Posted on 07/28/2014 9:20:47 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
I don’t think Gina McCarthy had thought this through. McCarthy to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee:
“And the great thing about this proposal is it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control. It’s about increased efficiency at our plants…It’s about investments in renewables and clean energy. It’s about investments in people’s ability to lower their electricity bills by getting good, clean, efficient appliances, homes, rental units,”
“This is an investment strategy that will really not just reduce carbon pollution but will position the United States to continue to grow economically in every state, based on their own design,” McCarthy added.
She is discussing something called the Clean Power Plan. Mark this day. She goes on to find the perpetual motion machine of economics:
Sir, what I know about this rule is that I know it will leave the United States in 2030 with a more efficient and cleaner energy supply system — and more jobs in clean energy, which are the jobs of the future,” McCarthy responded.
The EPA doesn’t just have a landline to God. They are God. They can use less energy to generate more wealth, more employment, and global peace.
But she said she doesn’t expect any adverse impact from this rule — “other than to have jobs grow, the economy to grow, the U.S. to become more stable, the U.S. to take advantage of new technology, innovation and investments that will make us stronger over time.”
Asked to explain what consumers can expect from the new rule, McCarthy said EPA expects people to see lower energy bills “because we’re getting waste out of the system.” In other words, if electricity costs more, people will use less of it.
The whole supply-demand idea of economics is obviously wrong. By making electricity cost more and shifting people off electricity to other forms of energy, demand will fall for electricity. OK. At the same time increasing demand for other energy will make that cheaper instead of more expensive. Somehow technological advance only works on EPA approved topics.
We should have done this years ago. If we had stopped using coal, oil and gas in 1970, we could have been so rich now.
h/t to Roy Spencer who was right to pick up her congressional comments.
lol
iT IS ABOUT CONTROL.
Liberal fools are not guided by any principles of enduring truth. They lie, parse, twist, distort, dodge, weave and bob... Deceiving whomever, whenever, all to achieve whatever veiled aim they covet at the moment. Worse than pathetic: simply evil.
Does it start with "Once upon a time..."?
Far far away in a land full of faeries...
One lowers one’s power bill by using less power— NOT by buying “efficient” appliances that shift the COST to the appliance so that more power can be sold to others. This is why the model of power companies is so skewed— communal sacrifice to “save” for noone except the power utility. How about more efficient generation of power and power transmission?
Is an electric water heater really “efficient”? Think not.
Always a puzzle why an electric water heater is not a “microwave” unit with a “stirrer”, instead of an immersed
heating element that corrodes and falls apart.
Yep. Those of us paying attention knew this from day one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.