Still more regulation from the EPA’s fantasy-land rabbit hole
We all (those of us who understand economics) know that government does not produce anything of economic value. Thus, all government revenues must come out of production. At what point will their theft causes production grinds to a subsistence level?
They are already stealing a sum total of the fruits of our labor of over 50%. Will it take 75%. How about 90%. What will happen when the camel’s back breaks? Easy question: Revolution and government functionaries dangling from lamp posts all across the land.
On June 10 the EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking which targets the U.S. airline industry for more “climate change” regulatory madness. Citing a 2012 D.C. district court ruling that requires a final agency determination whether aircraft greenhouse gas emissions cause or contribute to endangerment of public health or welfare, their eagerness to oblige should be a no brainer.
As a matter of fact, the EPA has already decided. In 2009 the agency determined that greenhouse gas “pollution” (essential CO2 plant food) from cars and light trucks threatens human health and welfare by leading to long-lasting climate changes.
Their new announcement states that: “Since then, the body of science on human-induced climate change has strengthened, supporting today’s proposed finding — under a different section of the Clean Air Act — that GHGs [greenhouse gasses] emitted from aircraft engines contribute to pollution [that dirty “P-word” again] that causes climate change endangering public health and welfare.”
Somewhat like Brer Rabbit pleading with Brer Fox not to be thrown into the briar patch, they suggest that their plan to establish new CO2 emission rule restrictions on the aviation industry merely responds to legal “endangerment” and “cause or contribute petitions” filed by others . . . claims based upon failed UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer climate model projections.
Here, the EPA reports that its rule-making process is being undertaken in response to “domestic pressures from stakeholders and court proceedings.” Formal petitions have previously been filed by the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia and city of New York; and leadership of environmental activist groups such as Earth Justice, the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, and Oceana.
Yes, and there are also international foxes. As reported in an EPA statement: “For the past five years, ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization] — a specialized body of the United Nations with 191 member states — has been working with the aviation industry and other stakeholders to develop coordinated, international CO2 emission standards for aircraft.” ICAO’s standards for CO2 reductions which are “equitable” across national boundaries are expected to be adopted by early next year.
While the EPA states that this latest aircraft regulation action supports the goals of President Obama’s “Climate Action Plan,” the broader anti-carbon UN/White House battle plan can readily be traced back to the collapse of a crusade to extend Kyoto protocol cap-and-trade agreements.
There is, however, still another big UN hitch to this strategy. Alas, despite ballyhooed rising atmospheric CO2 levels, satellites have recorded no global warming over the past 18 years. If a flat or cooling trend continues — as many prominent international scientists expect — perhaps the general public will eventually realize that alarmist UN IPCC predictions used to sell anti-fossil Clean Power Plan and ETS agendas can’t be relied upon either. Until then, Brers Rabbit and Brer Fox will continue to feast together on free meals, while the rest of us get stuck with the tabs.
A version of this article also appears at: http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/Climate-Change-Global-Warming/2015/07/14/id/656937/#ixzz3fvX98IDm
Murray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”
This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.
The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.
As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.
However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.
The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.
The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.