Replies

Here's one for the road:

Congressional Republicans choose to just ignore science and attack the EPA. [excerpt] So what about the EPA’s new greenhouse gas rules that were being discussed at the hearing? The basic story is fairly simple. Back in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act if the agency found that those gases pose a threat to public health and welfare (which, most scientists agree, they do). As it turns out, even George W. Bush’s EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson, conceded that the agency would have to start regulating carbon-dioxide. And, under Obama, the EPA has been putting forward new rules to control pollution from cars and stationary sources. (Here's a full primer on the topic.)

Republicans, for their part, are trying to argue that these regulations will crush the U.S. economy. At Wednesday's hearing, they invited Steve Rowlan, a representative from Nucor—a major U.S. steel producer—to explain how his company had to build a $750 million plant in Louisiana instead of a $2 billion one because of “the uncertainty created by these regulations.” Likewise, Jim Pearce, an official from soda-ash manufacturer FMC Corp., warned that new pollution controls could drive businesses offshore.

All these examples may be true (and certainly there's room to quibble with the EPA's new study suggesting that forthcoming clean-air regulations will actually create jobs). But, then again, no one suggests that these carbon rules are free—companies will have to spend money on pollution controls and efficiency upgrades. The environmentalist argument is that the benefits outweigh the costs. And that's something Republicans would rather not confront head-on. At one point, Representative Ed Whitfield of Kentucky informed EPA head Lisa Jackson that her agency’s new fuel economy standards would add $948 to the cost of a car by 2016. But that’s only a decisive argument against if you ignore the fact that the rules will save consumers far more than that amount in gas costs—to say nothing of whatever clean-air benefits ensue. (All told, EPA estimates the benefits at $240 billion.)

That brings us to the nub of the debate. If you don’t believe climate change is a problem, then most of these new carbon rules are pointless. And, within the Republican Party, the belief that global warming is a made-up non-problem has become thoroughly ingrained—so much so that it’s no longer even worth justifying. [end excerpt]

---------

I'm happy to say it looks like the GOP isn't just going to "ignore nature" or just yawn in the face of the EPA and warmists.

As Gen George Patton famously put it to the troops "....."I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position." We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!"