the EPA itself has admitted that the new rules would do little, or nothing, to save the environment.“The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes, energy impacts, monetized benefits, costs, or economic impacts by 2022,” the EPA writes under the comments section of its proposal. Let me translate this: The new rules will be bad for business, bad for job creation, will provide zero economic, socioeconomic, or social benefit to the community. . . Oh, and we’re not going to even pretend we’re doing this for the planet.
Now, without some kind of explanation of why it would still be a great idea, that would be a bit too much for the American public to swallow, don't you think? Well, the overlords think you will swallow it if they offer this:
So why then adopt the rules? According to the EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, the rule is part of an effort to “position the US for leadership” on the global warming issue. Right. . . By implementing useless, and ultimately job-killing, bureaucracy with no intent of “fixing” Al Gore’s imaginary crises. Way to lead, Obama. Way to Lead.
So we can feel good about ourselves for showing the world's nations how to dismantle their economies for a non-existent problem.
"And I wouldn't own coal, and I wouldn't own tar sands. It's hugely expensive to build coal utilities, and the plants they have to build for tar sands are massive, and before they get their money back I suspect that the price of solar and wind will have come down so much." --Jeremy Grantham (he has a track record that's impossible to ignore—he called the Internet bubble, then the housing bubble. While moves like those have earned the famed forecaster the nickname "perma-bear," in early 2009 he also told clients at GMO, his $100 billion, Boston-based money-management firm, to jump back into the market. It was the same week that stocks hit their post-Lehman low..)
ReplyDeleteRead more at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323665504579032934293143524.html
Grantham is not the first asset-management wiz who was driven by a leftist, declinist agenda. George Soros, anyone?
ReplyDeleteGrantham may be able to pick investment trends, but he is full of shit regarding matters of climate? How do I know? Scroll through all the posts in the "environment policy" category on this blog, all the documentation about flawed computer models and IPCC number-fudging and the fact that average global temperatures haven't risen in 15 years and that the polar ice cap increased 60 percent over the last year.
Re: solar and wind power costs coming down before tar-sands extraction pays for itself: A whole lot of investors are already getting in the tar sands extraction game. And we all know how long the list of failed wind and solar ventures is.