In the same way
that EPA has extended its control over water—and even land—under
clean water laws (See Part
1), it has exceeded Constitutional authority and the intent of
Congress under the Clean Air Acts. Once again, it has caused an
enormous waste of billions of taxpayer dollars on government
itself—and costs approaching a trillion dollars for compliance in
the private sector. All this with measures that have little
benefit—and often negative consequences—to the environment or
human health. Take carbon dioxide for example.
Since carbon
dioxide from burning fossil fuels cannot harm human health directly,
the EPA alleges the health hazard is indirect, from global warming.
This is why EPA has declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant;
otherwise it would have no legitimate authority for regulating it.
But an array of studies over more than twenty years demonstrates that
warm climate is beneficial while cold climate is detrimental to human
health. For example, in 1998, Thomas Gale Moore's “Health and
Amenity Effects of Global Warming” estimated a temperature increase
of 2.5 degrees Celsius would cause a decrease of 40,000 deaths
per year from respiratory and circulatory disease, based on U.S.
Mortality Statistics.
In 1997, “Cold
Exposure and Winter Mortality...” by Keatinge, Donaldson, et al
explained the mechanisms of serious illness from cold:
hemoconcentration increases blood viscosity and accounts for half of
all excess cold-related mortality. In 2000, “Heart Related
Mortality in Warm and Cold Regions of Europe...” examined mortality
as a function of mean daily temperature in Athens, Greece; London,
England; and Helsinki, Finland. These two studies provide the most
comprehensive evidence that mortality decreases as temperature
increases, over most of the current climate range of Europe.
The data show U.S.
mortality from cardiac, vascular, and respiratory disease in winter
is seven times greater than in summer; in Europe, nine to ten times
greater. Data from the 1997 study indicate an estimated 25,000 to
50,000 fewer deaths in the U.S. per year from a 1 degree C
temperature rise.
In 2007 Deschenes
and Moretti presented a comprehensive study of all-cause mortality as
a function of the day of the year. Maximum mortality occurs in
January, and the minimum is in the warmest months of July and August.
In 2008 the U.K.
Department of Health released “Health Effects of Climate Change in
the UK 2008”, an update of reports from 2001/2002. It showed that
there was no increase in heat-related deaths 1971-2002 despite warmer
summers. And cold-related mortality fell by more than a third in all
regions.
The foregoing
studies show EPA's claim it regulates carbon dioxide because global
warming is a health hazard is bogus and unscientific. The agency has
abandoned not only science but basic honesty in service to an
ideology that demands that the bogus is real, that humans are causing
global warming and, hence, must be regulated.
The
EPA, politicians, news media and other opinion makers rely heavily on
the assertions by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that increased CO2
emissions cause global warming. The United Nations established the IPCC not to investigate global
warming but to find a human cause
for global warming. IPCC
rules require
all assertions in its assessment reports to be based on published
papers in refereed scientific journals. That procedure was flagrantly
violated in its Fourth Assessment Report. That report listed the
World Wildlife Fund as the source for sixteen of its assertions,
including that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. The
WWF is an environmental advocacy group with no refereed journal but a
well-deserved reputation for exaggerated, unsupported claims.
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report also cited a Greenpeace report, a
mountaineering magazine and a student paper as sources. Obviously,
the IPCC would not be using these unscientific sources if it could
find scientific ones. The inescapable conclusion is that the IPCC
could not make a valid case for human-caused global warming with
scientific evidence. On June 24, 2012 it said whatever it chooses to
post will be considered as peer reviewed. In other words, the IPCC's
position of “authority” is now to be considered as equal to, and
a substitute for, the scientific rigor of peer review in a scientific
journal. Whatever it says, counts—simply
because it says
so.
Because
the IPCC is so flagrantly political and unscientific, a
Nongovernmental
International Panel on
Climate Change, composed of independent highly qualified climate
experts, has challenged its assertions. In 2009 this NIPCC
published a monumental 880-page report, Climate Change
Reconsidered (and later CCR
II, over 1,000 pages),
supported by thousands of references in peer-reviewed scientific
journals, most of which were not utilized by the IPCC. It has since
published several other reports. All were published without
government or corporate funds being solicited or accepted, and
authors were not paid for their articles.
As documented by
the NIPCC, the widely publicized “greenhouse” theory that carbon
dioxide causes global warming does not withstand scientific scrutiny.
The sun—not CO2—determines climate change; and the sun—not
factories and automobiles—determines the level of CO2 in our
atmosphere. I have written more than 20 blog postings and articles
on the subject of global warming, and I do not intend to repeat that
information here. That is not the purpose of this posting; its
purpose is to show that the federal government has not provided a
valuable environmental service but instead has misled the public in
colossal fashion that has wasted billions of dollars.
Eliminating the EPA because it has no authority under the
Constitution's enumerated powers would eliminate this gigantic
economic waste without endangerment from the global warming hyped by
alarmists as “the greatest threat of our time.”
From 1993 to 2013,
the federal government spent $165 billion on global warming and
continues to spend about $22 billion annually on it. Billions of
additional dollars are wasted in the private sector by engendering
expensive “green” solutions rather than economic ones for
construction, transportation and electricity.
The greenhouse
theory, which is based on computer models—not actual physical
evidence—was sold to the public on the grounds those models
accurately represented the real world. Actual physical evidence has
now shown they do not. There has been no global warming for 18 years
and 6 months despite enormous increases in CO2 emissions. In the
fifteen years 1972 through 19887, humans produced 302 billions tonne
of CO2. In the next 15 years they produced 461 billion tonnes of
CO2, yet there was no global warming. The global-warming models have
been an utter failure, projecting a scenario exactly opposite to what
occurred in the real world. Nor have they been able to demonstrate
any validity in backtesting over much longer time periods. When a
theory contradicts reality, it is the theory that is wrong. That
is really all you need to know about the global warming scare. But
for those who would like more information on this but do not care to
tackle the voluminous NIPCC reports, see my postings here:
“Sun—not
CO2—Drives Earth's Climate” and “Its
the Sun, Stupid.”
For more, click here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here.
The proposed
Constitutional amendments described in Parts 1 and 2 of "We Need a Constitutional Convention" are taken from my
latest book The Impending Monetary Revolution, the Dollar and
Gold, Second Edition. That book contains several additional ones that are needed
to reform America and regain our liberty through sound money and
restoring the meaning of the Constitution. Please see the book for
these and support a new constitutional convention to be called by the
states under Article V of the Constitution.