Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Environmental’ Category

The environmentalist movement has always been anti-human.  Recently TheBlaze posted an article about how the push for cheap, plentiful, clean energy is not what environmentalists really want because that allows humans to keep reproducing and multiplying.  Chilling and sobering thought, and it’s based in reality.

Every couple of years the Great One, Mark Levin, reminds us on his radio program about a seminal book review written by a National Park environmentalist, David Graber.  The review was for the book The End Of Nature by Bill McKibben.

In Graber’s review he plainly states that the planet would be much better off with fewer people, and that removing about a billion would be a good start.  He wrote in the L.A. Times on October 22, 1989:

I, for one, cannot wish upon either my children or the rest of Earth’s biota a tame planet, a human-managed planet, be it monstrous or–however unlikely–benign. McKibben is a biocentrist, and so am I. We are not interested in the utility of a particular species, or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value–to me–than another human body, or a billion of them.

Translation:  Any other animal besides mankind, and any other natural feature such as a tree, rock or lake, is more valuable than the lives of a billion people.  I’m not reading that in to Graber’s statement, that’s what he – and many radical environmentalists – actually thinks.

Graber then continues:

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line–at about a billion years ago, maybe half that–we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.  It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

Graber, and other radical environmentalists today, are hoping for most or all of the human race to be literally destroyed from the planet.  He is waiting for, “the right virus to come along”.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

A week ago Governor Inslee issued Executive Order 14-04 to implement, “WASHINGTON CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION AND CLEAN ENERGY ACTION”
http://www.governor.wa.gov/office/execorders/documents/14-04.pdf

Governor Inslee has no authority to do this. 

According to the Washington State Constitution, Article II Section 1, “The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature.”  That word “vested” means non-transferrable.  Additionally, “The first power reserved by the people is the initiative,” and, “The second power reserved by the people is the referendum.”

Because of this, Executives Orders in Washington State carry no force of law.  They are simply and only policy statements describing how the executive branch intends to implement law that has been duly passed by the State legislature or the people. 

No legislation has been passed mandating a, “transition from coal,” or to, “advance electric vehicle use,” or to, “implement opportunities to increase statewide investments in multimodal transportation.”  And no legislation has been passed to, “develop…a new state program to assist and support our research institutions, utilities, and businesses to develop, demonstrate, and deploy new renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.” 

For Governor Inslee to pretend to create such mandates with the stroke of his pen is for him to abandon the role of the executive listed in the State Constitution in Article III Section 5, to, “see that the laws are faithfully executed.”

http://www.leg.wa.gov/LawsAndAgencyRules/Pages/constitution.aspx

Part of the problem is poorly crafted law.  When legislators craft law giving the executive branch a blanket statement such as, “spend such and such,” or, “provide energy,” the executive branch ~assumes~ it has been delegated the duty of making up any law as it sees fit – in the form of executive orders and bureaucratic regulations – to achieve the goal.  That’s the real issue. 

For example, in 1969 the federal Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act.  The act basically said, “An Act to establish a national policy for the environment, to provide for the establishment of a Council on Environmental Quality, and for other purposes.”  That’s it.  The rest of the act was six pages of platitudes about, “assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings,” and, “recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems,” etc.  I’m not making this up.

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/Req-NEPA.pdf
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/4321

In 1970, based off that poorly crafted act, President Nixon issued an executive order authorizing creation of the EPA and giving it blanket authority over wide swaths of government and other previous legislation. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE-84-Pg2086.pdf

Since that time the federal Congress has given the EPA additional, similarly undefined duties.  For example, the monstrous Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 which starts off with the preamble, “The objective of this chapter is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” and goes on to say things like, “It is…the policy of the Congress to support and aid research relating to the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution and to provide Federal technical services and financial aid to State and interstate agencies and municipalities in connection with the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution,” etc.  It went on to say, “Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter in this chapter called “Administrator”) shall administer this chapter”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/1251 (Title 33 1251-1376)

So the President of the United States and the EPA administrator both think they can make up law as they see fit.  But they cannot, because under the U.S Constitution, “We the People…do ordain and establish..All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…”  Again, that word “vested” means non-transferrable. 

The U.S. Congress has no authority to delegate it’s role away.  They have no authority to delegate environmental regulation to the EPA, power to initiate acts of war to the executive, coinage to the Fed, or origination of tax code to the I.R.S. 

Similarly, the Washington State Congress has no authority to delegate to Governor Inslee the authority to make regulation regarding engergy consumption, transportation or creating new state programs.

Read Full Post »