Shocker: White House Memo Questions Global Warming Action

Yes, it was one voice of many (so says the disclaimer). But remember, prominent liberals are on record saying that the economy must be cooled to fight global warming; they got their wish—the economy has cooled; so why all this panic to get something passed? Please go into it for yourself and discover the answer—it’s really quite obvious.

And why is there now a liberal voice among them who dares worry about the economic consequences of these policies? Because the nuts got their wish with the recent economic downturn; they know how low global warming ranks in the minds of average Americans compared to the economy. So, does it make sense to hurt the economy MORE with Draconian legislation aimed against a climate “problem” that doesn’t even exist? Can you guess how that will play out politically? How will it play out in the next election?

This is the reason for that lone voice in the memo. This is the reason that Congress watered down the cap-and-trade bill recently. They’re smart enough to try to avoid a repeat of the 1994 elections; if it can happen to them in 1994 and happen to Republicans in 2004 then it can come around for them again too. No matter what…they realize their control of the federal government is tenuous.

White House Memo Challenges EPA Finding on Global Warming

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal that could lead to regulating the gases blamed for global warming will prove costly for factories, small businesses and other institutions, according to a White House document.

The nine-page memo is a compilation of opinions made by a dozen federal agencies and departments before the EPA determined in April that greenhouse gases pose dangers to public health and welfare.

***

A White House aide and Office of Management and Budget spokesman said the cost critique came from a single federal agency, and the document did not reflect the administration's view. They declined to identify which agency challenged the EPA proposal.

***

Still, Republicans and business groups immediately used the document to bolster their arguments that controlling greenhouse gases would harm the economy.

They also highlighted parts of the document that fault how the EPA arrived at its conclusion that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, since the gases by themselves do not pose any harm.

The memo says the EPA could have been "more balanced" in its analysis by also highlighting regions of the country that would benefit from global warming, such as the state of Alaska, which would have warmer winters. It also says the EPA appeared to stretch the precautionary principle to support regulation despite the "unprecedented uncertainty" in linking emissions of greenhouse gases and the warming that will result to health effects.

"It really appears to me that the decision was based more on political calculation than on scientific ones," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who called the document "a smoking gun" during a hearing Tuesday on the Obama administration's proposed budget for EPA.