The Trump campaign promises to rationalize Federal Government environmental policy may be about to face their first major test. Trump’s nominee to head the US Environmental Protection Agency was confirmed today by the US Senate. Trump’s strong stand against environmental extremism during the campaign may have been delayed in its implementation by the need to get Scott Pruitt confirmed as EPA Administrator.
But now that Pruitt has been approved, there is no longer any reason to delay further. Kimberley Strassel expressed her concern this morning that Trump may “wimp out” on withdrawing the US from the Paris non-treaty treaty, one of his major promises. Given the lack of any scientific justification for reducing human-caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, there is every reason to end US participation in the Paris “treaty” as soon as possible. It is now time to start the process, as well as implementing all his other campaign promises to rationalize US environmental policies.
The Administration needs to rapidly implement President Trump’s campaign promises, including withdrawing the US from the so-called Paris climate “Treaty,” abandoning the Obama so-called Clean Power and Climate Action Plans, and withdrawing the Clean Water Rule (which asserts Federal control over small waterways like ponds and streams). Although not promised by Trump, withdrawal of the unjustified EPA Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding would also be an important step towards climate policy rationalization.
But it is also the case that carrying out his campaign promises to curb the policies advocated by climate alarmists is critical to the success of Trump’s larger agenda. Trump has promised more jobs, more infrastructure spending, and tax cuts, all of which will cost the Federal Government money. The easiest source of that money is increased government revenue from the production of fossil fuels, particularly from Federal lands. With a continuation of the scientifically unjustified Obama climate alarmist-based policies, this will be impossible. Private industry is not going to invest in producing fossil fuels on Federal land that cannot be produced, transported to market, or sold because of unjustified claims that this will have adverse effects on climate.
Alan,
I concur that the globalists have been playing the long game since the late 60’s using the courts to ensure their ends are met. Dan Mitchell had a post recently:
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/california-secession-would-force-west-coast-leftists-to-confront-reality
had a comment that caught my attention:
. “Here’s more evidence of how the middle class is being eviscerated.
…the gap between what Californians pay versus the rest of the country has nearly doubled to about 50%. This translates into a staggering bill. Although California uses 2.6% less electricity annually from the power grid now than in 2008, residential and business customers together pay $6.8 billion more for power than they did then. …“California has this tradition of astonishingly bad decisions,” said McCullough, the energy consultant. “They build and charge the ratepayers. There’s nothing dishonest about it. There’s nothing complicated. It’s just bad planning.”
as did Ron Clutz
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/02/13/the-green-energy-money-pit
that discuss what can happen to the middle class when you force decision makers to put a very high tax on the use of carbon.
My in-laws wish their utility bill only went up 1% due to our (CA’s) efforts to decarbonize. Their electric bill (they don’t have natural gas, or air conditioning) has gone up about 40% for the same kWh/month usage in PG&E’s territory since 2013. The PUC eliminated their TOU rate schedule about a year ago. The state has met its RE goals, but someone has to pay for the higher costs associated with the efforts to decarbonize. Back in 2013 my in-laws average costs for a kWh was about $.13 Kwh, their average costs are now closer to $.20. Their winter usage (in their all electric house) this December was 63 kWh/day which resulted in a December 2016 bill of $387. In 2013 their bill for the same usage would have been $272 from PG&E.
The state is targeting the transportation sector of the economy to decarbonize. In order to induce folks to try out EV’s specialized electric rate schedules have been developed to encourage folks try an EV. Steve Woznick charges his Tesla(s) and new Bolt at home using one of the electric rate schedules developed to encourage adaption of EVs. A side benefit for Steve is that his home electric bill dropped by 2/3rds. It appears that Steve thinks this is a bit phony.
“Although we use a lot more electricity than before, qualifying for the PG&E EV rate plan lowed our monthly rate from $1500 to $500. Yea, it’s a phony world”.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/chevy-bolt-200-mile-range-for-30k-base-price-after-incentive.40728/page-217
I do not agree with the consultants comment: “There’s nothing dishonest about it. There’s nothing complicated. It’s just bad planning.”- as keeping a grid up with high levels of RE is very complicated as is figuring out who gets stuck picking up the costs. It’s been very dishonest and in the corporate world the decision makers would be held accountable.
Agree 100%. Besides him having the power to appoint the Supreme Court Judges this was one of the top reasons I voted for President Trump.
Recently some well known Republicans came up with a quarter of a billion dollars a year Carbon Tax plan to hit energy consumers to save the planet ie Honorable James A Baker III and George Schultz. Even though Secretary State Tillerson thinks it might be a good idea It is a solution to a non problem. CO2 has very little impact on Global Warming according to the experts such as Dr. Alan Carlon and many others such a long time Houston weatherman Dr. Frank. He we previously head of National Hurricane Center. His video which was presented to a Methodist Church can be found at
https://youtu.be/LVkUKNOPI3g, This has many facts all of us should hear. It is about 40 minutes long.
Another problem in my opinion it will never pass the American Voters who pride them selves with cheap energy. Per Roger Andrews in a European Blog by Euan Mearns the total tax on energy consumers will be about a quarter of billion dollars per year to the USA. Imagine a politician in West Virginia getting reelected after his electricity rates go up 50% according to Mr. Andrews. Even in Texas who uses a lot less coal electricity could go up by 20%
Look out 20 years and think what the historians will say if such a tax were employed. What happened to the worlds coal industry which used to provide 27% of the World’s energy, All of future generations will be paying much more for our enegy and poorest of us will be shivering in the winter and dying of heat in the summer.
Yes as Mr. Anderson Says a Carbon tax is not the solution, it will exacerbate the problem for future generations trying to keep warm in the winter and cool in the summer,