The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday is expected to formally declare carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that threaten public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that for the first time will regulate the gases blamed for global warming.
So, our wacko government, in its infinite wisdom, has declared that air is harmful to life on the planet, and will begin regulating it.
Some questions:
1. What happens when unregulated air floats across international borders? Will it be taxed at the same rate, say, in Canada as in the U.S.? How will we track the air as it moves back and forth so we know which is the regulated air and which is not?
2. Since plants are the biggest users of CO2 -- the most 'harmful' greenhouse gas -- will they be charged with a usage tax of some kind? Surely that's fair, as all other organic life forms (like humans) have to deal with their destructive habits, right? It works for cigarettes, so why not CO2? What bureaucracy will be put in place to manage the collections of that tax?
3. Under the assumption that the goal of regulation is to reduce something, we can then also assume that the goal of regulating air will be to reduce it. What happens if we succeed?
But, as is typical with this administration, it gets even worse if you read between the lines (i.e. backwards through the liberal-speak):
But even as the E.P.A. begins the process of regulating these substances, Congress is engaged in writing wide-ranging energy and climate change legislation that will pre-empt any action taken by the agency. President Obama and Lisa P. Jackson, the agency's administrator, have repeatedly said they much prefer that Congress address global warming rather than have the E.P.A. tackle it through administrative action.
This says that Obama would prefer legislation over regulation, but since he's a liberal, we know his definitions aren't what normal people understand to be accurate for those words. Case in point from the liberal translation guide:
lie
- what it really means: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth
- meaning as understood by liberals: the proper way to hide one's liberal preferences; excessive use is grounds for promotion
So, what the above statement actually means is that while Obama says he'd prefer legislation over regulation, he actually means the opposite.
And that fits with his character and track record - he's signed a bunch of executive orders setting policy without resorting legislation, he's shoved through thousands of pages of bills without giving Congress the time to read them much less analyze them or take testimony on them, and he's given the Treasury Secretary unlimited power over hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money without any taxpayer accountability. No, it's clear that Obama doesn't want to bother with that pesky process known as passing legislation any more than necessary since it requires far too much transparency and accountability, which he's studiously avoided at every turn.
So, while Congress slogs through the process, his pets at the EPA will go ahead and shackle the country with disastrous new environmental regulations without any recourse for the American people who will inevitably suffer. And hey, if those regulations just happen to be in effect for a few months or years while Congress works on the legislation -- or longer, in case the American people stand up and rightfully kill this legislation in Congress -- that's okay, right? Right?
Because we know that when environmentalist wackos go to work, there are never any unintended consequences, and they always have humanity's best interests at heart.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment