

None of this will have any meaningful effect on the planet’s climate.
NRO editors suggest the Clean Air Act might stand to be evaluated and amended. Indeed, it has a provision that states that if the EPA can’t properly account for the costs of regulations, those regulations can be thrown out. Accounting for the costs of a regulation seems a reasonable way to determine if a regulation is working properly and that just makes good business sense. Let’s get to it!

But the other concern here is that the federal realm is handing down edicts to the states that they must comply with, affecting how they do business and how they move their money to conduct that business. That smells like a situation ripe for corruption and backslapping and greasy palms to get inspectors to look the other way. Never a good scenario when it involves personality types (ahem, politicians) inclined toward doing things that way.

Of course, the useful part of the politics that is the modern enviro movement is that it can easily be employed to distract from some other things that might be going on. And that, given the speciousness of the science involved, is probably, at this point, the real goal.


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.