Posted on 08/31/2019 2:14:40 AM PDT by House Atreides
Forcing America to install literally millions of wind turbines and tens of millions of solar panels, and plant tens of millions more acres in biofuel crops, would devastate wildlife habitats and countless species, while driving up electricity prices for families, factories, farms, businesses, schools and hospitals. The wind and sunlight may be free, clean and green. But the massive technologies required to harness those forces for human benefit certainly are not.
If Trump Administration advisors thought they could appease their opponents by implementing a rule focused on the useless and ultimately dangerous goal of limiting CO2 emissions, they were sorely mistaken. But as long as they did not contest the scientifically flawed idea that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant that must be controlled, they really had no choice but to replace the even worse Obama era rule with some form of CO2 reduction regulation.
Dr. Sterling Burnett, Senior Fellow of the Arlington Heights, IL-based Heartland Institute, explained recently on the internet “Think Radio” program Exploratory Journeys: The ACE rule was effectively “forced on the Trump administration because they didn’t, at the same time [they drafted the rule], say we are going to re-examine the Endangerment Finding” [EF] – the EPA’s 2009 finding that CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” (GHG) somehow endanger the health and welfare of Americans.
“As long as the Endangerment Finding exists,” said Burnett, “any administration, no matter how skeptical of the claims that humans are causing catastrophic climate change, … the courts will order them to come up with plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. So, it's time to go back and examine that finding.”
(Excerpt) Read more at heartland.org ...
Weak, politics-infused thinking by minor potentate policymakers, amounting to tyranny by bureaucracy, is almost as bad for Amricans as the plague of poor pastors American Catholics have been allowed to endure by an angry God.
I’m surprised that the EPA doesn’t find H2O to be a greater endangerment than CO2.
L8r
Too bad Trump allowed the Political Left to destroy former EPA Director Scott Pruitt.
There is no one at EPA now who has the passion and the intelligence to anticipate legal problems like the CO2 Endangerment Finding.
bkmk
In prehistoric times CO2 was times of what it is now and life flourished.
Hard to share this article with a big error in the sub headline at the site. Simply, should be simple.
Hydrogen dioxide. They use it in pesticides.
Take out their funding with our tax $’s at all levels for the rest of President Trump’s present term and his new term after his relection.
There’s enough good information out there about the uselessness of trying to provide our nation’s energy needs with wind & solar that there ought not to be any controversy on it at all.
Dihydrogen Oxide H2O
Thank you, my bad. In before coffee. 5
Thanks House Atreides.
Forgive me for injecting terms I’m sure you know well, but they will help me understand your perspective better down the line.
Quantitative easing is the Fed clicking vast amounts of U.S. dollars into existence and immediately using that money to purchase debt on the open market (i.e., the “secondary market”). In 2008 and during the years that followed, the Fed embarked upon an astonishing campaign of being the buyer of last resort, employing the nakedly manipulative tool of Quantitative Easing to purchase objectively crappy and risky (that is, until the moment the Fed stepped in to prop up prices and thereby artificially stabilize this niche market) agency debt that among other distinguishing characteristics was NOT backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government (as U.S. Treasury bonds of 2-, 3-, 5-, 7-, 10-, 15-, and 30-year maturites all are).
Thus we were presented with a garish display of buying power on the part of a specially-empowered private bank which, when used, “expands the balance sheet” of that entity. What could be a less fear-inducing and more soporific event to the unwashed masses, a bigger euphemism, that the Fed saying: “Oh, don’t mind us, we’re just expanding our balance sheet over here...”.
The Fed could go on to say:”Can’t you see now? There’s nothing to worry your pretty little heads over. Be good little children and go use the brand spanking new new U.S dollars we just infused into the ailing secondary debt market to buy an equivalent number of units of a debt asset that is marginally higher on the total-crap-to-gold-standard scale of quality, over and over and over again, until the prices of the entire spectrum of debt asset classes are propped up to our liking.”
Quantitative tightening, by comparison, is the whole process in reverse. It’s the Fed receiving back, in cold hard cash, at the expiry of a bond, the principal or nominal amount on the face of thst bond (e.g., $10,000), and instead of instantaneously going out and purchasing an unexpired bond in the same amount on the secondary market, unclicking that $10,000 sum back out of existence, thus completing the life-cycle of that particular $10,000 sum. In other words: “Don’t worry your big red head, Orange Man Bad, we’re just contracting our balance sheet back to the size it was before. We’re seriously not trying to torpedo the magnificent economic growth you’ve been working so hard to facilitate!”
As I see it, the latter is an example of raising rates by sopping up excess liquidity.
Now as I imagine it, the Treasury beginning to gradually issue new gold standard 50- and 100-year maturity bonds in the primary market as various and sundry units of 2-, 3-, 5-, 10-, 15- and 30-year T-bills come to the end of their terms and expire/mature, no quantitative easing or tightening is taking place. The overall size of the debt market stays the same. It’s just that the average length of T-bill terms inches higher over time, and the U.S. government does itself a solid favor by locking in marginally lower and lower interest rates over time as the huge number of units of principal previously locked up in higher-interest-rate short term debt (thank you Obama) gradually migrates over to lower-interest-rate long term debt.
As I see this latter process, undertaken over time by the Treasury Secretary, it is NOT an example of raising rates by sopping up excess liquidity. Am I correct?
Aaaah crud. I clicked on the wrong thread again. Rookie mistake.
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.