Government Intervention in the Energy Markets Is the Main Danger, Not CO2Alan Carlin | March 9, 2017
The rumors concerning the Trump Administration’s climate policies are not all favorable. The Daily Caller says that the Trump Administration will issue an executive order to rescind or revise the Obama Administration’s so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP) next week. I count that as a plus and consistent with Trump’s campaign promises.
But there is also a rumor that the Trump Administration will not rescind the EPA greenhouse gas Endangerment Finding (EF) as part of the Executive Order. If the EF is not rescinded, it is widely believed by legal experts that the climate alarmists can force the Administration to issue a different regulation limiting CO2 emissions through the courts. This new regulation may not be as strong as the CPP, but the alternative of rescinding the EF is a much better route since it would not only more accurately represent the current state of climate science, but would force some future alarmist-inclined Administration to first issue still another new EF justifying CO2 reduction before it could re-rewrite the CO2 emission control regulation. We need as much protection against future government intervention in energy markets as we can get.
And there are increasing signs that the Trump Administration may not end US involvement with the Paris “Treaty” or the UNFCCC, as previously reported. The latter would have the same effect since the UNFCCC is the umbrella under which the “treaty” was concluded, and withdrawal would end most US involvment with the UN on climate. UNFCCC withdrawal would be desirable, but the important thing is to end the US involvement in the Paris “treaty.” Mr. Trump even promised to do this if elected.
Why do I favor taking a stronger stand against climate alarmism? Because the scientific evidence is overwhelming that reducing CO2 emissions will have no measurable effect on global warming, that increased atmospheric CO2 is good, not bad, that moderate increases in global temperatures are good, not bad, and that there is no evidence that catastrophic increases in global temperatures will result if no action is taken. Hence there is no justification for government intervention in the energy markets on the basis of climate policy. The main danger is what government may do to disrupt the energy markets, not what catastrophic effects CO2 emissions might have.