The environmentalist movement continually touts itself as the well-meaning shepherd of Americas public health.

It seems to me, however, that their cause consistently runs counter to our countrys economic health, which is deserving of some much-needed TLC. This week the Energy and Commerce Committee surveyed Rep. Kristi Noems (R-SD) Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011 (H.R. 1633), which aims to provide farmers and ranchers some protection from economic uncertainty due to overregulation by the US EPA. In short, this bill bans EPA from revising the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for large particulate matter (PM) for one year, and prevents the agency from regulating rural nuisance dust (farm dust) unless it proves to have significantly adverse health effects, of which there is currently no evidence. When Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) asked EPA Assistant Administrator for Air Quality Regina McCarthy why the EPA has not changed the coarse PM standard if they feel it has adverse effects, she answered that there is scientific uncertainty. The New York Times has a special section on energy in its 26th October edition that suggests that the paper is trying to catch up with the big news of the last decade in the energy sector. The front page story by Clifford Krauss is headlined, The Energy Picture, Redrawn. Inset photos are headlined DEEP WATER, HIGH ARCTIC, OIL SANDS, and SHALE, and the caption reads: A CHANGED GAME New oil and gas fields are expected to yield a vast supply of fuels that should help relieve the United States of dependence on the Mideast and help drive booming economies in India and China. Heres the conclusion of Krausss long summary of recent history: The fossil fuel age will be extended for decades, said Ivan Sandrea, president of the Energy Intelligence Group, a research publisher. Unconventional oil and gas are at the beginning of a technological cycle that can last 60 years. They are really in their infancy. A new study published in the Journal of Climate claims that painting rooftops whitea method championed by energy secretary Steven Chu and others to combat climate change only minimally reduces local cooling, and actually causes a slight increase in overall global warming. Yes, I know its hard to believe, but a harebrained, government-promoted scheme to alter the climate of the Earth with paint brushes may be backfiring. Why? Apparently, the global climate model used in the study (adorably named GATOR-GCMOM) found that;

[W]hite roofs means less surface heat in cities (which is obvious enough to anyone whos sat in a car with a black interior in the sun). Lower local temperature means less water evaporates and rises up to eventually form clouds, says lead author and Stanford University researcher Mark Jacobson. The decrease in clouds allows more sunlight to reach the Earths surface, leading to higher temperatures overall. We all know about Solyndra. We are learning about Fisker, the start-up electric car company, which received a $529 million loan from the Department of Energy. Touted by Vice President Biden as a bright new path to thousands of American manufacturing jobs, the cars are being manufactured in Finland. These are big stories being covered by the major media outlets. And these are only two such stories out there. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about two smaller stories from little states where shenanigans, at the least, and possible outright corruption, at the worst, were engaged in attempting to push through supposed green-energy projects. While researching those, another shady story surfaced: Rhode Islands Block Island Wind Farm Project. Back in 2004, in a different political and economic world, the RI General Assembly passed a Renewable Energy Standard that states: fossil fuel prices are extremely variable and created economic hardships for employers and families, and increased use of renewable energy can both lower and stabilize energy cost. The ratepayers of RI were sold a bill of goods that renewable energy can lower energy costs. Earlier this week, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (RCalif.) sent letters to three Obama administration officials regarding the veracity of their testimonies at an October 12 subcommittee hearing on the administrations fuel economy policies.* Issas letters to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Administrator David Strickland, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Gina McCarthy, and EPA Director of Transportation and Air Quality Margo Oge are identical in content. The gist of the letters is that each administration witness denied under oath that EPA and Californias greenhouse gas emission standards are related to fuel economy standards, whereas in fact, according to Issa, regulating greenhouse gases and regulating fuel economy is a distinction without a difference.

This matters for three inter-related reasons: (1) EPA is currently regulating fuel economy by setting motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards even though the Clean Air Act provides no authority for fuel economy regulation; (2) EPA in June 2009 granted California a waiver to establish motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards despite the Energy Policy Conservation Acts (EPCAs) express prohibition (U.S.C. 49 32919) of state laws or regulations related to fuel economy; and (3) the California waiver, by threatening to create a market-balkanizing regulatory patchwork, enabled the Obama administration to extort the auto industrys support for EPAs new career as greenhouse gas/fuel economy regulator in return for California and other states agreement to deem compliance with EPAs greenhouse gas/fuel economy standards as compliance with their own. As I will demonstrate below, greenhouse gas emission standards are highly related to fuel economy standards, and the administration witnesses cannot possibly be ignorant of the relationship. Do their denials of plain fact rise to the level of perjury The most consistent and nauseating feature of the environmental movement is its profound narcissism, which manifests primarily in two ways: 1) The belief that the mean global temperature of the current (or last) century is the correct state of affairs, any deviation from which is abhorrent and unnatural, and which must be maintained in perpetuity. 2) The belief that they, the environmentally anointed, can understand and effect something as intricately complex as the climate of the entire planet. Imagine some beings living some 635 million years ago when the entire planet was covered in ice, a recurring condition in Earths history known as Snowball Earth. Imagine these beings saying, This planetary ice cube is the natural state of the Earth, we must make sure it stays this temperature forever! When paperwork gets in the way of benefits, thats a problem. So said John Bemis, Secretarydesignate of New Mexicos Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, appointed by Governor Susana Martinez. What is significant about Bemis comment, made during a presentation in front of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Associations Annual meeting on October 3, is that it

represents a total change in attitude from the previous administration and is indicative of the difference one personat the topcan make. The change in attitude in NM presents a case study from which the rest of the US would be wise to learn. If there was ever a bully that deserved detention, it is the bureaucrats that run unchecked at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. One only has to listen to the heartbreaking accounts of ordinary, innocent American citizens who have been treated like criminals by this rogue agency to get a sense of a Goliath crushing David into the ground. Senator Rand Pauls roundtable forum, Property Wrongs: A Discussion with Victims of the U.S. Governments Assault on Private Property, held on October 12, 2011, gave folks who have been bullied by government agencies the chance to share their disheartening realities with the public. The discussion began with Sen. Paul addressing the problems we face today: keeping up with the myriad regulations imposed upon the individual by unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucrats. Instead of the passage of laws by Congress, where public debate and influence can be exercised, agencies like the EPA rule by administrative fiat, which is leading to exorbitant penalties that do not fit the crime. The agencies responsible for this over-criminalization of laws have taken a toll on property owners and their faith in the government as the protector of their rights. The once lovely face of Lady Liberty now wears the quintessential looks of the mean kid on the playground: class bully. The saying Because I said so, comes to mind. Rand Paul is working on a bill targeted at putting bureaucracy bullies in a well-deserved time-out. The stories I will share are of those who have been bullied specifically by the EPAs ever-expansive interpretation of its own authority under the Clean Water Act.