31 Dec

Obama’s run: killing many birds with two stones [Reader Post]

                                       

obama's run

The plot of the movie Logan’s Run has been summarized by one writer in this manner:

In the 23rd century, the survivors of a holocaust now lives within a domed city that is sealed off from the outside world. In the domed city, men and women live in a society where you can only live until you are 30-years old (due to population control and limited resources), the people have two choices: They can either take part in a extermination ceremony called “Carousel” where they are promised of being reborn or they can go on the run and escape to outside the domed city.

Sound vaguely familiar?

Barack Obama is set to impose grand new taxes on the energy industry through EPA regulatory actions and bypass Congress. As noted previously, this will most likely negatively impact the economy via much higher costs for electricity, gasoline and heating oil. It could really not come at a worse time. And Obama did warn us.

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

What really angers me is that Obama did make clear how Marxist Obama intended to remake this country yet the execrable media did its absolute best to dismiss Obama’s own words.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant.

People produce CO2- 2.3 pounds, or 1 kg/day. That means that each person produces 365 kg of CO2 per year and the total CO2 production by the entire US population in one year is 113,150,000 metric tons. The entire CO2 production by the United States is 5,838,181,000 metric tons. That means the people of this country produce 2% of that CO2 each year. Humans contribute a significant portion of the total CO2 emissions into the atmosphere each year.

Something has to be done about that.

Now every useful idiot from Obama on down to Jackson asserts that these new regulations will help clean the air.

But how much? Has anyone asked that? What are the concrete benefits? And what is it we are fighting? Climate change? Climate change happens four times a year where I live and I don’t really want that changed.

If all of the new EPA regulations are implemented, global temperatures will be reduced by six thousandths of one degree Celsius and the sea levels will be halted to the tune of 0.06–0.14 cm by 2100.

Fabulous.

As for warming- have a look at this chart:

Photobucket

You’ll note a couple of things right away. First, fluctuations are common and normal. Second, the Earth was much warmer 1500 years ago that it is today. And that’s without the CO2 levels we see today. So, to post a question- WTF?

Meteorologist Art Horn puts an exclamation point on all of this:

The very small human component of the greenhouse effect has profound implications when governments are considering reducing carbon dioxide concentrations to fight global warming. The United States produces about 20% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions each year. If we were somehow able to shut down all sources of carbon dioxide emissions from the United States, the effect on the global average temperature would be 20% of .1 degree, or .02 degrees. And that’s with shutting down everything that makes carbon dioxide! This decrease of .02 degrees is so small it is completely irrelevant. If achieved, it would drop the global average temperature from 59.0 to 58.98 degrees, and it would take billions, if not trillions, to achieve. After all — we make 87% of our energy from burning fossil fuels. If there were a way to eliminate all carbon dioxide emissions on a global scale, the decrease in temperature would be .1 degree — dropping the temperature from 59.0 degrees to 58.9 degrees. Once again, completely insignificant at a cost that would quite possibly bankrupt the world.

And at least one meteorologist is predicting a new mini ice age.

But let’s ignore all that for a moment. How do we kill those two birds?

Clearly we need to reduce the sources of CO2 emissions, and humans are one source that can be controlled.

As he has no regard for the democratic republic structure of this country, Barack Obama can do a few more extra-Constitutional things. He can issue more Executive Orders to further achieve his ends. He could issue new caps on CO2 emissions by individuals. Once you have used up your limit, you no longer get any medical treatment save for pain pills.

Obama has already begun the process. Death panels have returned, again by regulation. In the WSJ, Rivkin and Foley argue that government is asserting control over one’s bodily autonomy.

This whole scheme doesn’t stand up to legal scrutiny. Government-imposed cost-benefit rationing raises serious constitutional concerns. Individual bodily autonomy is one of the oldest recognized rights. Its constitutional significance is reflected in Supreme Court decisions acknowledging the rights to refuse unwanted treatment and to access treatments such as contraception and abortion. Freedom to make medical decisions is central to the autonomy and dignity encapsulated by the majestic word “liberty” in the Constitution’s due process clauses.

This isn’t to say that government can never interfere with bodily autonomy. State governments can, for example, force citizens to submit to certain treatments (like vaccinations) because of their unique “police power” to protect citizens’ health and safety. And the federal government can ban trade in snake oil treatments through its power to regulate commerce.

They make this point strongly:

If government can limit Americans’ choice of effective medical treatments, there’s no limit to its control over our bodies, and the right to bodily autonomy is an illusion. In the context of the new health law, the FDA’s Avastin decision is the tip of a looming iceberg of government rationing. It must be challenged.

If Obamacare can force a personal mandate upon us and take away bodily autonomy there is no limit to what it can do, including withholding medical treatment once you’ve used up your CO2 emission limit. On the plus side, this would both limit CO2 emissions and lower health care costs.

Before you think this is too out there, remember that Obama’s science czar believes we need forced abortions and mass sterilization to save the planet.

That would kill a lot of birds with two stones. It’s time Obama really got serious.

He could always start with the rich. No one seems to like them right now.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Celebrity Idiots, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Politics, POWER GRAB! and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Friday, December 31st, 2010 at 5:00 am
| 556 views

8 Responses to Obama’s run: killing many birds with two stones [Reader Post]

  1. Missy says: 1

    Just thought I would sneak in a couple of “global warming” items I saw in my travels yesterday.

    First, the windmills have to be heated otherwise they freeze up:

    Wind turbines have to be heated or they freeze up, costing more to operate than they generate

    http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com/2010/12/wind-turbines-have-to-be-heated-or-they_28.html

    Next, all those expensive, energy efficient boilers installed across GB are freezing up, over 60,000 calls “in Yorkshire alone.” They did something similar to “cash for clunkers” people in GB invested, the green heating systems will take 10 years to pay for themselves, but unfortunately, they don’t last 10 years. All this to reduce CO2.

    ‘You might get 20 years out of one of the old ones,’ Charlie Mullins says, ‘but it is more like three to six years out of one of these new ones. In fact, if it goes wrong after four years, you are better off replacing a condensing boiler altogether because of the ­horrendous cost of the parts.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1342357/Central-heating-break-big-freeze-Heres-.html#ixzz19hHyY4kC

    ReplyReply
  2. DrJohn says: 2

    Nice finds, Missy. Thanks!

    ReplyReply
  3. Patvann says: 3

    Us smelly, parasitic, worthless capitalist humans have heated up Ghia to the tune of 0.0015 degrees over the past 110 years, above what She has, so we must do penance for that sin.

    ReplyReply
  4. Pingback: TMN’s Regulatory Cap ‘N Tax To ‘Skyrocket’ Energy Prices | The Magic Negro

  5. Nan G says: 4

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is a good example of the allowable church/state intermarriage that Obama approves:
    She said in November, 2010: “What must we do to heal the planet and build on the religious and moral reasons for being good stewards of our environment?”

    Later her actions showed us her answer…..

    She took the rights away from 8 states, including Texas the other day.
    They cannot put out permits for any new businesses or renew old permits unless EPA says so.

    Not missed was the fact that the overwhelming majority of those 8 states were also suing the federal government over ObamaCare in that 21-state lawsuit.

    ReplyReply
  6. Greg says: 5

    Re: #1

    It might make more sense to calculate the payback of investments in alternative energy sources in terms of usable energy spent vs. usable energy gained, rather than in terms of monetary units spent vs. monetary units gained.

    From RenewableUK:

    Energy Balance

    The comparison of energy used in manufacture with the energy produced by a power station is known as the ‘energy balance’. It can be expressed in terms of energy ‘pay back’ time, that is the time needed to generate the equivalent amount of energy used in manufacturing the wind turbine or power station.

    The average wind farm in the UK will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within three to ten months, and over its lifetime a wind turbine will produce over 30 times more energy than was used in its manufacture.

    This compares favourably with coal or nuclear power stations, which deliver only a third of the total energy used in construction and fuel supply. So, if fuel is included in the calculation, fossil fuel or nuclear power stations never achieve an energy pay back. Wind energy not only achieves pay back within a few months of installation but does so from a fuel that is free and inexhaustible.

    ReplyReply
  7. Smorgasbord says: 6

    Here’s a chart that goes back 65,000,000 years ago. I didn’t know they had thermometers back then. The first one you see only goes back 10,000 years.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

    ReplyReply
  8. Pingback: Tweets that mention Obama’s run: killing many birds with two stones [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces -- Topsy.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>