.
9/22/13, "EPA Head Admits Being Clueless About Any Obama Climate Plan Benefits," Forbes, Larry Bell
"To discuss such matters, 13 federal agencies were invited to provide
testimony about the administration’s climate policy before the House
Energy Committee on September 18. Only two accepted, providing EPA
Administrator Gina McCarthy and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz as
witnesses.
A notable exchange
occurred about two hours and sixteen minutes into the hearing between
McCarthy and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.). My friend Marlo Lewis at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute provided an unofficial transcribed
version of this segment which can also be viewed directly on Youtube.
Pompeo: Ms. McCarthy I want to ask a couple of
questions of you. So one of the objectives today is to identify the
greenhouse gas regulations that already existed and those in the future —
how they actually impact the climate change, right? So you’d agree we
want to have a successful climate policy as a result of those sets of
rules and regulations that you promulgate? Fair base line statement?
McCarthy: In the context of a larger international effort, yes.
Pompeo: You bet. And on your website you have 26
indicators used for tracking climate change. They identify various
impacts of climate change. So you would believe that the purpose of
these rules is to impact those 26 indicators, right? So you put a good
greenhouse gas regulation in place, you’ll get a good outcome on at
least some or all of those 26 indicators.
McCarthy: I actually...I think that the
better way to think about it, if I might, is that it is part of an
overall strategy that is positioning the U.S. for leadership in an
international discussion. Because climate change requires a global
effort. So this is one piece and it’s one step. But I think it’s a
significant one to show the commitment of the United States.
Pompeo: Do you think it would be reasonable to take
the regulations you promulgated and link them to those 26 indicators
that you have on your website? That this is how they impacted us?
McCarthy: It is unlikely that any specific one
step is going to be seen as having a visible impact on any of those
impacts — a visible change in any of those impacts. What I’m suggesting
is that climate change [policy] has to be a broader array of actions
that the U.S. and other folks in the international community take that
make significant effort towards reducing greenhouse gases and mitigating
the impacts of climate change.
Pompeo: But these are your indicators, Ms. McCarthy. So...
McCarthy: They are indicators of climate change, they are not directly applicable to performance impacts of any one action.
Pompeo: How about the cumulative impact of your
actions? Certainly you’re acting in a way . . . you say these are
indicators of climate change. Certainly it can’t be the case that your
testimony today is that your cumulative impact of the current set of
regulations and those you’re proposing isn’t going to have any impact at
all on any of those indicators?
McCarthy: I think the President was very clear.
What we’re attempting to do is put together a comprehensive climate
plan, across the administration, that positions the U.S. for leadership
on this issue and that will prompt and leverage international
discussions and action.
Pompeo: So you’re putting regulations in place for
the purpose of leadership but not to impact the indicators that you, the
EPA, says are the indicators of climate change? I’m puzzled by that.
McCarthy: Congressman we work within the
authority that Congress gave us to do what we can. But all I’m pointing
out is that much more needs to be done and it needs to be looked at in
that larger context.
Pompeo: In 2010 with NHTSA [National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration], in your opening statement you said you’ve
gotten rid of about 6 billion metric tons [of greenhouse gases]. One of
your indicators, for example, is heat-related deaths. How many
heat-related deaths have been eliminated as a result of the 2010 NHTSA
rules?
McCarthy: You can’t make those direct connections Congressman. Neither can I.
Pompeo: There’s literally no connection between the activities you’re undertaking and...
McCarthy: I didn’t say that.
Pompeo: Well, you said you can’t make the
connections, so tell me what I’m not understanding. Can you draw a
connection between the rules you’re providing, the regulations you’re
promulgating, and your indicators? Or is it just...
McCarthy: I think what you’re asking is can EPA
in and of itself solve the problems of climate change. No we cannot. But
the authority you gave us was to use the Clean Air Act to regulate
pollution, carbon pollution is one of those regulated pollutants, and
we’re going to move forward with what we can do that’s reasonable and
appropriate.
Pompeo: I’m actually not asking that question that
you suppose that I’m asking. I’m not asking whether you have the power
to solve greenhouse gases. What I asked was: Is anything you’re doing,
doing any good? As measured by the indicators that you’ve provided. Is
your testimony that you just have no capacity to identify whether the
actions EPA has undertaken has any impact on those indicators?
Literally, this is about science — cause and effect. Is there any causal
relationship between the regulations you promulgated and the 26
indicators of climate change that you have on your website?
McCarthy: The indicators on the website are broad global indicators. . .
Pompeo: They’re not broad, they’re very specific.
McCarthy: . . .of impacts associated with climate change. They are not performance requirements or impacts related to any particular act.
Pompeo: I actually like the indicators — they’re
quantifiable, right? Heat-related death, change in ocean heat, sea-level
rises, snow cover — those are very quantifiable things. But now you’re
telling me...
McCarthy: They indicate the public health associated with climate change.
Pompeo: Exactly, but you’re telling me you can’t
link up your actions at EPA to any benefit associated with those
quantifiable indicators that the EPA itself has proposed as indicative
of climate change.
McCarthy: I think what we’re able to do is to
show — and I hope we will show this in the package that we put out for
comment — is what kind of reductions are going be associated with our
rules, what we believe they will have in terms of an economic and a
public health benefit. But it is again part of a very large strategy.
Pompeo: My time has expired.
So there you have it. Regardless of the countless billions of
taxpayer and consumer dollars being spent to wage war on natural and
inevitable climate change, the EPA head is unable to identify any
discernible health and welfare benefits of her agency’s draconian
regulatory policies. Instead, the apparent goal of the EPA’s current and
proposed greenhouse gas regulations is to persuade the international
community, particularly China, India, and other developing nations, to
follow the Obama administration’s U.S. leadership over an economic
precipice.
Let’s finally get it straight. Carbon dioxide isn’t a dangerous
“pollutant”… it’s a natural and essential plant food. The real dangers
to public health and welfare are the economic destruction, job
elimination and escalating costs of food, energy and other essentials
resulting from scientifically-unwarranted policies. The greatest
burdens of such sophistry fall upon those who can least afford them." via Climate Depot
=============================
Comment: The so-called climate movement has never been about climate. Obama is just finishing up the destruction of this country begun by George Bush #1, the Clinton's and George Bush #2.
.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Desperately seeking a relationship between 26 EPA indicators and billions of dollars they'll cost Americans in a permanent part-time economy, Representative of the People, Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas, elicits from Obama EPA Commissioner McCarthy that there is no connection except 'international discussion' and 'leadership'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment