Back to Basics

Every time I conclude that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot get crazier, they demonstrate they are not only crazy, but a continued threat to the health, national security, and the right of Americans to be free of incessant governmental intrusion into their lives and choices.

Mind you, they get lots of help from environmental organizations and the latest example was a petition filed by the Center for Biological Diversity asking the EPA to ban lead shot and bullets under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

There is, of course, no doubt that if you take a bullet to the brainpan, it is very likely to be lethal, but under the TSCA, it is not considered or defined as toxic.

Citing the TSCA as to when the EPA can regulate “chemical substances”, the National Rifle Association, in a letter to the EPA administration noted that “Congress explicitly excluded from this definition ‘any article the sale of which is subject to the tax imposed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986’” or as we call them, bullets!

Not being a lawyer, but being a longtime gun owner, my question to the EPA is this: How CRAZY do you have to be to even consider banning the manufacture, sale, and use of AMMUNITION?

By 2005, three out of ten Americans were gun owners. Since the election of Barack Obama, there has been a noticeable increase in gun sales.

Among gun owners, some are hunters, some are into sport shooting, and some are homeowners or apartment dwellers who want the kind of protection a gun provides while waiting for the police to show up. There are lots of perfectly legitimate reasons to own a gun and the last time I checked the Second Amendment said you could.

In its letter to the EPA, the NRA pointed out that “This appears to be the first time since TSCA’s inception in 1976 that anyone has suggested that EPA may regulate projectiles used in firearms under the Act”, adding that it was manifestly clear that it was “congressional intent that TSCA not be a vehicle to implement gun control.”

The good news is that the EPA abandoned any further action regarding this perfectly insane effort to backdoor an effort to thwart our Second Amendment rights.

The EPA has already determined how much water can be used in your toilet bowl and wants to control how much water you use to shower. It has been instrumental in getting the incandescent light bulb banned from future sales and use. And it wants to legally define puddles after a rainstorm as navigable waters that boats and ships can sail upon.

Perhaps, however, you did not heard that the EPA is considering cracking down on DUST? Specifically farm dust.

On July 23, a number of farm state senators sent a letter to the EPA to indicate just how stupid and detrimental any additional regulation of dust would be.

The Soviet Union’s demise ushered in manmade catastrophic global warming as the new “central organizing principle of civilization.” Now, global warming hysteria is giving way to a growing recognition that: climate change is primarily natural, cyclical and moderate; China, India and other poor countries will not sacrifice CO2-generating economic growth on the altar of speculative climate disaster; and carbon taxes strangle competitiveness, destroy jobs and send families into fuel poverty.

However, environmental activists know the key to power, control and fund-raising is the specter of disaster. Thus, even as climate chaos shrivels as an organizing principle, the United Nations and radical greens have inaugurated a new eco-Frankenstein monster.

The real threat to the planet, they now assert, is the impact of modern energy technologies and civilization on biodiversity. The case for saving species, they insist, is even “more powerful” than the need to address climate change. Of course, they have a plan.

They will preserve biodiversity by controlling not just land and energy use, but all human activity – under the auspices of the United Nations, expanded global government, and new regulations and taxes. Their efforts to preserve species, they claim, will generate benefits “worth $4-5 trillion per year” (based on computer models and unsupported assertions about the intrinsic value of species and biodiversity).

To accept these claims, one would need to believe in the IPCC, Stern Report, tooth fairy – and a UN system that will suddenly, magically ensure honesty, transparency, and accountability for misfeasance, malfeasance, fraud, misrepresentation, intimidation, and adverse impacts on people and wildlife.

One would also have to ignore this fact. The real threats to the world’s species are environmentalism, misguided environmental policies, and anti-technology zealotry. Here’s the tip of the iceberg.

* Intensive, unrelenting opposition to coal, gas, nuclear and hydroelectric plants for generating the electricity that two billion people worldwide so desperately need. Not only does this force people to rely on open fires for heating and cooking – perpetuating poverty, lung disease and premature death.

It also destroys mountain gorilla and other wildlife habitats, as people cut trees for fires and charcoal.

China and India no longer tolerate these policies and are self-financing hundreds of power plants, mostly coal-fired. But poor countries must still rely on World Bank loans – and thus must run gauntlets laid down by the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and Obama administration, which steadfastly oppose construction of critically needed power plants.

* Constant promotion of expensive, unreliable wind and solar power. Wind turbines slice up birds and collapse bat lungs. Turbines and solar arrays would have to cover millions of acres to provide power for cities. They require ultra-long transmission lines and backup gas generators, and consume millions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass, polymers and rare earth (lanthanide) minerals – all of which have to extracted from the Earth and processed into finished products, burning fossil fuels and generating mining wastes and air and water pollution every step of the way.

The Federal government has long been legislating in an effort to eliminate the small farmer, and increasingly local governments are doing so as well.

The government’s efforts—under the guise of making our food safer—have all but put off limits good, healthful foods like whole raw milk and truly organic meats and vegetables grown by local farmers. The Federal government, through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other alphabet soup organizations are constantly banning natural, good-for-you foods and inventing new restrictions that hurt the small farmer for the benefit of Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and other large farm entities.

And local governments are constantly devising zoning and other restrictions to hinder small farms, just like Lake Elmo, Minn., is doing here. This is not just a Minnesota problem, it’s a national problem.

U.S. Senator Roger Wicker

Lost in the ongoing debate over health care reform was a recent decision by Senate Democrats to delay yet again the introduction of their so-called cap-and-trade legislation. The decision, announced earlier this month by Sen. Barbara Boxer, the chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, is a sign that this misguided legislation has not gained the momentum Democrat leaders had hoped.

In reaction to the announcement, the Wall Street Journal said: “The latest delay is probably a submission to reality, which is a rare thing in the current political environment — and a major victory for the U.S. economy, at least for now.” I agree completely. Considering the blow cap-and-trade legislation would have on family budgets, the nation’s economic recovery, and our long-term competitiveness, the news of the bill’s delay was a welcome development.

The Carbon Tax

The House of Representatives narrowly approved cap-and-trade legislation in June. The legislation would ostensibly curb global warming by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. In order to achieve this, companies that emit carbon dioxide — such as power plants, petroleum refiners, and manufacturers — would be forced to purchase allowances from the federal government for each ton of carbon dioxide emissions they produce.

The cost of these allowances would in effect be a massive tax levied on energy producers, manufacturers and other companies across our economy. This massive new tax would not simply be absorbed by the companies. It would be passed along to consumers by way of higher energy prices. This is not just my prediction. As a candidate for president, then-Sen. Obama admitted: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Since energy is used to make and provide other goods and services, Americans would see higher prices across the board.  In writing recently about cap-and-trade, Patrick Fleenor, the chief economist at the Tax Foundation, said that “other effects will be less obvious. Food prices will rise because energy is used extensively in the production and transportation of agriculture products.” In fact, during testimony before Congress, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said it was unlikely any consumer product’s price would remain the same under a cap-and-trade program.

Mississippi Impact

A recent study released by the Heritage Foundation provides a window into how a cap-and-trade system would negatively impact Mississippians. The group found that by 2035, Mississippi’s gross state product would be reduced by $3.4 billion if the House-passed cap-and-trade bill became law. Energy prices for everyone in the state would rise. By 2035, the study stated electricity prices would increase by more than $1,000 per household, and Mississippians would pay $1.27 more for a gallon of gasoline.

Cap-and-trade would also severely impact agriculture, our state’s largest employer. Under a cap-and-trade system, the American Farm Bureau Federation reported input costs for agriculture would rise by $5 billion. A recent report by the University of Missouri-Columbia found that under cap-and-trade, a typical corn, soybean, and wheat farm in that state could see increased costs of $11,649 in 2015 and $30,152 in 2050. Results anywhere close to this in Mississippi would be disastrous for the nearly 30 percent of workers in our state employed directly or indirectly by agriculture.