By Marita Noon
Friday, April 26, 2013
You’ve heard the cliché: “Sometimes you win, sometimes
you lose.” Within the past month, I’ve experienced both sides of that adage—in
reverse.
On April 2, I was driving from Albuquerque to Farmington,
NM, where I spoke for the San Juan Country Tea Party group. During the
three-hour drive, I listened to talk radio. That was the time of the Cyprus
bank crisis and the middle of budget discussions in DC. By the time I got to
Farmington, I felt defeated and hopeless. “Sometimes you lose.” I wondered how
I’d motivate and inspire the folks in Farmington. The speech worked. There was
a lot of Q & A. It ended well.
On Thursday, April 18, I made virtually the same
trip—ending in Durango, Colorado, where I spoke for the Rocky Mountain Coal
Mining Institute’s regional meeting. This time I had a totally different
attitude. Just 2 days before, we’d had a big win. “Sometimes you win.” I could
hardly wait to share the good news! Gratefully for me, not one of the guys at
the regional meeting had heard the news—which was good. If they’d all heard it
already, they didn’t need me (or I’d have had to come up with a new speech). It
was great to be able to share the “win.”
Maybe you haven’t heard the good news. If you haven’t
read my Margaret Thatcher piece—where I chronicle some of the history of the
global warming/climate change agenda, please stop and read it now.
In short, I posit that Europe has embraced the ruse and
pushed it on other western economies (read the USA), as it would change the
energy playing field by removing America’s low-cost energy advantage. This, I
believe, is why the European Union (EU) originally began espousing the
narrative. They have been the leaders in so-called green energy. The EU is held
up as the one to follow. It has actually implemented cap and trade—which Obama,
with control of both houses, couldn’t get through.
Now, add on the victorious news.
The win? The Economist magazine, historically a supporter
of manmade climate change, phrased it this way: “On April 16th the European
Parliament voted to reject an attempt to bolster Europe’s flagship
environmental programme, the Emissions Trading System (ETS).” The Wall Street
Journal (WSJ), like this: “The European Parliament refused to save the EU's
failing program, which is the true-believer equivalent of the pope renouncing
celibacy.” If the pope did renounce celibacy, it would throw the entire
Catholic church into a tailspin as it would remove a basic tenant of the faith.
Likewise, the April 16 vote, has removed the foundation from the religion of
climate change.
In its coverage, the Financial Times (FT) affirmed my
supposition: “The shale gas revolution in the US, which has lowered energy
prices for the country’s manufacturers, has heightened Europe’s concerns about
industrial competitiveness.”
Regarding the European Commission’s (EC) proposal to
withdraw a large tranche of permits from the market to reissue later, Roger
Helmer, a Member of the European Parliament, whom I met a year ago at the
Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change, posted the
following on his blog: “It would also (though the EC doesn’t mention this) make
energy more expensive; undermine European competitiveness even further; drive
even more businesses and jobs and investments offshore (known in the jargon as
‘carbon leakage’); and force more households and pensioners into fuel poverty.”
Add to this news the “climategate” email leaks that
proved tampering with evidence and a repression of dissenting opinion;
England’s announcement that wind turbines are a “blight,” and the Minister of
State at the Department for Energy and Climate Change (now the Prime Minister’s
Senior Parliamentary Advisor) John Hayes’ comment: “We can no longer have wind
turbines imposed on communities. … It seems extraordinary to have allowed them
to be peppered around the country without due regard for the interests of the
local community and their best wishes;” BP’s near-total retreat from renewable
energy; and Europe’s tree-thefts as a result of high-cost heating bills and
increasing use of wood (often imported from the US and Canada) and coal for
energy production—and you have the environmentalists on the ropes.
And, remember, the EU has been a leader in manmade
climate change mitigation, and in demanding the same from us. The Economist
states: “Over the past few years more than a dozen countries and regions have
followed the EU in establishing or proposing cap-and-trade schemes.” And from
the WSJ: “Aided by Al Gore, Europe tried to turn cap and trade into a global
policy.” (Don’t forget, Europe bestowed a Nobel Peace Prize on Gore for his
scare tactics.) The FT reports: “The repercussions of Tuesday’s vote are
spreading far beyond the EU to other nations with carbon market plans,
including Australia, Korea and China.” And now they’ve realized, from the
Economist: “In a new world of carbon trading, the ETS will not be the scheme
that others copy.”
Why the change in approach? According to the Economist,
Europe’s largest companies, especially energy-intensive ones such as chemical
firms, opposed the reforms. “They complain that the ETS is imposing higher
costs on them and they do not want carbon prices artificially raised.” From the
FT: “Complaints from business groups that the carbon market and other climate
policies are contributing to higher energy prices at a time when they are
already grappling with a weak economy appeared to be decisive in Tuesday’s
vote.” The WSJ offers parallel comments. Regarding the collapse of carbon
prices, it states: “The low price of carbon allowances is good for consumers
who don’t have to absorb the extra regulatory cost in what they pay for
energy.”
Bottom line? It is about low-cost energy. A cap-and-trade
scheme—or a carbon tax—artificially raises the price of energy, at a time when
inflation is nipping at the heels of individuals and industry.
Helmer observed: “For the first time in my recollection,
the European parliament has faced up to reality, and voted for jobs and
economic survival rather than climate alarmism. This is an early indication
that we are starting to make progress in our campaign for rational energy
policies, and for affordable energy.”
Good news, eh? It is up to me—aided by you; it is up to
you—aided by me, to spread this message.
You help me by forwarding my weekly column on to your
friends and family and by talking up this story with your colleagues.
I help you by doing the research and providing you with
the talking points in the form of my weekly column. I give you with the facts
on America’s energy issues—triggered by current news stories. I hope to
motivate and inspire you to keep up the fight when you are tired of waving
signs and, instead, feel like waving a flag of surrender. The EU parliament
story should encourage you. It is a big win! It is a battle, not the war, but a
victory for rational policy and cost-effective energy, nonetheless.
Additionally, my column from the week of March 24, is
especially encouraging, as it addresses 6 specific non-energy news stories from
March 11-20 and three recent energy stories where government overreach was
smacked down.
Remember, the environmentalists are on the ropes; they
feel cornered and are trying to strike back. Last week, the Sierra Club and 20
other environmental groups called for a moratorium on coal leasing in Montana
and Wyoming’s Powder River Basin—from which 40% of America’s coal comes.
Reports say: “They also want more attention given to the climate change impacts
of greenhouse gasses emitted when coal is burned.” Environmental activist and
fading actress, Daryl Hannah’s latest the film, Greedy Lying Bastards, is now
playing. Forbes contributor Larry Bell says this about the disinfomercial: “It
is premised on the notion that Big Oil is pouring lots of carbon-drenched money
into pockets of climate crisis skeptics.” Bell quoted my mentor, Ron Arnold:
“Greedy Lying Bastards producers spent nearly $2 million to complain about
climate skeptic money, in yet another Big Green attack on anyone who disagrees
with the climate fanatic industry which is, itself, a multi-billion-dollar enterprise
that seeks to impose anti-energy policies in the name of preventing climate
change.”
Together, I believe we can impact public opinion and
prevent the USA from going down the same expensive path upon which the EU
embarked. Celebrate this victory—they have been far and few between. Spread the
word!
No comments:
Post a Comment