“Making America great again” requires deep-sixing punitive energy and environmental rules by Paul Driessen

Now comes the hard, fun and vital part

The American people have roundly rejected a third Obama term and legacy of deplorable policies that
were too often imposed via executive edicts, with minimal attempts to work with Congress or the states.

This election shows that hard-working Americans do not want their country and its constitutional, energy
and economic systems “fundamentally transformed.” They want America to be great and exceptional
again. They want all people to live under the same laws and have the same opportunities, rights and
responsibilities for making their lives, families, communities and nation better than they found them.

We the People also made it clear that we have had a bellyful of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats,
media moguls and intellectual elites dictating what we can read, think and say, how we may worship,
what insurance and doctors can have, what rules, jobs and living standards we must live with.

With the elections over, the truly difficult tasks lie before us. Filling Supreme Court vacancies with jurists
who believe in our Constitution, repealing and replacing ObamaCare, reforming the politicized IRS, DOJ
and FBI, immigration issues, and fixing the VA and incomprehensible tax code are all high on every list.

However, abundant, reliable, affordable energy remains the foundation of modern civilization, jobs,
health and prosperity. So these suggestions for President Trump’s first years focus on critical tasks that
can be accomplished by his Executive Branch alone or in conjunction with Congress and the states.

As you read them, thousands of politicians, regulators, scientists and activists are gathered for yet another
“climate conference,” this time in Marrakech, Morocco. They are shocked and despondent over the
election results, and worried that the Trump Administration won’t support their agenda. They’re right.

Under the guise of preventing “dangerous manmade climate change” and compensating poor countries for
alleged “losses and damages” due to climate and weather caused by rich country fossil fuel use, they had
planned to control the world’s energy supplies and living standards, replace capitalism with a new UN-
centered global economic order, and redistribute wealth from those who create it to those who want it.

So:Job One) Let the assembled delegates and world know America has a president – and a Congress – not a
king. Suspend and defund any initiatives and orders issued under the Paris climate treaty, and send it to
the Senate for Advice and Consent (and assured rejection) under Article II of the Constitution. Its impacts
are so onerous and far-reaching that it is clearly a “treaty” within the meaning of our founding document,
even if President Obama prefers to call it a “nonbinding agreement” to avoid Senate review.

2) Review the assertions, models, “homogenized” data, science and research behind the multitude of
climate and renewable energy mandates – to see if they reflect Real World empirical evidence. Many,
most or all will be found to be biased, wildly exaggerated, faulty, falsified or fraudulent.
The recent listing of polar bears as “endangered” was based on junk science and
GIGO computer models that claim manmade global warming will send the bears’ record population numbers into oblivion.

EPA’s Clean Power Plan assumes shutting down US coal-fired power plants will stop climate change, even if
China, India and other countries build thousands of new coal-fueled generators over the next 20 years.

The all-encompassing “social cost of carbon” scheme attributes every imaginable harm to carbon dioxide
emissions from fossil fuels. It ignores the incredible benefits of carbon-based energy, and dismisses the
horrendous impacts that abandoning these fuels would have on human health and welfare.

Every one of these EPA, Interior and other regulatory diktats assumes that CO2 has suddenly replaced the
powerful natural forces that have driven climate fluctuations throughout Earth’s history – and ignores this
miracle molecule’s role in making crops, forests and grasslands grow faster and better, with less water.

As reviews are completed, agenda-driven rules and executive orders should be suspended, rescinded and defunded,
so that they are no longer part of the $1.9 trillion regulatory dragon job and economic growth.

Grants for biased research can be terminated, agency personnel assigned to climate programs can be
reassigned, and those found falsifying data or engaging in other corrupt practices should be punished.

3) A recent White House report lists $21.4 billion in annual spending on climate research and renewable
energy programs. That’s in addition to EPA and other federal agency regulatory budgets – and on top of
the burdensome impacts the programs have had on families, businesses, jobs and our future.

Terminating biased, needless or punitive programs would go a long way toward balancing the budget and
getting our nation back on track. Ending crony corporatist deal-making, power grabbing and enrichment
schemes would ensure that The Billionaire’s Cluband its government and industry allies no longer have
access to taxpayer billions, no longer have a stranglehold on our energy and economy, and no longer get
still richer on the backs of American workers, taxpayers and consumers.

4) Revise Endangered Species Act provisions and regulations to require that any listings, permit denials
or penalties reflect honest empirical science – not computer models or baseless assertions. Exemptions for
bird and bat-killing wind turbines must no longer be permitted, and ESA rules must be applied with equal
force to all projects, not just drilling, mining, pipelines, power plants, grazing and timber cutting.

5) Approve the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines; end the obstructionism and finish the projects.
Standing Rock Sioux Indians had multiple opportunities to participate in the review process, but refused
to do so. Now they and Soros-supported radicals are preventing work, destroying expensive equipment,
butchering ranchers’ cattle and bison, and harassing local families. This can no longer be tolerated.

6) Prohibit and terminate sue-and-settle lawsuits, under which activists and regulators collude to secure a
sympathetic judge’s order implementing regulations that they all want. (Or initiate a series of sue-and-
settle actions by energy and manufacturing interests against Trump agencies – and then stop the practice!)

7) Reform the 1906 Antiquities Act. Intended to protect small areas of historic or scenic value, it has been
abused too often to place millions of acres off limits to energy development and other economic uses, by
presidential edict. Losing Senate candidate Katie McGinty engineered a massive land lock-up in Utah that
double-crossed the state’s governor and congressional delegation, and even President Clinton.

Congress must more clearly define its purposes, limit the acreage that can be designated by presidential
decree, and provide for congressional review and approval of all decisions.

8) Reform the Environmental Protection Agency, and devolve many of its powers and responsibilities
back to the states, under a consortium representing all 50 state EPAs. We have won the major pollution
battles that EPA was created to address. Now we must devote appropriate funding and personnel to real
remaining environmental problems – and shrink or terminate Obama-era agenda-driven programs.

Recent EPA actions on climate, air quality, human experiments, the Clean Power Plan, the war on coal,
and “waters of the United States” were used to expand its budget, personnel, and powers over the nation’s
environment, energy and economy. EPA needs a shorter leash, less money and a smaller staff.

9) Shrink the renewable energy programs, and jumpstart onshore and offshore leasing, drilling, fracking
and mining on federally managed lands. America can again produce the fossil fuel blessings that lifted
billions out of poverty, disease and early death – and created jobs, prosperity, health, living standards and
life spans unimaginable barely a century ago. We should also encourage other nations to do likewise.

10) If President Obama finishes his term with a tsunami of regulations and executive orders, it should be
met with similar suspend, defund and rescind reactions. Mr. Obama, congressional Democrats and their
riot-prone base should understand that programs and rules imposed with the stroke of a pen, and without
the support of Congress and the American people, can and should also be undone with the stroke of a pen.
Without these difficult but necessary and exciting steps, it will be very hard to make America great again.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (w),
and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on the environment. ww.CFACT.org

Confusion, muddle, obfuscation and racism by Paul Driessen

As Obama, UN and EPA seek to dictate our lives and livelihoods, the real issue is green racism

Winston Churchill called Russia a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. We could say Obama’s
energy and climate policy is confusion wrapped in muddled thinking inside obfuscation – and driven by
autocratic diktats that bring job-killing, economy-strangling, racist and deadly outcomes.
President Obama was recently in China, where his vainglorious arrival turned into
an inglorious snub.

when he had to use Air Force 1’s rear exit. He was there mostly to join Chinese President Xi Jinping and
UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon, to formally sign the Paris climate treaty that Mr. Obama insists is not a treaty
(and thus does not require Senate “advice and consent” under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution)
because it is not binding – yet.

However, once it has been “signed and delivered” by 55 nations representing 55% of global greenhouse
gas emissions, it will be hailed as binding. China and the US alone represent 38% of total emissions, so
adding a few more big nations (Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Japan and Germany, eg) would reach
the emission threshold. Adding a bunch of countries that merely want their “fair share” of the billions of
dollars in annual climate “adaptation, mitigation and reparation” cash would hit the country minimum.
Few if any developing nations will reduce their oil, natural gas or coal use anytime soon.

That would be economic and political suicide. In fact, China and India plan to build some 1,600 new coal-fired power
plants by 2030, Japan 43, Turkey 80, Poland a dozen, and the list goes on and on, around the globe.
Meanwhile, the United States is shutting down its coal-fueled units. Under Obama’s treaty, the USA will
be required to go even further, slashing its carbon dioxide emissions by 28% below 2005 levels by 2025.

That will unleash energy, economic and environmental impacts far beyond what the Administration’s
endless, baseless climate decrees are already imposing.

Federal agencies constantly harp on wildly exaggerated and fabricated “social costs of carbon” – but
completely and deliberately ignore the incredible benefitsof carbon-based energy.

The battle is now shifting to natural gas – methane. Hillary Clinton and Democrats promise to regulate
drilling and fracking into oblivion on federal lands. California regulators are targeting cow flatulence!

EPA continues to expand ethanol requirements, even though this fuel additive reduces mileage, damages
small engines, uses acreage equivalent to Iowa, requires enormous amounts of water, fertilizer, pesticides,
gasoline, methane and diesel fuel – and releases more carbon dioxideinto the atmosphere than it removes.

Wind turbines, photovoltaic solar arrays and their interminable transmission lines already blanket millions
of acres of farmland and wildlife habitats. They kill millions of birds and bats (but are exempt from
endangered species laws), to provide expensive, subsidized, unreliable electricity.

Expanding wind, solar and biofuel programs to reach the 28% CO2 reduction target would increase these impacts exponentially.

But all this is necessary, we’re told, to prevent climate cataclysms, like an Arctic meltdown.

“Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone,” the Washington Post reported. Icebergs are becoming
scarcer, in some places seals are finding the water too hot, and within a few years rising seas “will make
most coastal cities uninhabitable.” The situation could hardly be more dire. Oh, wait. My mistake.

That was in November 1922
! Recent warming and cooling episodes are not so unprecedented, after all.
However, all this climate confusion , obfuscation, fabrication and prevarication are merely prelude, a
sideshow.

The real issues here are eco-imperialism, racism and racially disparate impacts.
Not the kind of racism the Washington Post alludes to by putting a front-page story about Donald Trump
going to a black church in Detroit next to a piece about a black soldier being horrifically lynched at Fort
​Benning, Georgia in 1941. Nor absurd claims by Detroit Free Press writer Stephen Henderson that Trump
is racist for daring to go to that church to “boost his stock among white middle-class voters,” when he has
“no interest” in addressing inner city problems.

This racism is the sneaky, subtle, green variety: of government policies that inflict their worst impacts on
the poorest among us, huge numbers of them minorities – while insisting that the gravest risks those
families face are from climate change or barely detectable pollutants in their air and water.

In the Real World, soaring energy prices mean poor families cannot afford adequate heating and air
conditioning, cannot save or afford proper nutrition, and must rely on schools, hospitals and businesses
whose energy costs are also climbing – bringing higher prices, reduced services and lost jobs.

Workers who are laid off, dumped on welfare rolls or forced to take multiple lower-paying part-time jobs
face greater stress and depression, reduced nutrition, sleep deprivation, greater alcohol, drug, spousal and
child abuse, and higher suicide, stroke, heart attack and cancer rates. That means every life supposedly
saved by anti-fossil fuel policies is offset by real lives lost due to government actions.

Unemployment among minorities, especially black teens, is already far higher than for the population at
large. Crime and other inner city problems are far worse than elsewhere. Policies that further cripple
economic growth, job creation and revenue generation will make their situation infinitely worse.

Of course, legislators, regulators, lobbyists, eco-activists, crony capitalists, judges and celebrities are
rarely affected. Their communities are far from those that bear the brunt of their edicts, so they’re
shielded from most impacts of policies they impose. They know what is happening, but are almost never
held accountable for actions that are racist in their outcomes, if not in their supposed “good intentions.”
To them, a planet free from inflated, hypothetical dangers from modern technologies is more important
than lives improved or saved by those technologies.

In Earth’s poorest countries, the outcomes are lethal on a daily basis. There, billions live on a few dollars a day, rarely or never have electricity, and are wracked by joblessness, malnutrition, disease and despair. Millions die every year from malaria, lung infections, malnutrition, severe diarrhea, and countless other diseases of poverty and
eco-imperialism.

And yet, President Obama, the UN, its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and myriad
environmental pressure groups tell impoverished dark-skinned people they should rely on “clean energy
strategies” to improve their lives, but not “too much,” since anything more would not be “sustainable.”
“If everybody has got a car and air conditioning and a big house,” Mr. Obama told South Africans, “the
planet will boil over.” He can jet, live and golf all over the planet, but they must limit their aspirations.

Thus his Overseas Private Investment Corporation refused to support a gas-fired power plant in Ghana,
and the United States “abstained” from supporting a World Bank loan for South Africa’s state-of-the-art
Medupi coal-fired power plant.

Meanwhile, radical environmentalist campaigns limit the ability of African and other nations to use DDT and insecticides to control malaria, dengue fever and Zika – or GMO seeds and even hybrid seeds and modern fertilizers to improve crop yields and nutrition.

No wonder Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte said his country will not ratify the Paris climate treaty.
“Now that we’re developing, you will impose a limit? That’s absurd,” he snorted. He’s absolutely right.

These anti-technology campaigns are akin to denying chemotherapy to cancer patients. They result in
racist eco-manslaughter and must no longer be tolerated – no matter how “caring” and “well-intended”
supposed “climate cataclysm prevention” policies might be.

If we’re going to discuss race, racism, disparate impacts, black and all lives mattering, and protecting
people and planet from manmade risks, let’s make sure all these topics become part of that discussion.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)
and author of
Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death
and other books on the environment.

The science deniers’ greatest hits by Bill Frezza

Science is a process, not a destination, and must not be immune to falsification by experiment“And yet, it moves.”

Thus muttered Galileo Galilei under his breath, after being forced by the Inquisition to recant his claim
that the Earth moved around the Sun, rather than the other way round. The public vindication of Copernican heliocentrism would have to wait another day.

Today, Galileo’s story is a well-known illustration of the dangers of both unchecked power and declaring
scientific matters “settled.” Yet, throughout history, Galileo wasn’t alone.

Scientists once knew that light moved through space via the luminiferous aether – how else could its
waves travel?

In 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley proved that it wasn’t so, thanks to a “failed”
experiment that was actually designed to conclusively demonstrate the existence of this invisible medium.
Poor Michelson suffered a nervous breakdown when faced with such unexpected results.

In 1931 a book published in Germany, One Hundred Authors against Einstein, defended the “settled
science” of Newtonian physics and proclaimed that Einstein’s theory of relativity was a fraud. Einstein
was reported to have replied, “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

On these pages I recently recounted the story of the early twentieth century belief in Eugenics, a
“science” widely adopted by governments around the world as a basis for social policy – with horrifying
results.

Australian physicians Barry Marshall and Robin Warrens were ridiculed when they hypothesized that
ulcers were caused by microbes, which “every scientist knew” couldn’t survive in stomach acid. Doctors
were sure that peptic ulcers were caused by stress and spicy foods. In frustration, Marshall drank a Petri
dish full of cultured H. pylori, proving the “settled science” wrong.

Hopefully, the Nobel Prize he and Warrens received compensated for the illness that resulted.
And remember the government’s dietary guidelines, including the warnings against salt and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Food Pyramid urging Americans to eat more carbs and fewer fats? That
didn’t work out so well, did it?

We all grew up knowing that life began in the “primordial soup” of the seas, sparked by lightning. A
recent paper in Nature casts doubt on that theory, producing evidence that life may have begun in
hydrothermal vents in the ocean floor. The jury is still out on this one. And that’s the point.

It’s worth keeping the above examples in mind, when someone proclaims that surely we are much smarter
today than we were in the past. That we can finally put our faith in scientific certainty, especially when
journalists and politicians and subsidized scientists tell us that 97 percent of scientists agree on
something. That once consensus is reached among experts, it’s important to stop listening to criticism.

If you have any doubts, just Google up the phrase “Science Says,” and view the parade of claims that
carry that new and improved Good Housekeeping Seal of Infallibility.

Yes, reactionaries on the payroll of nefarious forces insist on reminding us that science is a process, not a
destination. What difference does it make if a hypothesis has been artfully constructed to render itself
immune to falsification by experiment?


Who cares if computer simulations enshrined at the heart of public policy have never made a correct
forecast? How dare anyone imply that billions of dollars in government grant funding create perverse
incentives for researchers to support the party line?

The important thing is that “settled science” can be used to spur the public to act.

And exactly what has the “settled science” of cataclysmic anthropogenic global warming convinced us to
do?

One thing above all: Deliver unprecedented power to politicians, activists and bureaucrats.
Power to commandeer entire industries. Power to pump billions of taxpayer dollars into half-baked
schemes cooked up by crony corporatists. Power to redistribute income on a global scale.
And to maintain this power, when cracks begin to show in the narrative, power to
criminalize dissent, much as the Inquisition did to Galileo.

Real science is characterized by healthy skepticism, relentless questioning, and a constant testing and re-
testing of theories, systems and models. Casting dogma in stone – and then stoning non-believers – is a
hallmark of intolerant religion, not science.

And when we finally wake up from our global warming-inspired public hysteria, our progeny will pat
themselves on the back for being so much more advanced than we were. Before, alas, the cycle repeats
again.

Bill Frezza is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the host of the
Real Clear Radio Hour.

Lies, Damned Lies, And The EPA’s ‘Clean Power Plan’

Environment: President Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” is on pause, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling in March after more than two dozen states filed suit to stop it. A new report shows why the plan should be scrapped entirely, and the EPA sued for fraud.

By its own admission, the EPA says Clean Power Plan is one of the most sweeping regulations ever enacted. It would require electric companies to cut CO2 emissions 32% within 25 years — basically by shuttering coal plants and force feeding “renewable energy.”

In pushing the Clean Power Plan, the EPA claimed it would cost industry $9 billion a year, but produce up to $54 billion in annual health benefits, including “avoiding 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children.”

Who could complain about that?

Turns out, the benefits of the Clean Power Plan will be closer to $0, while the costs would be far higher than the EPA claims.

That’s the conclusion in an in-depth report by the Manhattan Institute’s Jonathan Lesser.

Put simply, Lesser says the EPA’s benefit calculations are based on faulty assumptions and statistical legerdemain. He notes, for example, that since the Clean Power Plan will have an infinitesimal impact on global CO2 levels, it can’t have a $20 billion impact on health.

The EPA also claims $34 billion in side benefits because the rules will reduce other pollutants. But Lesser notes that the EPA has been double counting this co-benefits, using them to justify other costly rules, and that there’s likely to be zero improvement in health, given how clean the air is already.

EPA regulations to cut mercury emissions, for example, relied almost entirely on these supposed co-benefits to justify the $9.6 billion price tag. The direct health benefits from the reduction in mercury was negligible.

While the EPA wildly exaggerated the health benefits of the Clean Power Plan, it also made assumptions guaranteed to minimize the actual cost of the rule, Lesser found.

This isn’t the first time the EPA has been charged with fudging the numbers and relying on faulty science to justify massively expensive regulation.

The EPA has long claimed, for example, that cutting smog pollution will sharply reduce asthma attacks, as it is doing with the Clean Power Plan.

But the data show the opposite. As smog levels have plunged across the country, asthma levels have climbed.

The EPA also assumes in all its regulations that there is no safe level for any pollutant, a claim that defies science and common sense. At some point, there’s nothing to gain from squeezing another molecule of pollution out of the air.

Even those who take global warming seriously should insist that the EPA come clean about the real costs and dubious benefits of its regulations.

Source: IBD Editorials

EPA adds methane to its job-killing rules by Paul Driessen

Having already done yeoman’s work stifling economic growth and job creation, President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is doubling down again.

The United States created a paltry 38,000 new jobs in May: one for every 8,000 Americans. Its labor force participation rate is a miserable 63% – meaning 93 million Americans are not working, while 6.4 million more are trying to feed their families on involuntary part-time positions and a fraction of their previous salaries. Manufacturing lost another 20,000 jobs in May, as the economy grew at an almost stagnant 0.8% the first quarter of 2016. Middle class family incomes and net worth continue to slide.

Meanwhile, well-paid federal bureaucrats increasingly regulate our lives, livelihoods and living standards, hand down fines and jail terms for some 5,000 federal crimes and 300,000 criminal offenses, and inflict $1.9 trillion in annual regulatory compliance costs on families and businesses.

EPA’s war on coal has already cost thousands of jobs in mines, power plants and dependent businesses. Low oil prices amid a tepid, over-regulated, climate-fixated, crony-corporatist American, European and international economy have already killed thousands of US oil patch jobs.

On June 3 EPA issued more rules: methane emission standards for new and modified oil and natural gas drilling, fracking, pipeline and other operations. Under steady environmentalist pressure, it may be only a matter of time before the agency covers existing operations – and maybe even livestock, rice growing, landfills, sewage treatment plants and other methane-emitting activities.

The agency justifies these new job-killing rules by citing something it calls the “social cost of methane,” which is patterned after its equally arbitrary, speculative, infinitely malleable “social cost of carbon.” (Carbon, of course, actually means carbon dioxide – the miracle molecule that enables plant growth and makes all life on Earth possible.) Both the SCM and SCC are needed, EPA insists, to prevent dangerous manmade global warming and climate change, which it claims are driven by these two trace gases.

EPA’s methane claims are absurd. Methane emissions from US hydraulic fracturing operations have plummeted 79% and from the overall US natural gas sector by 11% since 2005.

Moreover, methane is a tiny 0.00017% of the atmosphere, the equivalent of $1.70 out of $1 million. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 17% of that is from energy production and use; 26% comes from agriculture, landfills and sewage; and the remaining 57% is from natural sources. (Carbon dioxide, the other climate bogeyman, is 0.04% of the atmosphere – 400 ppm.)

The United States accounts for a mere 9% of the world’s total manmade methane – and just 29% of that is from oil and gas operations that provide 63% of all the energy that powers America. That means US oil and gas account for less than 3% of global manmade methane emissions – and thus just 0.000004% of all the methane in Earth’s atmosphere. That’s equivalent to 4 cents out of $1 million!

EPA insists that this undetectable amount will cause a global climate EPA Building Plaquecatastrophe, and forcing the oil industry to spend billions of dollars to reduce its already minimal methane emissions will bring billions in health and environmental benefits via climate change prevention. It says methane is 23 (or 28 or 35) times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and the USA must lead the way. What nonsense.

The atmosphere contains 235 times more carbon dioxide than methane – so this “ultra-potent” greenhouse gas will have only 10-15% of CO2’s supposed global warming power. The US petroleum industry’s contribution is utterly meaningless, especially compared to the solar, oceanic, cosmic and other powerful natural forces that have driven climate change throughout Earth and human history.

Of course, EPA’s shenanigans don’t end there.

The agency’s “social cost of methane” calculations rely on arbitrary 2.5, 3 and 5 percent “discount rates” that supposedly quantify the present value of future regulatory benefits, derived from preventing climate chaos 20, 50 or 100 years from now. The rates yield miraculous compounded benefits up to $1,700 per ton of methane emissions prevented by 2020 to $3,300 per ton by 2050. They could bring up to $550 million in alleged health benefits by 2025 – for “only” $330 million in oil industry costs.

But if EPA had used the 7% discount rate required under Office of Management and Budget guidelines, the supposed benefits would plummet to only $259 per ton by 2020. Naturally, EPA didn’t use that rate.

Even more dishonest, as it did for its “social cost of carbon,” EPA’s analysis incorporates virtually every conceivable “cost” of methane emissions and thus alleged “dangerous climate change” – to agriculture, forestry, water resources, “forced migration” of people and wildlife, human health and disease, rising sea levels, flooded coastal cities, ecosystems and wetlands harmed by too much or too little rain, et cetera.

But it completely ignores every obvious and enormous benefit of using oil and natural gas: generating reliable, affordable electricity for lights, heat, air conditioning, computers, electric vehicles and countless other applications; manufacturing fertilizers, plastics, paints and pharmaceuticals; and even reducing CO2 emissions by replacing coal in electricity generation. EPA also ignores the real, obvious and enormous health impairment from millions more people rendered unemployed, poor and unable to heat their homes.

That is the critical point. But almost as important, the alleged, exaggerated, computer-conjured and illusory benefits from these SCM regulations accrue to the world as a whole – while the very real costs are incurred solely by American companies, consumers and taxpayers. EPA doesn’t mention that.

And to top it off, the mandated reductions in US methane emissions will be imperceptible amid the world’s enormous and rapidly increasing oil, natural gas and coal production and use. In fact, 59 nations are already planning to build more than 1,200 new coal-fired power plants – on top of what they and developed nations are already building.

China, India, Russia and Europe together emit more than five times the methane that the USA does, and the world just set new oil and natural gas consumption records. In fact, the net increase in petroleum consumption was 2.6 times the overall increase in renewable energy use.

Indeed, fossil fuels now account for 79% of total global energy consumption – compared to 0.7% for wind and solar energy combined. The much-touted figure of 19% global renewable energy cleverly hides the fact that 68% of that consumption total is wood, animal dung and hydroelectric energy. Even more astounding, wood and dung account for 13 times more energy worldwide than wind and solar combined!

India has said it will not ratify the Paris treaty anytime soon, and will continue using fossil fuels to bring electricity to people and businesses and improve living standards. Meanwhile, renewable energy spending fell 46% in Germany and 21% overall in Europe in 2015 from the previous year.

EPA’s SCC and SCM scam underscores the religious dogma that drives the Obama Administration’s climate change agenda and ideological determination to end hydrocarbon use in America. Perhaps worse, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has bragged about putting still more coal miners out of work. She has also said she would ban drilling on all onshore and offshore public lands, and regulate fracking into oblivion on state and private lands. Senator Bernie Sanders will almost assuredly push her and the Democratic Party even further to the Left on energy policies.

These policies would put even more Americans out of work, landing them on welfare rolls and forcing them to depend on unsustainable government handouts that rely on taking more money from an ever-shrinking workforce. Americans would have to get used to the idea of having lights, AC and computers when increasingly expensive electricity is available – instead of when we need it. What a depressing future that would be for our children and grandchildren.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CFACT and author of Cracking Big Green and Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.