Begin forwarded message:
> From: "[email protected] [Defeat_Liberals]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: [Defeat_Liberals] The Federalist - Environmentalists have lost the > debate > Date: May 13, 2014 at 5:27:00 AM CDT > To: [email protected] > Reply-To: [email protected] > > > > Environmentalists Have Lost the Climate Change Debate > By David Harsanyi - May 9, 2014 > > > The bloodcurdling National Climate Assessment is here, and it portends > catastrophe; floods, clouds and other assorted weather events are imminent! > But, says the report, "there is still time to act to limit the amount of > climate change and the extent of damaging impacts." > > Have you noticed that we're always at the cusp of a cataclysm yet the > deadline to act always moves to a politically convenient not-too-distant > future? I guess that when the time to act runs out -- it will at some point, > right? -- we can begin thinking about defunding all these panels and > reinvesting in something more productive, such as figuring out how we can > adapt to the future. > > > For now, though, the congressionally mandated report claims we're no longer > merely dealing with impending disaster. The United States, it asserts, has > already incurred billions of dollars in damages from severe weather-related > disruptions because of climate change. The political hope is that some of > this ugly weather will generate more urgency to do something. President > Barack Obama will use the report to bolster his case for unilaterally > enacting carbon dioxide regulations, neglecting, one imagines, to mention > that though there is consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change, there > isn't much agreement on whether severe weather has actually gotten worse over > the past years or, if it has, that climate change is the cause. > > Nevertheless. > > "We're committed to moving forward with those rules," White House counselor > John Podesta said in a bit of an anti-democratic rant the other day. "We're > committed to maintaining the authority and the president's authority to > ensure that the Clean Air Act is fully implemented." Don't worry, though. > Podesta says this is "actionable science," so separation of powers and > consent of the governed and other trifling concerns are no longer applicable. > > But really, after all these years, admitting that executive power is the only > way to move (tepidly) forward on climate change policy is basically admitting > defeat. Has there ever been a movement that's spent as much time, energy and > treasure and gotten so little in return? I suspect there are three reasons > for this failure: 1) It's difficult to fight basic economics. 2) On energy, > Americans, despite what they say, have no desire to try (nor should they). 3) > It's getting more difficult, not less, to believe environmental doom and > gloom. > > "There will always be people in this country who say that we've got to choose > between clean air, clean water and growing the economy, between doing right > by the environment and putting people back to work," Obama said a couple of > years ago. "I'm here to tell you that is a false choice." Well, actually, we > already have cleaner air and water, and we (typically) have a growing > economy. The thing is there is consensus among economists that regulations do > have a cost. Sometimes the price tag is worth it. Oftentimes it's not. > > We already have a test case for Obama's proposition in California, the state > with the most aggressive renewables portfolio standard. A mandated 33 percent > of its power must be renewable energy by 2020. According to the Energy > Department, residential electricity prices have already spiked 30 percent > between 2006 and 2012 (when adjusted for inflation), and studies show that > the cost of electricity is likely to jump 47 percent over the next 16 years. > Those are real-world costs that every Californian has to divert from health > care or groceries or education or investments to pay for artificially > inflated energy prices. > > The truth is that even if Americans believed that scientists have seer-like > abilities and the models are accurate, they would still be hesitant to > embrace 19th-century technology, because they simply can't afford it. Though > I suspect that most people instinctively understand that the environment has > gotten better by almost every measure over the past 40 years, climate change > activists ignore the massive benefits of carbon-emitting fuels and technology > that helps us become more productive and increasingly efficient. > > Now, you can try to guilt trip everyone into compliance. You can batter > people with distressing hypothetical scenarios. You can "educate" them on the > issue from kindergarten onward. You can mainstream an array of Luddite ideas. > You can browbeat society so no one ever utters a word of skepticism. But we > still want to drive our cars everywhere. > > Yes, when asked, Americans perfunctorily tell pollsters that climate change > matters to them. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that 40 percent of > Americans believe that climate change is a major threat. A Gallup poll survey > found that about a third of Americans personally worry about climate change. > But when they're not asked specifically about global warming, voters never > bring the topic up. Their most important concerns are the economy, jobs and > debt. There is always strong support for the abstract idea of environmental > regulation and "clean energy," but when it comes to some concrete policy, it > is nearly always unpopular. Few people want to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. > Few people support new emissions regulations. And I doubt that another > scaremongery study will change that reality. > > > > Read more: > http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/09/environmentalists_have_lost_the_climate_change_debate_122583.html#ixzz31ae8bYuD > > Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon....the pigeon > knocks over all the pieces, sh--s on the board and then struts around like it > won the game." > > Vladimir Putin > > > > > > > > > S John Massoud > > > __._,_.___ > > > "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 > year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain." Winston Churchill > > -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
