The United States is spending more and more on climate change
regulations. With the debate still raging between different parties
and groups, halting the spending on regulations and allowing more 3rd party
research to take place would allow leveled debate and permit the
US public to arrive at a democratic consensus (a vote). With the United States own accountability office reporting that we have spent well over 110 billion dollars in the last
ten years on climate change it is time that the spending is stopped.
Larry Bell, a contributor with Forbes Magazine, wrote an article and
stated within that we should “Consider that current policies are costing
hundreds of billions we can’t afford along with millions of lost employment
opportunities; all based extensively on a bogus, politically manufactured
climate crisis devoid of any supportable scientific evidence.” The fact that such a claim exists merits the
need for a debate. Is climate change
spending really in the public interest?
This particular item, public interest, has always been a politically volatile
phrase. President Obama in Executive Order 13563, mandated that while agencies institute regulations, they “must protect public health, welfare,
safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation,
competitiveness, and job creation....It must allow for public
participation and an open exchange of ideas. It must promote
predictability and reduce uncertainty.” With
61% of the US public polling skeptic or still in the middle, this is hardly an
indication that the public is participating or has an open exchange of ideas
with those implementing these policies.
With outrageous statements like some
from climate change proponent, Al Gore, saying that there was a 75% chance that the polar ice caps could be ice free by 2014.
There is now clear evidence that some of these scares are nothing but
scares. With the northern polar ice cap
at its minimum extent for 2014 of 5.02 million square kilometers and with the
southern ice cap with a record breaking 20 million square kilometers, it is
clear that there are some discrepancies in the claims that hurried our nation into implementing very cost full policies.
The reason we must stop these policies
is to protect our country from future debt.
If these policies are necessary, they should be established as factual needs after some carefully scrutinized hypothesis and results. If these were medical lab experiments and the
predictions made by some of the pharmacist and chemists turned out to be
drastically off, would we start distributing the pill? Of course not! The fact that there is still a large portion of
Americans unsure if climate change exists, the fact that many predictions are
failing, and the fact that we are spending billions of dollars based on these
claims, merits the need for a pause in the implementation of policy and
spending. If there is, in fact, a climate
change danger, we are certainly jumping the gun.
I also covered this topic! Such a debate with so little unbiased information for the general public to consume! I find it so difficult to take a position on this because I just don't understand the science and there is very limited sources to find a fair scientific analysis of both sides. nice job man
ReplyDelete