Polluters? Or Benefactors?

The Times carries this story today:

The E.P.A. Announces a New Rule on Polluters

The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a final rule on Thursday for regulating major emitters of greenhouse gases, like coal-fired power plants, under the Clean Air Act.Starting in July 2011, new sources of at least 100,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year and any existing plants that increase emissions by 75,000 tons will have to seek permits, the agency said.

In the first two years, the E.P.A. expects the rule to affect about 15,550 sources, including coal-fired plants, refineries, cement manufacturers, solid waste landfills and other large polluters, said Gina McCarthy, the agency’s assistant administrator.

…“It’s clear evidence that the E.P.A. is saying, ‘We are no rogue agency,’ ” said Frank O’Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. “They are saying, ‘We’re only going to be looking at the very biggest polluters.’ ”

Well, let’s look at the effects of all this “pollution”. This “pollution” might allow us to feed the world, to eliminate starvation:

Do you get the idea that our government is being run by a bunch of idiots who will stop at nothing to impose their bizarre, harmful  visions of reality?

What if they were successful in getting CO2 levels to drop, which led to the reduction of harvests all over the world? This would cause wars, massive dislocations of populations, etc – basically everything they claim the mythical global warming would cause.  But here’s the interesting thing. The warming is probably caused by natural cycles, not CO2 in the air.

So, they are going to screw up a perfectly good world by trying to save it.

Isn’t that what every liberal solution to every problem always does?

Advertisements

Comments are closed.