Is the EPA poised to destroy Earth’s habitats?

Font Size:

The Environmental Protection Agency is on a course that will damage the environment, not protect it. Just observe EPA’s willingness to do so while spouting false statements to make its case on regulating greenhouse gases.

EPA’s Secretary Lisa Jackson says that if the House and Senate will not pass a cap-and-trade bill, then the agency will move forward to enact ways to reduce greenhouse gases, including CO2.

Unfortunately, she is still clinging to the “science is settled” statement that is now widely known to be false. There are tens of thousands of scientists who have signed a petition belittling the catastrophic global warming forecasts. Even Phil Jones, former Director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University which has been the gold standard of global temperatures, has now publically admitted that the science is not settled. What does Secretary Jackson know that Phil Jones, a 34-year veteran of climate research, does not know? What about EPA climate scientist Alan Carlin who notified the agency he could not find the science to back up the EPA’s claims on man-made global warming?

Secretary Jackson’s pronouncements are not factual, but are purely political and will give the current administration a hefty stream of tax dollars. Those dollars will come out of your pocket if you use electricity, transportation or food.

A preconceived political position has no place in evaluating science. It is flagrantly wrong, will ultimately give science a bad name, and goes against President Obama’s pledge to bring science back to its rightful position when deliberations on scientific issues are being considered.

What does the EPA’s position have to do with impacting habitats, ecosystems, and the food supply? If the agency should eventually be successful in reducing CO2 to pre-industrial levels as many environmentalists desire, the average growth of plants (food) will diminish by 12 percent and the growth of forests by 18 percent. Twelve percent equates to elimination of food for one out of eight people on earth. The Associated Press reported recently that over a billion people are severely malnourished. Since there are 7 billion people on Earth today, then won’t hundreds of millions of those likely die?

Additional atmospheric CO2, a marvelous airborne fertilizer, would be extremely beneficial to Mother Earth and her plant and animal kingdoms. More CO2 causes plants to require less water, thus making them drought tolerant. We can already see that plants are now moving onto the margins of the deserts. The plants also become more resistant to many common stresses.

But, as the EPA has claimed, isn’t CO2 a pollutant that will be an endangerment to mankind? The agency believes the story that CO2 is a major cause of global warming, and then, just as quickly, refuses to bring forth the science to support that position. American taxpayers fund the EPA and yet Secretary Jackson will not reveal the scientific evidence that backs up her position.

No wonder the most recent Gallup poll is showing that 48 percent of the public is skeptical over climate change claims since our paid servants can’t produce any empirical evidence to support the man-made climate change hypothesis.

H. Leighton Steward is chairman of CO2IsGreen.org and PlantsNeedCO2.org.