If you’re among those who believe, global warming or not, the “solution” is to be found with private-sector innovation and not the heavy hand of government (raising my hand right here), this is very good news. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) says he’s expecting a new executive order this week by which President Trump will undo a complicated web of executive climate activism put in place by you-know-who:
“What you’re going to see next week is he’s going to take this power plan that we know isn’t going to work anyway and he’s going to run that over,” Inhofe said.
The 2015 Clean Power Plan is a set of regulations on new and existing power plants that forces states to meet targets, established by the EPA, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Inhofe said former President Barack Obama’s plan was a “dismal failure.”
“Now, Obama said we will reduce [carbon dioxide] emissions by 27 percent by 2025,” Inhofe said. “We immediately, cause I was chairing the committee, had the EPA come in to say, ‘How is he going to do that?’ Well, he couldn’t do it, so obviously that wasn’t going to happen.”
Instead of passing legislation, Obama acted through regulation, Inhofe said.
“The things he couldn’t do through legislation, he’d do through regulation,” he said. “That’s where all the regulations came in.”
In the blueprint for his budget, Trump will cut 3,200 jobs from the EPA, slashing the agency by 31 percent. Under the blueprint, the agency’s budget will be reduced from $8.3 billion to $5.7 billion.
Global warming - er, sorry . . . “climate change” - was perhaps the biggest area of policy in which Obama simply bypassed Congress and issued edicts via the administrative state. He knew he had zero chance of getting congressional support for his environmental agenda, because it was really about creating global warming hysteria and using that as an excuse to impose heavier costs and regulations on industry. That was always the real goal. Global warming was never anything more than a pretext by which to do it.
Doing all this via the administrative state was an egregious abuse of Obama’s power as president, but the one silver lining to his having done so is this: What can be done by executive order can be undone by executive order. All Trump has to do is sign his name to new orders reversing these policies, and they are gone. Unlike with ObamaCare, he doesn’t have to go to Congress to kill Obama’s climate policies because Congress never approved them in the first place.
And while the fight to repeal and replace ObamaCare gets more attention for understandable reasons, it would be a mistake to overlook how harmful his climate policies were, and what a significant achievement it is for Trump to get rid of them. We talked a lot about the costs ObamaCare imposed on employers, and they were significant. But Obama’s climate policies were often even more costly, not only in terms of real actions they required businesses to take but also because of legal and regulatory protections they had to seek in the event they came under attack by the EPA or another federal agency.
The Obama presidency was an eight-year-long assault on business, and the effort came at a major cost in terms of job creation and economic growth. Trump can do a lot to bring the economy back simply by ending the regulatory and legal harassment of companies who are simply trying to operate in this country. The reversal of Obama’s climate policies is an excellent place to start. This announcement, when it happens later this week, will be a most welcome one.
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by CainTV, which can be found at caintv.com
A new edition of Dan’s book “Powers and Principalities” is now available in hard copy and e-book editions. Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement