This week, President Obama binds his plan of pure energy as “the most important step that America has ever taken in the fight against global climate change.” Obama poses as a savior of the environment, as in 2008, when he promised that his presidency would mean “the moment when … the growth of the oceans began to slow down and our planet began to heal.” Seven years later, this messianic heritage is doubtful. The Obama Pure Plan Plan never had legislative support, even when his own party controlled both houses of Congress. Now he is trying to impose him without a congress, the bold trick of his ancient law professor Harvard Laurence Tribe condemns as “burning the constitution.”
When his presidency disappears, Obama desperately tants his eco -minded with environmental fanatics, such as Pope Francis and leftists in the UN and the European Union. But here at home his plan would be economically a disaster, which explains her defeat in Congress. Hillary Clinton undertakes to support the plan while the Republicans are fighting for the presidential nomination of their party, they swear to oppose it. The Pure Energy Plan will be a sharply discussed problem in carbon swinging, such as Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania-where the race for the White House usually decides.
The Obama Environmental Protection Agency imposes a tidy energy plan on all 50 states, requiring from each state of electrical electrical plants and transfer to other sources of electricity – natural gas combustion, nuclear power plants, solar and wind energy generators – to reduce carbon dioxide emissions O one third. Carbon plants produce about 40 percent of electricity throughout the country. Forcing these tools to close consumers with higher electricity bills. According to the economists of the Heritage Foundation Foundation, he will also send hundreds of thousands of jobs in smoke because employers pay more for running their companies.
Why? The alleged benefit is to avoid unnoticeable growth by 0.02 degrees Celsius to a global temperature until 2100. This is the official estimation of EPA benefits from this tidy air plan. You have to joke.
As many as 25 governors say and they are expected to submit a lawsuit questioning the plan. They have a robust case. Although EPA bases its authority in the Clean Air Act of 1970, nothing in this law authorizes the agency to make more than the requirement from plants to exploit the best available technology – like rinses – to reduce emissions. Congress has never authorized EPA to force countries to close carbon plants and move to nuclear, wind and clear. “The brutal fact is that Obama’s administration did not receive climate regulations through the Congress. However, EPA behaves as if it has legislative power to re -design the national electric generation system, “says Tribe. “That’s not.”
Defenders of the president’s environmental agenda claim that he must act alone because the congress is complicated. It’s not true. Legislators on both sides of the transition are contrary to the plan and good reasons.
Epa Obama tried a few final waveforms around the Congress, creatively interpreting the 45-year tidy air act to match his program. But it didn’t always escape. In the stinging American Supreme Court, reporting against administration restrictions regarding mercury emissions, judge Antonin Scalia wrote that “it is not rational, invalid” proper “imposing billions of dollars of economic costs” when the benefits are so uncertain.
The same can be said about the plan announced on Monday. Defenders of the recent regulation provide for falling energy costs from renewable sources, but so far it is a cake in the sky. Like the president’s forecast, that the average family will save USD 2,500 due to Obamacare.
But long before the Supreme Court is considering this recent plan, the presidential policy will probably determine its fate. Another example of how high the rates in 2016 are.
