Читать книгу Obama and the Crash of 2013 - Peter Ferrara - Страница 5

OBAMA’S REGULATORY BLIZZARD

Besides imposing all these tax-rate increases and uncompetitive rates on American businesses large and small, the blizzard of new regulatory costs and barriers imposed by the Obama administration will be building to a crescendo by 2013 as well. Academic studies estimate the total costs of regulation in the economy to be rapidly rising toward ^$ 2 trillion per year, or ^$ 8,000 per employee. That is close to 10 times the corporate income tax burden and double the individual income tax. When the resulting effects on the economy are considered, the total losses due to regulatory burdens may total ^$ 3 trillion, or one-fifth of our entire economy.

But by 2013, these regulatory costs will have exploded in unprecedented fashion because of the regulatory blizzard coming from the Obama administration. Already, Obama and his minions have loaded up another 4,225 new federal regulations in the pipeline toward implementation. But the heavy regulatory artillery is just being wheeled into place.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is effectively imposing cap and trade by administrative regulation under the Clean Air Act – without congressional approval. They have already issued an “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases threaten the public through global warming. But the Clean Air Act leaves little room for flexibility. That endangerment finding sets us on the road to ultimately banning any major carbon emissions from the burning of oil, natural gas, and coal. That would effectively repeal the Industrial Revolution: an environmental-extremist dream but a nightmare for working people and the economy. It would mean the end of the American Dream and of America’s heritage of world-leading economic prosperity.

Though modern nuclear power plants are safe, the nuclear accident in Japan precludes increased reliance on nuclear power for the foreseeable future. And powering a modern, 21St century industrial economy with alternative energy from wind, solar, and biofuel is a fantasy rather than a dream. The energy content in these alternatives is highly diffuse, which means they are inherently costly and inefficient. That should not be surprising, because they are basically the power sources of the preindustrial Roman Empire 2,000 years ago.

They each require vast land areas for windmills, solar panels, or crops. They also require traditional power sources as a backup for when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine, which would further add to the overwhelming costs. But if the endangerment finding means the phaseout of coal, natural gas, and oil, then there are not going to be any backup power sources.

The EPA is starting implementation of this new, unprecedented regulatory burden by first targeting carbon emissions from major industrial plants and utilities, so the general public won’t see the burden before the 2012 election. But this is going to start raising energy costs, making American manufacturing more uncompetitive in the global economy. In 2013 and thereafter, unless we change course, the regulation will be expanded to affect virtually every business in the economy, large and small, every commercial facility, every significant building and office, every hospital and medical facility, every restaurant, even smaller fast-food operations. That will mean at a minimum trillions in new costs to the economy. A modern industrial economy cannot function over the long run under these requirements.

Obamanomics is based on old-fashioned Keynesian economics, which holds that government spending and deficits are the foundation for economic recovery and prosperity.

The EPA’s “endangerment finding” providing the foundation for this regulation is subject to stiff legal challenges winding their way through the courts, which contend that the finding is not sufficiently supported by proven science. And well it should be challenged. The most authoritative critique of the theory that human activity is causing potentially catastrophic global warming is the 856 -page Climate Change Reconsidered, published by the Heartland Institute in 2009. This careful, thoroughly scientific volume co-authored by dozens of fully credentialed scientists comprehensively addresses every aspect of global warming, showing that natural causes are primarily responsible for climate patterns of the past century. Heartland has just published a follow-up interim report addressing new developments.

These publications alone establish at a minimum that the theory that human activity is causing potentially catastrophic global warming is in fact hotly disputed among knowledgeable scientists. But recent findings effectively prove that the notion of man-caused global warming is false. Published peer-reviewed papers by Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, find that a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere (currently up only 44 percent from preindustrial levels) would increase temperatures by 0.7 degrees Kelvin, less than half the estimate of the theoretical climate models used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the EPA exclusively relies.

Another published paper by Roy Spencer, U.S. science team leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite and the principal research scientist for the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, uses atmospheric temperature data from NASA’s Terra satellite to show that much more heat escapes back out to space than is assumed to be captured in the atmosphere by greenhouse effects under the U.N.’s theoretical climate models. This explains why the warming temperature changes predicted by the U.N.’s global-warming models over the past 20 years have been so much greater than the actual measured temperature changes.

In August 2011 came the results of a major experiment by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) involving 63 scientists from 17 European and U.S. institutes. The results show that the sun’s cosmic rays resulting from sunspots have a much greater effect on Earth’s temperatures through their effect on cloud cover than the U.N.’s global warming models have been assuming. This helps to explain why the historical pattern of temperature changes seems to follow the rise and fall of sunspots rather than the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere. This further confirms what Heartland’s Climate Change Reconsidered argues – that natural causes, not greenhouse gases, have the dominant effect on Earth’s temperatures.

Finally, the U.N.’s own climate models project that if man’s greenhouse-gas emissions were causing global warming, there would be a particular pattern of temperature distribution in the atmosphere, which scientists call the fingerprint. Temperatures in the troposphere portion of the atmosphere above the tropics would increase with altitude, producing a “hotspot” near the top of the troposphere, about 6 miles above the earth’s surface. Above that, in the stratosphere, there would be cooling. But higher-quality temperature data from weather balloons and satellites now show just the opposite: no increasing warming with altitude in the troposphere above the tropics but rather a slight cooling, with no hotspot, no fingerprint.