Global Warming is an Expensive Myth (Henry Burke)

Link: http://www.educationviews.org/global-warming-an-expensive-myth-pt-2-of-2/ NOTE: All hyperlinks have been removed, because going to the links and returning to this article is not convenient from this website. GO TO THE LINK ABOVE FOR ALL HYPERLINKS.

GLOBAL WARMING: AN EXPENSIVE MYTH — PT. 2 OF 2 Feb 24, 2013 by Henry W. Burke EducationViews Contributor

Global Warming Is an Expensive Myth In a 10-year period, the EPA’s plan to regulate carbon dioxide will cause $7 trillion in lost economic activity and the loss of 3 million jobs!

The biggest promoters of the global warming scare are those profiting the most. Thanks to the global warming scam, Al Gore’s net worth has skyrocketed from $2 million to $100 million!

CONCLUSION The federal government spent nearly $9 billion on global warming in 2010. This does not include the $26 billion in funding for climate change under the Stimulus Bill (spread over several years).

Ideology and politics are driving the climate debate rather than sound science. Democrats typically support the empty global warming theory.

With no scientific basis, the left is pushing global warming for several reasons; these include power, money, and income redistribution.

Obama is using the EPA to control and tax businesses in this country. In a 10-year period, the EPA’s regulations on CO2 will cause $7 trillion in lost economic activity and the loss of 3 million jobs!

A. Federal Spending on Climate Change Government spending on climate change (global warming) has more than doubled in ten years. The GAO (Government Accountability Office) issued a report on 5.20.11, “Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions.” The report covers federal spending on climate change, from Fiscal Years 1993 to 2010.

page 1

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318556.pdf Funding for climate change activities increased from $3.6 billion in FY 2001 to $8.8 billion in FY 2010. For the 10-year period from 2001 to 2010, the federal government spent $56.2 billion on this senseless topic.

In addition, $26.1 billion in funding for climate change was included in the Stimulus Bill (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act — ARRA). Quite clearly, climate change spending under Obama is skyrocketing!

The GAO relied on figures reported by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

OMB reports funding in four categories: technology to reduce emissions, science to better understand climate change, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes.

In 2010, $8.8 billion was spent on climate change (not counting Stimulus spending).

The breakdown was $5.5 billion for Technology; $2.1 billion for Science; $1.1 billion for International Assistance; and $0.1 billion for Wildlife Adaptation.

When the GAO was asked to examine federal funding for climate change, the agency found that climate change was organized in a complex, crosscutting system. This makes it difficult to track expenditures and evaluate results.

The OMB pointed out that these budget compilations did not include revenues lost for special deductions and tax credits to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These subsidies caused a $7.2 billion federal revenue loss in 2010 alone; since 2003, the total revenue loss amounted to $16.1 billion.

Observers cannot figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from the many billions of dollars spent each year on policies aimed at addressing climate change. Climate change spending will only increase under Obama’s far-left ideology.

As bad as the picture is on federal spending, it gets even worse. Under cover of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is wildly issuing new regulations. The escalating EPA regulations are killing businesses and running up the costs. An 8.23.11 Forbes article gave these startling figures: The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included.

CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion

page 2

by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climatechange-hysteria/ B. Ideology and Politics We have seen how junk science has been used to obscure the truth about global warming. How has this deeply flawed logic won so many believers? Shrewd and unrelenting propaganda has enabled the global warming adherents to convince many people that CO2 from human industry is a major problem.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, a climatologist at MIT, published a paper entitled “Climate Science: Is It Currently Designed to Answer Questions?” In this paper, he thoroughly describes the origins of global warming alarm, the political agenda of the alarmists, their intimidation tactics, and the reasons for their success.

Dr. Lindzen chronicled the political origins of the global warming scare.

Tim Wirth, former Senator and Undersecretary of State, chaired the hearing where Jim Hansen rolled out the alleged global warming relation to the summer of 1988. He is noted for having arranged for the hearing room to have open windows to let in the heat so that Hansen would be seen to be sweating for the television cameras.

Tim Wirth has been frequently quoted as saying: ‘We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.’

After Lindzen confronted the global warmers with the lack of any actual warming, they replied that “Global warming would resume with a vengeance in 2009.” When warming didn’t occur in 2009, they moved the anticipated resumption to 2015.

The issue of global warming has been highly politicized. Because of this, careful, reasoned debate is virtually impossible. Feelings and emotions override science and reason. The global warming advocates treat political change as the goal; accordingly, they assume science can be manipulated like a political ad or campaign speech. As Michael Gerson stated, “When the experts become advocates, no one believes the experts or listens to the advocates.”

Is there a relationship between a person’s political persuasion and their acceptance of global warming? In a 2010 Fox News Opinion Dynamics Poll, registered voters were asked to describe the global warming situation. For the Democrats, 29 % considered it to be a crisis and 42 % called it a major problem. With the Republicans, 5 % labeled it a crisis and 24 % termed it a major problem. When these two responses are combined, 71 % of the Democrats described global warming as a crisis or a major problem; and 29 % of the Republicans described it in those terms.

page 3

It is clear that politics plays an important role in a person’s stand on global warming. Democrats overwhelmingly support the bogus global warming theory.

Politics and ideology cannot be separated from the global warming hysteria.

Monumental changes will be instituted if the global warming activists have their way.

Astute Americans are starting to understand H.L. Mencken’s observation that “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”

C. Why Is the Left Pushing Global Warming?

In my companion report, “Obama’s Climate Change Agenda,” I addressed the scientific facts associated with global warming. In simple terms, man-made global warming does not exist! http://educationviews.org/obamas-climate-change-agenda/ With no scientific basis for global warming, why is it being promoted by various groups? I will cover a few reasons.

1. Power The global warming alarm was initiated at the United Nations in the 1980s. The original goal was to use it to achieve global governance and fund it through a global tax on carbon dioxide (“carbon tax”). As I mentioned under “The IPCC” subsection, this organization was formed for the specific purpose of looking for human-induced global warming (climate change).

Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN Earth Summit, said global warming would play an important role in “reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.” [In other words, Strong viewed global warming as a great way to expand the United Nations’ power base.] http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ 2. Money The biggest promoters of the global warming scare are those profiting the most. At the 2007 global conference, Maurice Strong disclosed that he was Chairman and Vice Chairman of two such companies. (One company is the Chicago Climate Exchange.)

[In an obvious conflict of interest, Strong went from being an avid proponent of global warming to personally reaping financial rewards from the scam.]

Al Gore runs the London-based Generation Investment Management. According to Bloomberg News, Gore had less than $2 million when he left the vice presidency in 2001. Today, he is worth more than $100 million! [Who says global warming does not pay?]

page 4

Of course, we cannot forget General Electric, a company that is benefiting from the “green” scene. At the same time, GE pays virtually no corporate income tax! Also we have the Solyndras and all of the other “crony capitalist” companies feeding at the federal green energy trough.

3. Income Redistribution The UN views global warming as a great way to transfer wealth from the richer nations (like the U.S. and European countries) to the third-world countries (like those in Africa). Global warming offers a powerful means to extract huge sums of money from the United States and transfer it to Africa.

Obama has demonstrated through his speeches and actions that he believes intensely in class warfare and income redistribution. This drives almost everything that he does. He would love to have the United States sign the UN protocols to require the U.S. to send billions of dollars overseas.

4. Ideology The global warming scam is being used to promote social justice. According to their reasoning, the developed countries that emit carbon dioxide (CO2) should pay money to the “developing” countries.

The former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart stated: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, referred to the Kyoto accord as: “Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.” http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html D. Obama’s Climate Change Ploy The global warming Democrats tried to push a Cap and Trade Bill through Congress in 2007 and again in 2009;they failed both times.

Cap and Trade bills typically impose a tax on a business that emits carbon dioxide (CO2). This regulatory nightmare would hand more power and money to the government, supposedly to reduce global temperatures. The Cap and Trade proponents frequently use the term “carbon tax.” [“Carbon tax” sounds much “dirtier” than “carbon dioxide tax.” Their intention is rather obvious.]

When the “Cap and Tax” Bills were not approved, Obama did not quit; he simply made an end run around Congress. Obama is using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to accomplish what he cannot do through legislative means.

page 5

The Heritage Foundation completed an economic analysis of the EPA’s plan to regulate CO2. Between 2010 and 2029, the regulations would cause $7 trillion in lost activity and a loss of nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs by 2029! http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/small-business-impact-of-the-epaendangerment-finding#_ftn10#_ftn10 CONCLUSION The federal government spent nearly $9 billion on global warming in 2010. This does not include the $26 billion in funding for climate change under the Stimulus Bill (spread over several years).

Ideology and politics are driving the climate debate rather than sound science.

Democrats typically support the empty global warming theory.

Obama is using the EPA to control and tax businesses in this country. In a 10-year period, the EPA’s regulations on CO2 will cause $7 trillion in lost economic activity and the loss of 3 million jobs! ================================= The scientific facts on global warming (climate change) are covered in an earlier report, “Obama’s Climate Change Agenda,” by Henry W. Burke, 2.01.13. http://educationviews.org/obamas-climate-change-agenda/ ========================================== The skepticism surrounding global warming is expressed in Part 1, “Global Warming Skeptics,” by Henry W. Burke, 2.23.13. ========================================= Bio for Henry W. Burke Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E. He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 40 years.

Henry Burke has experience in the air pollution control field through employment with the National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA).

Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction contractor.

Henry Burke serves as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects.

He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy.

Henry W. Burke E-mail: hwburke@cox.net

page 6

page 7