In 2011, your federal government will spend $10.6 million a day on climate change. Annual expenditures will be about $4 billion on global warming research—now called climate change–despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, says the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a British educational think tank.
Billions have been wasted so far, although periods of cooling and warming have occurred naturally throughout history. Fossil fuels—Petroleum, natural gas and coal are the assigned “villains.” Yet, “no conclusive evidence shows that fossil fuels to produce energy have had any significant effect on the earth’s temperature,” GWPF concludes. In December 2010, more than 1,000 international scientists challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
What is inexplicable and inexcusable is the amount of our nation’s money that has been spent on climate change since that UN Panel, composed mainly of research-money-seeking scientists, invented global warming. Al Gore helped dramatize it with dire warnings that terrorized school children, to his mega-million-dollar benefit. Even more confounding is that added U.S. dollars will be poured into continuing research in 2011.
The EPA is doing its part to continue the myth of worldwide disaster. On Jan. 21, the EPA announced it was awarding $25 million to the Health Effects Institute to help the agency study air pollution and climate change. The $25 million is pocket change by Washington standards. It just happens to be the most recent agency outlay. It plans to spend $169 million this whole fiscal year on climate change. But the destructive consequences of the EPA’s actions are its regulations involving greenhouse gases (GHGs) because its rules are many and widespread. They involve everything from power plants to electric generating units and petroleum refineries, to natural gas, oil and coal-fired electric generating units and refineries. Climate change, brought about by greenhouse gases, seems to continue to intrigue our government—from President Obama on down.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reports on federal spending on research, including budgets for 2011 and how these figures compare with previous years. It shows the stunning fact that all agencies that conduct climate change research expect to have bigger budgets for 2011. AAAS Chapter 15 of its recent report deals specifically with climate change.
At a time when we bear the burden of a $14 trillion debt, and both the Congress and the administration talk of spending restrains, the AAAS reports 13 executive branch departments and agencies will “increase climate research 21 percent to $2.6 billion.”
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requests $2.2 billion, an increase of 58 percent to restore climate sensors, advance sea height monitoring, and fund a polar satellite system. NASA wants a 27 percent increase, partly to initiate a new climate related mission and re-launch the Orbiting Carbon Observatory to monitor carbon sources throughout the world. Satellites are important for other purposes, but climate warming research is a stretch.
The Energy Department asks for increased funding for renewable energy (up 37 percent) and energy efficiency. And it wants to “eliminate $2.7 billion in subsidies to high emitting industries.” Its total budget would be $2.4 billion for energy R&D spending. The Interior Department would increase its money for its Climate Change Adaptation initiative (up 26 percent) and renewable energy programs (up 24 percent). Interior wants to “identify areas and species most vulnerable to climate change and implement coping strategies.” The Agriculture Department money for climate change would be up 42 percent to $159 million. Funny to think that CO2 actually helps crops grow.
The AAAS maintains that past scientific research demonstrates that the earth’s climate is changing, that humans are likely responsible for most of the “increase in global average surface temperatures over the last half century, and that further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide, from burning fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate disruption.” But EPA’s researchers have found that the tough new rules it plans to impose on industry gas emissions would reduce the global temperature by only 0.006 to 0.0015 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, CNSNews.com reported in October. Hardly a cause for panic about global warming.
Still, even the respected National Science Foundation is looking for $10 million for climate change education for the “understanding of climate among the next generation of Americans.” One hopes the truth will be told.
Nobody wants dirty air. In October of 1948, a cloud of air pollution hung over the industrial town of Donora, PA, for five days. Some 6,000 people got sick. Illness was attributed to the pollution. Apparently, there was not enough worry for the next 16 years to create any need for legislating that our air had to be clean. Then, the original Clean Air Act was passed. It provided funding for the study and clean up of air pollution. But it was not comprehensive enough for the politicians. So, a much stronger Clean Air Act of 1970 became the law of the land.
In 1990, Congress dramatically revised and expanded the Clean Air Act, providing the EPA with much broader authority to implement and enforce regulations reducing air pollutant emissions. You would think after 48 years of study, the EPA would have found out all there is to know about air pollution and so-called global warming, or climate change if you prefer. But, no. The agency was given more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2010 to try to make the air cleaner.
the EPA is 40 years old this year and is feeling its oats. Under the Clean Air Act, it has the power to do what the Congress couldn’t do with the cap-and-trade bill and what Americans don’t want done. It is moving ahead with regulations that will destroy jobs and make everything more expensive. But the new Republican majority in the House is determined to have intensive oversight of EPA’s regulations. This may save the day for Americans.