Not content with letting Iran become a nuclear power, President Obama, a narcissist consumed with himself and his “legacy,” announced a rule Monday mandating government limits on carbon emissions. It commands states to cut carbon emissions 32% from 2005 levels by 2030.
“Full implementation of the emissions targets will avert only 0.018° Celsius of warming by 2100,” said Steven Hayward on PowerLine, quoting Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy. Ms. McCarthy added that the degree of warming isn’t important but the example the United States sets for the rest of the world is.
Emphasizing how ridiculous Mr. Obama’s latest climate change push is, in 2011, Ms. McCarthy said she didn’t know how much carbon dioxide (CO2) was in the atmosphere. She doesn’t know now.
Given the scope and breath of the Obama administration’s reach, Mr. Obama’s ludicrous plan to reduce greenhouse gases to save the world from a supposed apocalyptic collapse is asinine. This bluster, and that is what it is, will have negligible effects on the environment. But the costs will be astronomically high as the EPA attempts to restructure the nation’s electric utility industry nationwide.
If the courts uphold this, and “The White House and EPA know they are distorting the law beyond recognition and that this rule will be litigated for years,” said The Wall Street Journal, and if the states roll over, — the impact on the nation’s economy will be phenomenally huge and economically depressing. —
Of course all this goes completely over the head of those in the Church of Global Warming.
Similar to ObamaCare that no one in Congress read, Mr. Obama’s Clean Power Plan is nearly 1,600 pages long and the regulatory impact analysis, says Mr. Hayward, is nearly 400 pages long. The conclusion is few government officials are familiar with its mandates.
Next month, after his family’s usual two-week summer vacation on Martha’s Vineyard beginning this weekend, Mr. Obama will fly to Rome and discuss global warming with Pope Francis. His conjecture and hope is after meeting the Pope his Clean Power Plan will be the centerpiece when United National global warming eco-activists meet in Paris in December to discuss global warming.
In June, in the same unintelligible vein, Pope Francis released the Laudato Si, a 40,000-word climate encyclical that makes a stab at presenting us with self-effacing dilemmas. But it fails.
Like other environmental activists entering the gates of the Church of Global Warming but having the elevation to stand behind the altar, Pope Francis — “who might now be considered the world’s leading green — is using global warming to prosecute a deeply ecological, anti-capitalist agenda,” said Rupert Darwall, author of The Age of Global Warming: A History.
“Designed to influence the outcome of the Paris climate talks in December, the Pope’s message would have been the same even if alarmist scientists had not misinformed him that the planet had been warming in recent decades,” said Mr. Darwall, “when there has been little or no warming for nearly two decades.”
But the lack of global warming isn’t important. What is important is socialism, worldwide socialism, and upending the economies and the culture of the world’s industrialized nations.
That’s the agenda of Pope Francis, a native of Argentina influenced by Juan and Eva Perón, who mixed socialism with Marxism. Said Pope Francis in his encyclical:
Our concern cannot be limited merely to the threat of extreme weather events, but must also extend to the catastrophic consequences of social unrest. Obsession with a consumerist lifestyle, above all when few people are capable of maintaining it, can only lead to violence and mutual destruction.
Worldwide socialism, mixed with a little Marxism, also appears to be Mr. Obama’s agenda, who was influenced by Sal Alinsky, founder of modern community organizing.
“Climate science today is a veritable cornucopia of unanswered questions,” said John Steele Gordon in an op-ed, ‘The Unsettling, Anti-Science Certitude on Global Warming,’ in last week’s Journal. He wrote:
Why did the warming trend between 1978 and 1998 cease, although computer climate models predict steady warming? How sensitive is the climate to increased carbon dioxide levels? What feedback mechanisms are there that would increase or decrease that sensitivity? Why did episodes of high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere earlier in Earth’s history have temperature levels both above and below the average?
With so many questions still unanswered, why are many climate scientists, politicians — and the left generally — so anxious to lock down the science of climatology and engage in protracted name-calling? Well, one powerful explanation for the politicians is obvious: self-interest.
If anthropogenic climate change is a reality, then that would be a huge problem only government could deal with. It would be a heaven sent opportunity for the left to vastly increase government control over the economy and the personal lives of citizens.
And that is the aim of Mr. Obama and Pope Francis.