TRUMP'S EPA REVERSAL MELTS SNOWFLAKES, RAISES "SEE" LEVELS

MM

Michael McCune

 

|

Yesterday, 11:46 AM

Trump Reverses EPA Back to 1948 Regs

Government bureaucrats and snowflakes are gnashing their teeth over President Trump's proposed EPA budget slashing. They'd have you believe it is the end of the civilized world. If you want to know how ineffectual most Progressive "taxation-for-your-benefit" programs really are, one needs look no further than the bloated bureaucracy known as the Environmental Protection Agency and the laws that established it.

In 1948 the seed of the EPA was sown in the Clean Water Act. Congress declared the CWA to be in the "national interest" when passing the bill by insuring assuring a high level of water quality throughout the United States. Additions to the law were passed regularly until 1972. Up to 1972 the government held the attitude was primarily under states' responsibility and the role of the federal bureaucracy was to assist financially in that control.

Then, in a radical departure from the norm, in 1972 Congress abandoned the approach that state and local governments would be primarily responsible for water quality and charted a new course where regulatory control came from Washington. In order to achieve maximum effect the EPA began a technology-enforcing, regulatory policy on lower government levels. This program demanded the government increase its financial assistance (taxpayer dollars) to insure compliance.

But the groups pushing for the changes established unrealistic timelines, unrealistic goals and ultimately, needed ever increasing amounts of money for enforcement--on paper. What they really craved was more control over others and a restructuring of the Constitution from a federal government with limited power to one with unlimited power.

Congress established the Clean Air Act in 1970 and its course followed that of the CWA as regulation burdens soon outweighed benefits. Curiously, while today the EPA continues to list carbon dioxide emissions as the No. 1 goal, the EPA originally set only six common "criteria pollutants": particulate matter (known as particle pollution), ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead.

The listed items are demonstrably bad for humans. Nowhere on the list is carbon dioxide. We expel carbon dioxide every time we breathe as does every living animal while trees take in carbon dioxide and expel oxygen. Yet the EPA has spent almost $24 trillion over the years fighting carbon dioxide as the No. 1 cause of first global warming and now climate change.

I have always opposed these onerous environment regulations which I felt both wasted my taxpayer dollars and were not proven economically viable endeavors. I applauded Trump's decision to smack the EPA back to the Stone Age.

Fortunately everybody is different. There are those who seem willing to oppose the president's assessment and are rushing to buy into 'green bonds' since taxing you and me isn't working as well as they might want.

Green bonds are "debt vehicles that finance environmentally friendly projects such as cleaner waste treatment systems and the development of renewable energy technology"--according to the Financial Times.Moody's Rating System estimates as much as $93 billion in such bonds were issued worldwide in 2016, an increase of 120% year-to-year and much of that came after the U.S. election in November. Moody's estimate for green bonds in 2017 is $206 billion.

Now if the snowflakes want to put their money where the mouth is and back these projects, that is fine with me. I loathed being taxed for things I do not believe in and that have subjective "facts" rather than authentic facts to back them up.

Around the planet, the debate on the environmental impact on the economy is heating up much faster than the climate. So-called 'environmental crimes' are rising not only due to weak laws but to governmental attention being diverted to much more important matters--like the undeclared global war of Islam vs. everyone else. Many of these environmental crimes are being committed by rebelling groups against authority and criminal syndicates. (Look very closely at the funding activities for most of the active rebel groups in the world and you will find a direct tie-in to either criminal syndicates or outside government agencies in order to continue their fight.)

What is an interesting sidelight to this funding activity is a Bloomberg report which tied "exploitation of the carbon credit market" to white-collar crime which in many cases is a mere front for backdoor funding of rebel groups. The environmentalists approved the carbon credit market as a way to enforce normal people to pay more to regulate their home environment, directly tying your use of energy to carbon emissions. Thus you could either be warm in winter or cold in summer but not vice versa on the severe limitation of fossil fuel use.

So it is easily seen that Trump's stance on the environment has muddied the waters by threatening to return the EPA to the non-restrictive stance it held prior to 1972.

Ten states, led by Democrats, have sued the Trump Administration already, claiming it is violating federal law by delaying energy-efficient standards intended to save Americans $24 billion. New York AG Eric Schneiderman is leading the charge against Trump's attempted reversal of the Obama-era legacy. "The Trump Administration's polluter-first energy policy has real and harmful impacts on public health, environment--and pocketbooks--of New Yorkers."

That is so much smoke. Look closely at the results of the EPA regulatory death grip over the previous 44 years.

Americans have spent extra trillions in hidden fees as energy-consuming and energy-producing companies fought a battle against a natural element, carbon dioxide, that is necessary for plant health yet these addicts are concerned over a paltry $24 billion! And our national debt has grown accordingly without reliable science to show carbon dioxide is the real cause.

It was just the easiest target--even though it was not specified as the main source of the problem those many years ago--and the fight allowed those in power to transfer vast sums of wealth from everyday citizens to their own pockets.

We elected a anti-Establishment candidate. I do not think anyone dreamed he would so soon have everyone's attention on so many levels.

"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson