No climate impact: EPA Chief says the ‘benefit’ of climate regs is to show ‘domestic leadership’


By: - Climate DepotMarch 23, 2016 2:02 PM with 32 comments

Questioned by Congressman McKinley if EPA’s climate regulations will have any measurable impact on the Earth’s climate, Administrator Gina McCarthy won’t say but responds, “[W]e see it as having enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris.”

ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY: “I think sir we see it as having had enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris.”

House Energy and Commerce Committee
March 22, 2016

#

Related Link: 

Daily Caller: EPA Chief: Climate Regs Meant To Show ‘Leadership’, Not Fight Global Warming – Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted her agency’s signature regulation aimed at tackling global warming was meant to show “leadership” rather than actually curb projected warming. – McCarthy admitted as much after being questioned by West Virginia Republican Rep. David McKinley, who pressed the EPA chief on why the Obama administration was moving forward with economically-damaging regulations that do nothing for the environment.

“I don’t understand,” McKinley said in a Tuesday hearing. “If it doesn’t have an impact on climate change around the world, why are we subjecting our hard working taxpayers and men and women in the coal fields to something that has no benefit?”

“We see it as having had enormous benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris,” McCarthy responded.

McKinley was referring to EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan, which forces states to cut carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. The CPP is expected to double the amount of coal plant closings in the coming years, and even EPA admits it won’t have a measurable impact on projected global warming.


  • 4TimesAYear

    She was saying this in her testimony last year. We should have been all over it like green on grass back then. Our government’s “leadership” is worthless because other countries have learned from experience that going green is far too costly. From last year: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/epa-chief-not-about-pollution-controlits-investment-strategy

    • Michael Lacher

      it will be much costlier when we can’t breathe the air

      • MyOpinionPost

        When exactly when will that be?

        • Michael Lacher

          tomorrow……if rightwingers get their way…..they have no soul

  • MyOpinionPost

    Overreaching overwhelmingly partisan EPA. Who could expect an elegant solution from these hacks.

    • Michael Lacher

      since Republicans have no concern about pollution and toxins it will always be partisan

  • Symbolism over substance is what the Democratic Party is all about, and one reason I have vowed to never vote for another Democratic Party candidate ever again.

    • kristinehtrevino

      “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

      two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!168➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!168…….

    • Charlene Ortis

      “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

      two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!208➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!208…….,..

    • Duke Silver

      Oddly, the only thing more illusory than the results of this dollar investment is the entire phenomenon that it was designed to combat.

      • Dorothymjackson3

        “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

        two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!193➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!193…….

    • Dorian

      Its not symbolism when they are profiteering. If it where only symbolism we’d wouldn’t have anything to worry about. There is an agenda here, and the large majority of us are not part of it. No body does anything for symbolism, but if big money is involved, then lies beget laws that enable crooks to profit.

      I only wish it was symbolism; it is really nefarious skulduggery by the dishonest. And that’s the real problem I suppose. By calling it something so benign it takes responsibility off the people shoulders so that they have don’t have to feel compelled to do something, against a very powerful adversity. If you call it what it really is, that is, nefarious skulduggery by dishonest people then people feel a duty to do something. But because people fear the power of government, people use worlds like “symbolism”.

      It really is true what they say about revolutions. Things have to get so damn bad, like most people starving to such an extent that they are resorted to eating grass, before people start calling things for what they really are; people need to be pushed to such a deplorable point before they are no longer fearful of the deadly consequences that could arise.

      So let it be. That is why Humans never learn. Call it symbolism, say, ” I didn’t know”. Use what ever excuse you like. This mess, and the many others that are occurring, will continue, until people have had enough. So history will repeat again; as it always does.

      We Humans are very selfish.

      It is so sad 🙁

  • Diogenes60025

    A 17 trillion symbolic gesture. A new extreme in potlatching.

  • klem

    So if these regulations aren’t actually to fight climate change, then why was it called the Paris CLIMATE talks.

    Maybe they should have called it the Paris Behavior Modification talks.

    This is the worst President ever.

  • Will Haas

    The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. The AGW conjecture is based on a hypothetical radiant greenhouse effect. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of so called greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth. The surface of the Earth is on average 33 degrees warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect and as derived from first principles it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The hypothetical radiant greenhouse effect caused by the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases does not exist and so the AGW conjecture is invalid. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would cause an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

  • Sam Pyeatte

    It is absolutely revolting and sickening allowing ourselves to be ruled by such corrupt and unworthy people. They are the image of bad.

  • Schlibdiver

    Welcome to Bizarro World!

  • Gregson14

    In other words… Political ideology trumps both the Economic consequences and the Environmental prerogatives!…

    This is about all one can expect from Progressives.

  • Frederick Colbourne

    Congress clearly specified that the intent of Section 117(d) of the Clean Air Act is to promote public health and welfare through direct connection between reduction of a pollutant and specific benefits to the public.

    The Administrator is bound by the entire Clean Air Act including the intent of Congress that definitions and regulations must be justified by reference to public health and welfare. In this the Administrator has failed.

    Demonstration of leadership does not conform to the purpose of the section or the intent of Congress. In defining CO2 as a pollutant the Administrator has done so for a purpose that places the definition and the regulations outside the powers conferred by Congress.

    The Clean Air Act does not authorize the Administrator to define a substance as a pollutant and to regulate its emission for the purpose of demonstrating leadership.

    • 4TimesAYear

      And atmospheric CO2 doesn’t even qualify as a pollutant.

      • Frederick Colbourne

        In the physical world, CO2 is not a pollutant. But in the legal world, Congress delegated power to the Administrator to define any substance as a pollutant and to regulate its emissions. The courts have upheld this.

        But there are a few legal issues. First, in using the delegated power, the Administrator must take account of legislative intent: health and welfare of the public. The causal connection between health and welfare and the pollutant must be close enough that reduction in the pollutant generates specific health and welfare benefits.

        Second, the Administrator is on weak ground in claiming that Congress intended the Clean Air Act to be used to manage global temperature and precipitation. The Administrator has now admitted that the purpose is not to control climate but to demonstrate leadership in implementing an international agreement to reduce CO2. The causal link between the proposed EPA rule and ‘health and welfare’ has become incredible.

        Third, Congress intended the target beneficiaries to be primarily Americans. It would be reasonable to include America’s neighbors in support of the comity of nations. However, the proposed rule includes most of the world’s population, of which the US accounts for only about 5%. The proposed rule therefore extends the scope of health and welfare benefits far beyond what Congress intended and encroaches upon purposes and activities that Congress has clearly refused to authorize, namely support of global climate control.

        These issues are not physical issues about the nature of CO2 or its relation to climate or about jobs. The main issue is about how America is to be governed.

        Do Americans want an elected King-Emperor who makes the laws or do they want to continue following a Constitution that provides for separation of powers?

        • 4TimesAYear

          Oh, absolutely they are on weak ground – and in more than one way.
          There is an overwhelming lack of evidence to show that atmospheric CO2 is a threat to health and welfare of the people.
          They can’t even prove that our emissions (which are miniscule compared to what nature emits) are causing climate change. As one scientist says, “Before you can prove that our emissions are causing climate change, you must first prove that natural emissions are not .” (Not an exact quote, but close enough) 🙂

  • This is what needs to happen to all those morons! – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75SEy1qu71I&feature=player_detailpage

  • Dorian

    Showing domestic leadership is not your mandate, McKinley. The EPA’s mandate is the following (taken from their website):

    Our Mission
    The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.
    EPA’s purpose is to ensure that:
    -all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;
    -national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information;
    -federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively;
    -environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S.
    policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth,
    energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade,
    and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental
    policy;
    all parts of society — communities, individuals, businesses, and
    state, local and tribal governments — have access to accurate
    information
    sufficient to effectively participate in managing human
    health and environmental risks;
    -environmental protection contributes to making our communities and
    ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive; and
    -the United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global environment.

    McKinley, where do you get the notion you are responsible for domestic leadership? Note the bold parts (my emphasis). McKinley you have failed in your responsibilities.

    What is happening is just communistic enforcement of ideologies that have nothing to do with reason, science, or facts. But have everything to do with selfish megalomaniacs that are opposed to democracy and the scientific method.

    McKinley you are a disgusting piece of pathetic humanity.

    • Dorian

      Afterthought:

      It is in circumstances like these with McKinley and the EPA that their should be an independent body (outside the purview of government, and is non-political) that should have the power to enforce government offices to follow their mandates and do their duties.

      Of course, there is always the chance, in fact likelihood, that it too would become politicized. But this outside body, should be elected directly by The People, which the present US government is not, and that it should be directly answerable to The People. No doubt the present status quo would fight tooth and nail for such an overseeing body not to be established. In fact that is the basis of a good name for such an institution, the Office of Government Overseeing, where people and not companies can place their grievances for governmental abuse of power. This Office can be a counterweight to government injustice. There has to be some sort of judicial system that enforces any decisions made by this Office.

      Governments have become too strong and too unjust. We need something that will force governments to obey their mandates.

      Just tossing the idea out there for debate.

  • MyOpinionPost

    The EPA, another overreaching politically partisan and politically active bureaucracy. Ready to distribute crony money in a heartbeat.

  • SaneSage

    To fulfill the liberal fantasy of global warming is more important than fixing reality of our school system, our infra-structure, and our borders.
    Kudos to the most pathetic, anti-American administration in history!

  • ScottDrysdale

    Actually the EPA regulations in some ways are beginning to stand in violation to the non-negotaible laws of physics! More specifically, these regulations help to undermine the business success of foreign countries including Germany, Canada and others in an effort to help USA businesses to gain an advantage.

  • Duke Silver

    I’m sorry, Gina – we want concrete results for our money. The illusion of domestic leadership is inadequate.

  • ASarchus

    Fail to comprehend how these people are getting away with this stuff. They are literally forcing economic suicide on a nation without any rationale behind it whatsoever. Back in the UK in the 1950’s there was a serious push to stop people from burning coal for domestic heating but there was a reason for that. The reason was that in a temperature inversion the resulting smogs were dropping people like flies and if something wasn’t done then everyone would be dead. Now in the US in 2016 “mumble, mumble, leadership” is apparently good enough reason to trash the economy.

  • Hill411

    I guess that ‘sort of leadership’ is synonymous with leading from behind. Whenever I hear o’liar or his sycophants talk about his ‘leading from behind’ leadership qualities I am reminded of a pack of dogs that walks around in a circle. Each dog has his nose pressed to the behind of the dog in front. The EPA is now added to the circle of dogs. They will never get anywhere BUT at least each dog knows there is an a-hole in front.

  • KeynesIsDead

    Commissar McCarthy’s reasoning is very similar to the reasoning the greens who got DDT banned. The greens lied about DDT to get it banned as a power play. They knew it was the best defense against malaria but didn’t give a d..n about the millions of Africans and Asians who would die solely because they wanted to flex their muscles. Short of being Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, or Mao is there any way to be more evil?