I wonder if they are going to mention the years that she has spent not responding to document and other requests from Senators and Congressmen. Or the data that she promised to provide (but did not) on the utility MACT or CSAPR. Or her role in the creation of RGGI. Or her involvement in NESCAUM and the low carbon fuel standard. I bet not. But the quote from Jeff Holmstead is awesome all by itself. Standwithgina.com (3/13) reports: “‘[McCarthy] is willing to sit down and listen and understand the issues people have with EPA’s regulations.’ Jeffrey Holmstead, Former Bush-Appointed EPA Assistant Administrator”
Let’s review. For the carbon tax, pretty much everyone on the left side of the political spectrum along with some fellow traveling companies, a former free market think tank, and a handful of former Bush appointees. Against? The Institute for Energy Research and some of our very tough friends (whose names we publish every Friday. Unwilling to say (one way or the other)? API. AGA. The Chamber of Commerce. Washington Post (3/4/13) reports: “Instead of indulging in distractions, Mr. Obama and his friends in the environmental movement should push for policies that could make a significant difference by cutting demand for carbon-intensive fuels. As we argued Sunday, a carbon tax is a cause that really is worth fighting for.”
Darren is a solid reporter. Did he just acknowledge that Obama has centralized more power in the White House and taken away decision-making authority from the agencies? Wonder how that made it past the editors. Politico (3/5/13) reports: “Environmentalists had high hopes four years ago when President Barack Obama loaded his administration’s top ranks with Clinton-era energy experts, green-job gurus and even a Nobel laureate… But that ‘Green Dream Team’ — which struggled to sculpt new policies on air and water pollution, clean energy and climate change — has turned over the keys to what is more of a B team in the second term.”
Just sayin’: Each 10x increase in CO2 emissions correlates to 10-year increase in life expectancy. Coyote Blog (3/4/13) reports: “The ultimate argument I get to my climate talk, when all other opposition fails, is that the precautionary principle should rule for CO2. By their interpretation, this means that we should do everything possible to abate CO2 even if the risk of catastrophe is minor since the magnitude of the potential catastrophe is so great… The problem is that this presupposes there are no harms, or opportunity costs, on the other end of the scale. In fact, while CO2 may have only a small chance of catastrophe, Bill McKibben’s desire to reduce fossil fuel use by 95% has a near certain probability of gutting the world economy and locking billions into poverty. Here is one illustration I just crafted for my new presentation.”
They’ve been circling Kish in the ring for years, but when you’re cut from his kind of cloth, you don’t put up with no Tonya Harding funny business. Forbes (3/3/13) reports: “This interview with Dan Kish, Senior Vice President of the Institute for Energy Research in Washington, D.C., reveals that regardless of abundance and necessity, the Obama administration continues to justify new regulations that restrict access to America’s oil and gas reserves… ‘It’s very apparent that the real intent is to make oil and gas more expensive in order to make the heavily subsidized, unreliable and costly ”renewable” energy programs they are pushing more cost-competitive. This is the Tonya Harding approach to energy… break your opponent’s kneecap if you can’t win fair and square… This blatant playing-field-tipping strategy, where government picks winners and losers, permeates virtually all aspects of the Obama administration’s energy policy. We don’t have an energy problem, Larry. We have a government problem…’”
Speaking of no funny business, this is happening on NPR at 2pm ET today: To the Point with Warren Olney.
