A Double Feature Airing of the Grievances

Have We Finally Reached Peak Lie on the Clean Power Plan?

EPA has marketed its Clean Power Plan on a number of untruths, including (but not limited to):

• The rule is “flexible” (It isn’t)

• The rule saves lives. (It doesn’t)

• The rule would be a boon to the economy. (Are you kidding me?)

However, on October 7th, EPA told its biggest 111(d) whopper to date. On that day, during a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, EPA Office of Air and Radiation chief Janet McCabe said, “The Clean Power Plan does not set in place a cap-and-trade program.” This is a bald face lie. In fact, the administration has proposed to impose a cap-and-trade on any state that refuses to comply with the rule. Moreover, top EPA officials, including Administrator Gina McCarthy, have urged States to comply by participating in a cap-and-trade. For my part, I can understand why McCabe was reduced to such naked duplicity. The Congress has considered and ultimately demurred on a number of cap-and-trade schemes. Now, EPA is trying to impose one, without a legislative mandate. McCabe was before Congress, the institution that has been screwed thusly. So she lied. Heckuva Job, Janet!

Dem Climate Debate Demonstrates Emptiness of Dem Climate Debate

Last Tuesday’s debate featured extensive discussions about climate change policy, a first for a presidential candidate debate of any stripe. The resulting interaction among candidates was heavy on empty exaggeration and obvious fibs.

Consider this offering from Martin O’Malley:

And as president, I intend to sign as my very first order in office the — an order that moves us as a nation and dedicates our resources to solving this problem and moving us to a 100 percent clean electric grid by 2050.

For starters, please take note that he intends to achieve an overhaul of the nation’s electric grid, thirty years in the future, via executive order. So he seems to think the president has pharaoh-like powers, which is telling. But as long as O’Malley is being unrealistic, I’m confused as to why he didn’t commit to something more impressive sounding. After all, Hilary Clinton has promised to generate enough renewable energy to power all American homes by 2026, which means that O’Malley faux commitment is much weaker than Clinton’s pseudo promise. Both of their empty goals evoke President Obama’s long-ago averment that his administration would create five million green jobs and also put one million electric vehicles on the road. If you believe any of these claims, you are not smart.

Besides the expected (i.e., baseless policy agendas), the other illuminating moment of the debate was Hilary Clinton’s retelling of the 2009 Copenhagen climate confab. Here’s what she said:

Well, that — that’s exactly what I’ve been doing. When we met in Copenhagen in 2009 and, literally, President Obama and I were hunting for the Chinese, going throughout this huge convention center, because we knew we had to get them to agree to something. Because there will be no effective efforts against climate change unless China and India join with the rest of the world.

They told us they’d left for the airport; we found out they were having a secret meeting. We marched up, we broke in, we said, “We’ve been looking all over for you. Let’s sit down and talk about what we need to do.” And we did come up with the first international agreement that China has signed.

In a word, her response is insane. In fact, Copenhagen was a debacle, one that ranks among President Obama’s (sadly growing list) of diplomatic humiliations. At this 2009 climate confab, the President was ignored or otherwise treated shabbily. In particular, the Chinese held a meeting near the end of the doomed conference, but failed to invite the U.S. delegation. Despite having not been invited, the U.S. delegation—led by the President—sought out the meeting. Upon arrival, the President had to sneak in, and was then conspicuously ignored. It’s no secret that Copenhagen was a failure in general, and an acute one for the President. But Clinton would have you believe it was a success. That is, she *spun* a giant failure in climate policy into a giant success.

will be a single feature