On the Environment

The environment is certainly changing, but it’s hard to tell what the actual changes are, and what the trends portend. Drought has impacted the central regions of Australia in a very bad way, turning what is normally a breadbasket, an area where huge amounts of wheat are normally grown, into a “little more than stagnant pools as the drought continues, with banks eroded into crumbling dirt cliffs that leave the roots of gum trees exposed,” according to a story posted at the Trumpet.

A number of reports are now showing the global temperatures are cooling, instead of warming. RedState says the hockey stick is broken, for instance, and the New York Times is worried that the cooling weather is impacting the government’s ability to impose climate controls.

The world leaders who are meeting at the United Nations to discuss climate change on Tuesday, are faced with an intricate challenge: building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years. -NY Times, via NewsBusters

At the same time, the entire science of “global warming” is unraveling. Melanie Phillips, over at the Spectator, points to yet another global climate change study that has fallen apart.

Yet another scientific scandal has come to light which knocks another whopping crater in the already shattered theory of anthropogenic global warming. Eight peer-reviewed studies, which for years have played a significant supporting role behind the IPPC’s claims of AGW, have been shown to be fraudulent. -The Spectator

Over at CNS News, they’re reporting on a group of scientist who have openly come out and said scientific research simply doesn’t support any sort of global climate change because of humans.

“Nature, not human activity rules the planet,” said Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist and research professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. “And once you’ve decided that on the basis of evidence, then everything else falls into place.” -CNS News

Given all of this, you might think various government bodies would rethink their plans to regulate human activities in the hope of “saving” the environment. Not so much.

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed endangerment finding in April, saying that global warming and climate change pose a serious threat to public health and safety and thus almost anything that emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The agency is already targeting the ailing auto industry. New regulations are proposing that the fleet average must reach 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, which will increase the price and decrease the safety of the vehicle. -The Foundry

The EPA has now formally made an “endangerment finding” on CO2, which will impose the command-and-control regulations of the Clean Air Act across the entire economy. Because this law was never written to apply to carbon, the costs will far exceed those of a straight carbon tax or even cap and trade—though judging by the bills Democrats are stitching together, perhaps not by much. In any case, the point of this reckless “endangerment” is to force industry and politicians wary of raising taxes to concede, lest companies have to endure even worse economic and bureaucratic destruction from the EPA. -WSJ

What’s absolutely incredible about these new regulations is everyone knows the impact on our way of life will be larger than we can imagine. For instance, in discussing one of the various climate bills being pushed forward, the “Cap and Trade” bill, The Foundry says:

Make no mistake, this bill is a jobs destroyer. Despite attempts to market cap and trade as a “clean energy jobs” bill, net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Particularly hit hard is the energy-intensive manufacturing sector, which according to The Heritage Foundation economists, would lose 1.4 million jobs by 2035. For the record, you won’t hear proponents of cap and trade calling it a “green” jobs bill anymore. That doesn’t poll well. It’s “clean energy” jobs now.

And if you really think any of the “climate regulations” the US is currently pushing will make any difference, take a look at these stories.

During a July 7th Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on the 1,500 page Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) got Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson to admit that “U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.”  This is 100% consistent with all the best science which shows that the carbon reductions under Waxman-Markey will not affect global temperatures in any material way. For example a recent study of cap-and-trade by MIT concluded: -The Foundry

The legitimacy of the $100 billion (£60 billion) carbon-trading market has been called into question after the world’s largest auditor of clean-energy projects was suspended by United Nations inspectors. SGS UK had its accreditation suspended last week after it was unable to prove its staff had properly vetted projects that were then approved for the carbon-trading scheme, or even that they were qualified to do so. -The Foundry

The real game that’s afoot is the transfer of political power from people to bigger and better governments.

RICH countries should compensate Africa for all their belching chimneys and exhausts. In a rare fit of African unity, it was decided at a recent flurry of leaders’ meetings that the United States, the European Union, Japan and others should pay the continent the tidy sum of $67 billion a year, though it was unclear for how long. Ethiopia’s prime minister, Meles Zenawi, is likely to lead a delegation of 53 countries (all of Africa minus Morocco) to the climate-change summit in Denmark’s capital, Copenhagen, in December, where he will presumably lodge this demand. -The Economist

Related posts:

1. News on the Environment
2. On the Environment
3. On Global Warming