Home / Politics & Party / Trump Executive Order Frees us from Climate Change Shackles

Trump Executive Order Frees us from Climate Change Shackles

Trump moves decisively to wipe out Obama’s climate-change record – The Washington Post

President Trump on Tuesday took the most significant step yet in obliterating his predecessor’s environmental record, instructing federal regulators to rewrite key rules curbing U.S. carbon emissions.

The sweeping executive order — which the president signed with great fanfare in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Map Room — also seeks to lift a moratorium on federal coal leasing and remove the requirement that federal officials consider the impact of climate change when making decisions.
Trump signing EO on climate controls

Source: Trump moves decisively to wipe out Obama’s climate-change record – The Washington Post

My Take on the Article

In most of the media this move is being reported as a disastrous mistake that will doom us all. The below Washington Post article is a bit, a bit, better. It at least reports on Trump’s reasoning before toeing the party line about how climate change is going to kill us all and we’re making it happen. While I am for protecting out environment from pollution and destruction I am a conservationist, not an environmentalist. I consider one a reasoned effort to maintain the resources we have to use them for efficiently. I consider the latter to be a religion. Climate Change is the sacred myth of that religion that we have been forced to live under. It has had real world consequences in terms of our economy.

One telling paragraph is this:

The order sends an unmistakable signal that just as President Barack Obama sought to weave climate considerations into every aspect of the federal government, Trump is hoping to rip that approach out by its roots. The president did not utter the words “climate change” once, instead emphasizing that the move would spur job creation in the fossil fuel industry.

Under Obama the federal bureaucracy became a climate change promotion tool. If Hillary had one it would have been left in place and likely never gotten rid of, certainly not under her watch. Of course you can expect the leftists to take legal action against this. They always do. They cannot win any other way than the courts. That is why they will fight so hard against any Supreme Court nominee Trump puts forward. They know if they lose the courts they have truly lost. That is their last and final stronghold.

The article discusses how Trump may not have the authority to undo EPA regulations. This may be true, actually, likely is true. But that just serves to highlight one of the major issues facing out country, that of an un-elected bureaucracy that is allowed to make laws. They call them “regulations” or “rules” but they have the force of law and a penalty attached for violating them. They are laws that have not been voted on by congress and upon which congress must vote to get rid of. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Instead the agencies should submit to congress their findings and congress should craft a law, vote on it, and send it up for a signature by the president. This doesn’t happen. Rather some bureaucratic machine simply decides that something is law with only a few of them requiring congressional approval depending on their scope. Agencies like the EPA, FCC, Department of Education, etc. represent the greatest loss of freedom the American people have suffered. All of these things were meant to be done at a local level by the states and under the Constitution should be and could be. It isn’t as if doing away with the EPA totally would devastate the country’s environment. The states would still regulate but would do so in a way that fit their needs. Someone in New York should not have a say over what is done in Alaska. If it were discovered that the activity of one state was in fact detrimental to another then the courts arbitrate. Likely they wouldn’t have to as it is in the best interest of each state to maintain properly those resources they have. If you consider something a finite resource now, think of how finite it is when confined to one state. For example, if Kentucky’s main export is coal and tobacco then it is in their best interest to preserve those resources and industries. Without them their economies would fail. If their activities in those industries harm a neighboring state and that state obtains a court order halting production then the state is doomed. We simply don’t need the EPA.

Christopher Field, a professor at Stanford University’s Wood Institute for the Environment, said in an email that the directive carries long-term risks, rather than immediate ones. “Some are risks from eroding the position of U.S. companies in the clean energy sector,” Field said. “Others are from the loss of irreplaceable natural heritage that is put in jeopardy by ill-conceived policies.”

This is a great quote for a couple of reasons. First it shows that they know the “clean energy sector” (solar, wind, etc.) is propped up and unable to compete on its own. If coil and oil are allowed to produce at capacity energy prices will fall so greatly that no one will need or want ugly solar panels on their roof or giant wind farms on hill sides slicing up birds. Secondly, see how vague is threat is. Something will happen to our “natural heritage”. What that is, and just how it’s going to happen, he leaves unsaid. That way the reader can imaging for themselves the worst. Just what, we don’t know, but it’s going to be bad!

The climate always changes and always will. It happened long before man was on the earth and we aren’t doing anything to speed it along. Climate change regulations are an albatross around the neck of the American economy and Trump is doing us all a favor by promoting energy independence. That’s something we could have had decades ago if not for Al Gore.

Top
%d bloggers like this: