EPA vs. the Economy
Editor’s Comment 2/19/2017: I’m publishing articles published in the past as a historical reference for you, the reader, to determine whether what was written about back then is still on point.
By C H Diaz
The deficit and our economy must be addressed immediately and the EPA cannot be allowed to place spotted owls, snail darters, one-eyed catfish, and red squirrels above the needs of Americans.
By now the all of America knows that California is in trouble. Companies are leaving just as soon as they can afford to. What many people don’t know is, in southern California an estimated 227,000 jobs were lost between 1988 and 1991 due to excessive and restrictive environmental regulations and controls. If 227,000 jobs were lost in Southern California, what must it be across all of America?
The environmental movement has cost American taxpayers $800 billion since the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), most of which didn’t need to be spent. Just as the black “leadership” will call you racist or the militant homosexual will call you homophobic just for disagreeing with them, if you disagree with an environmentalist you are labeled as anti clean air and water or a big business puppet. This immediately puts you on the defensive in any argument.
It’s not about clean air or clean water, it’s about bigger government, it’s about the government owning the property, it’s about individuals losing their property rights, it’s about the redistribution of wealth. The bottom line is it’s about a political change towards a socialistic model. Writing for the Washington Post, George Will couldn’t have put it better, he wrote,
“Eco-pessimism persists, more solid than environmental science, in part because it serves a political program. Some environmentalism is a “green tree with red roots. It is the socialist dream -ascetic lives closely regulated by a vanguard of bossy visionaries dressed up as compassion for the planet.”
The Constitution of the United States was created with a Bill of Rights to protect all Americans from unchecked governmental control and yet the EPA, under the flag of the environment, is literally able to pass any regulation it feels necessary without any approval by Americans. Irving Kristol, of New York University has said,
“If the EPA’s conception of its mission is permitted to stand, it will be the single most powerful branch of government, having far greater control over our individual lives than Congress, or the Executive, or state and local government.”
The naive, trusting American unwittingly believes the EPA is only looking out for his/her best interest. The good people of Germany thought Hitler was doing the same for them.
If the environmental movement is so good for us, why are every one of their environmental catastrophes based on lies and half-truths? In a Wall Street Journal article entitled “Beware of False Gods in Rio” it stated, 218 scientists from around the world signed a statement warning,
“We do however forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data.”
Of the 218, 46 were American of which 27 are Nobel Prize winners.
Over 80 percent of the scientific community does not believe global warming has or is occurring. The so-called ozone hole is turning out to be a natural occurrence. Ultra violet radiation (the skin cancer scare) coming from the sun has decreased in the past ten plus years. The ice caps are not melting. The acid rain scare was just that, a scare. The dioxin scare was just that, a scare. If you find any of this hard to believe, check it out for yourself. Take the time to read upon what is happening in the scientific community. Take the time to learn, but not from your television set.
Socialists learned many years ago, to get a free people to give up their rights you must introduce a fear that is more of a threat and more disastrous than losing your rights. During the cold war the only hope the socialists had for a world controlled by the United Nations was fear of a nuclear holocaust. In 1962, in a United Nations report entitled “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations”, the question was raised on how to control human behavior to accept a world controlled by the UN if the Soviet Union were to collapse. The only possible solution, that eventually was offered, was the environmental model, but only if the people could be convinced of pending disaster. 1962 was the year the Environmental Protection Fund was established. Some coincidence.
I am not advocating throwing caution to the wind when it comes to environmental issues, but I am saying the environmental leadership has an agenda that even their grass roots followers don’t know or understand.
The only thing you, as Americans, know about the environment you learn from the media. How is it the media doesn’t report on what the majority of scientists around the world believe? How is it you are shown scenes of barren forests when our forests, through improved forest management and harvesting procedures, have grown by 23 percent in the past twenty years? How is it you haven’t heard CFC’s and the ozone hole have nothing to do with each other? How is it you are rarely allowed to see or hear any opposing view via the media? In a report entitled, “Global Warming Update, Recent Scientific Findings,” by the prestigious George C. Marshall Institute, it states,
“The predictions of the greenhouse theory are contradicted by the temperature record to such a degree as to indicate that the anthroprogenic greenhouse effect has not had any significant impact on global climate in the last 100 years.”
Did CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC air this statement? No way, yet in 1988 when James Hansen, a NASA (pseudo) scientist, told a Senate committee that “Global warming is now sufficiently large that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect,” every network newscast carried the “global warming” threat that night. What they have since failed to report was in the January 24th 1992 issue of Science magazine Mr. Hansen admitted his earlier statement was wrong.
The leading proponent of the global warming theory in the U.S., (pseudo) scientist Steven Schnieder, was professing the impending “ice age” in the late seventies. This man is no more a scientist than I am and belongs as an apprentice until he understands the responsibility that goes along with making statements before they have been proven and agreed with in peer review. In a recent interview he said, of his ice age days,
“I don’t see any problem in saying people learn, I’m not embarrassed about the view I had a decade ago.”
When confronted with data that opposes the global warming scenario he said,
“…I don’t put very much stock in looking at the direct evidence.”
Mr. Schnieder is the designer of one of the five computer models used to support his half-baked ideas. In the same interview he stated of his model,
“I remember once talking to a US. Congressional hearing about this and one of the Senators said to me, “You mean to tell me you guys have spent a billion dollars of our money telling us that the winter is cold and the summer is hot?” My answer was, “Yes sir, and we’re very proud of that.”
“This is the leading global warming doomsayer in America?
Given his lack or scientific understanding he is easy prey for the adulation and support he receives from the political environmentalists like a Senator Gore a perpetrator or the environmental lies. A senator who must see his future as world leader in a united world under socialism.
President Bush was bashed by Senator Gore and the media for not being the environmental president during the Rio fiasco and given a “D” for his efforts while as a Wall Street Journal article, entitled “How About Some Concern Over Eco-journalism,” said:
“But anyone who cares about basing public spending and taxing on sound findings should award him an A-plus.”
The bottom line agenda of the environmental movement is anti industrialization, anti progress, anti technology and anti-human. If you would rather hear it from one of their own listen to the words of Paul Ehrlich, the Stanford doomsayer,
“We’ve already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.”
By the way, what shape is our economy in today after twenty-two years of EPA rule? How many of the 227,000 jobs were lost by the people who live in south central Los Angeles?
A warning from as far back as 1974 stated:
“If the EPA’s conception of its mission is permitted to stand, it will be the single most powerful branch of government, having far greater direct control over our individual lives than Congress, or the Executive, or state and local governments.”
New York University, 1974
It’s time to restrict the EPA if not disband it completely. The deficit and our economy must be addressed immediately, and the EPA cannot be allowed to place spotted owls, snail darters, one-eyed catfish and red squirrels above the needs of Americans. In one state the EPA stopped the construction of a 90 luxury home development because of 5 male tortoises. Two years before, the builders were issued a permit to build and there were no tortoises on the property. They walked on during construction and no one is allowed to move or touch them because they are looking for mates.
EPA “BS” like this is not limited to animals. In Southern California the EPA tried to ban BBQ starter fluid until the public forced them to back off. If the fluid was so bad, why did they back off? They then continued their air war on the furniture industry, who uses paint thinners, stains, toners and solvents. To date, twelve furniture manufacturers have left Southern California at a cost of an estimated 33,000 jobs. All for no reason.
The EPA cannot be allowed to create regulations based on environmental lies just as the EPA must not be allowed to erode the right of property owners. Property rights are the basis of a free people. This year the EPA regulations will cost the taxpayers $130 billion, much of which is just not necessary. EPA regulations will cost jobs at a time when we can’t afford to lose jobs. Let’s put the EPA on hold for five years until we get our house in order and then create an EPA based on true scientific fact, not political agendas.