Apparently, not even our elite universities teach math and logic anymore, at least not in the curricula that our politicians pass through. The candidates are quoted as favoring or opposing Obama’s radical 32% cut in CO2 emissions, imposed from ON HIGH, but all seemingly based on whether electricity bills and employment will go up or down. Republicans (and Obama ’09) insist that electricity bills will skyrocket, while Obama NOW tells us that costs will go DOWN and jobs will go UP—sort of an “if you like your power plant, you can keep your power plant” statement.
But the truth is readily discernible. It needs no weasel words, emotional appeals, tarot card readings nor the defense of outright lies. The laws of chemistry say you cannot cut the emission of CO2 from coal burning—the combination of C and O2—by 32% unless you reduce the amount of coal burned by 32% and the amount of energy produced by 32%. That skyrockets electric bills and costs jobs because less coal will be mined and transported, and more costly electricity will reduce profit margins in business leading to layoffs. Simple and straightforward effects. But think of the outstanding benefits that will accrue from reducing this deadly, global-warming-causing pollutant, they say? By the EPA’s own analysis, even in the highly unlikely case they are correct, this rule fully implemented will reduce global temperatures by a whopping 0.018 degrees. That’s 18/1000 of a degree! I don’t care whether you’re Fahrenheit or Celsius, that’s nothing! The cost/benefit ratio of this edict is therefore astronomically and indefensibly large and denying that—Obama’s greatest ability is denying truth— ought to get you laughed off the news and condemn this stupid rule to the joke book of history, not the regulatory rulebook.