Thursday, February 19, 2009

The Coming Carbon Thugocracy Update

During the campaign, I predicted that if Obama won, he would use the EPA to back door Congressional lawmaking and get the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emmisions. From an October article in the WSJ:

In an interview last week with Bloomberg, Mr. Grumet said that come January the Environmental Protection Agency "would initiate those rulemakings" that classify carbon as a dangerous pollutant under current clean air laws. That move would impose new regulation and taxes across the entire economy, something that is usually the purview of Congress. Mr. Grumet warned that "in the absence of Congressional action" 18 months after Mr. Obama's inauguration, the EPA would move ahead with its own unilateral carbon crackdown anyway.
So guess what happened? From the NYT article today:

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.
Unlike the earlier proposal, this effort does not seem to propose the blatantly unconstitutional proposal to have the EPA impose a tax on carbon emissions. The administration is trying not to tread on Congressional toes in other ways as well. Lisa P. Jackson is the new EPA administrator. From the same article:

The finding and proposed regulations would be issued in sequence, with ample opportunity for public comment and not in a sudden burst of regulatory muscle-flexing, Ms. Jackson said. The regulations would work in concert with any legislation and not supplant it, she added.

The article also points out the likelihood of lawsuits that would dramatically draw out the implementation. But I say, bring it on! I would love to see this case in front of the Supreme Court, with the AGW crowd (that's anthropogenic global warming) having to defend their pseudo-science. American Thinker has pointed to the total hysteria on the other side, with little proof that man is (a) causing global warming and (b) that global warming is actually harmful. I think this last bit is the trickiest part for the chicken-little crowd. Just because the earth heats up, life is not necessarily harmed. In fact, increased carbon dioxide and warmth might help biodiversity. If that could be shown, then the tree huggers should be encouraging us to by that Hummer.

But of course, it really isn't about saving the planet is it? It's about wresting control over the lives of individuals to establish a socialist utopia where the intellectuals rule and rid us of our benighted ways. But the dirty little secret of that dream is that thugs with guns always end up ruling, not the so-called enlightened intellectuals.

This is a threat to freedom. It is one more warning, as if we needed one, that Obama is on a crusade to secure socialism in America, just like someone else who just won an election.


  1. I'm somewhat less than reassured about the Judicial's ability to weigh in on science, since they kinda ignore basic biology in many cases....

  2. Foxfier,
    I understand and mostly agree. This is more about getting the arguments into the court of public opinion that the lawsuits would enable.