After “investing” tens of billions of taxpayer dollars of federal subsidies for Solyndra, Fisker Auto, battery plants and other mega-green energy losers, the U.S. still gets only about 3 percent of its electric power from wind and solar power. Stephen Moore, along with Kathleen Hartnett-White, write in the Washington Times, that if you think President Obama’s unilateral exercise of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants was an abuse of power, you should read here what the Obama administration is doing at the Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Clean Power Plan regulations from the EPA are “the most expansive and economically disruptive rules in four decades.”
The EPA’s rule aims to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants by 30 percent. That’s an enormous and costly burden on our power generating utilities. According to Energy Ventures Analysis, an energy research firm, the annual costs for residential, commercial and industrial energy customers in America would be about $173 billion higher in 2020 — a 37 percent increase. Average annual household gas and power bills would increase by $680 or 35 percent.
However, the overall reductions in the planetary volume of carbon-dioxide emissions would be microscopic — like trying to reduce the rise of the oceans with a syringe. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s own official number crunchers say that we must reduce global carbon-dioxide emissions by 80 percent over the next several decades to avert catastrophic warming. The EPA’s proposed cut would yield an immeasurable 0.018 degree Celsius cooling.
This is going to save the planet from catastrophe? Good luck.
Latest posts by Debbie Young (see all)
- Lester Holt and the Liberal Media’s Bias - September 29, 2016
- Unions or Children–Which Way Will Massachusetts Vote? - September 27, 2016
- Greetings from a Car-Free Day in Paris - September 26, 2016