Which Way Now for SEPP?|
Get ready for the worst -- in 2013 and after:
An avalanche of economy-crippling EPA regulations, soaring energy prices, and a White House that has Climate Change as its centerpiece. President Obama acknowledged as much in his acceptance speech, when he said he wanted to "pass on a country that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet." [NB: The planet hasn't warmed for the past 16 years!]
My real concern is for young people who will never know what America was like -- or might have been. They will pay the price in reduced standard of living and job opportunities -- and, more importantly, in reduced Freedom. We may already be on the 'slippery slope' -- with the 'takers' outvoting the 'producers.'
OECD projects that China will overtake the US as the world's largest economy in 2016
My hope is that the US is not beyond repair. Let us pray -- each in his own way.
What we are up against
The environmental movement is arguably among the best-funded and most popular of the interest groups composing the Left today. They raise and spend billions of dollars a year, a fair amount of it coming from governments and duped donors. The five top energy and environment issues in 2013 will likely be:
Fortunately, other groups are actively opposing thus; it's not necessary for SEPP to duplicate their good efforts. We already work closely with such groups and support them by providing scientific back-up.
SEPP's past -- and proposed action plan
Although I had been involved in climate science throughout my professional life (see http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology ), my first policy-oriented publication was in 1988: Fact and Fancy on Greenhouse Earth (The Wall Street Journal, August 30, 1988). I founded SEPP in 1990 - just as the UN-IPCC published its first Assessment Report on climate science; we achieved 501-c-3 tax-exempt status in 1992, shortly after the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit and the World Climate Treaty.
Among SEPP's major achievements was the first demonstration of absence of a 'scientific consensus' (the 1995 'Leipzig Declaration') and the publication of booklets or other responses to the four climate-science assessments of the IPCC, culminating in setting up NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) in 2007. Since then, we have published two major NIPCC reports and two summaries. Our plan calls for another (final) report and summary in 2013.
In the case of a Romney election victory, I had planned to lay out a road map for Romney-Ryan, focusing on eliminating the current Endangerment Findings of the EPA. The EF is the basis for all carbon-dioxide regulations, whether for power plants or road vehicles. Remove the EF and most of EPA's proposed regulations would collapse.
With Obama's re-election, our proposed plan consists of two parts: science and environmental policy.
On science we are completing a review of the state of climate science that addresses the same audience as IPCC. "Climate Change Reconsidered - 2013" will be the third of this series of NIPCC reports published for us by the Heartland Institute.
Serving as an "expert reviewer" on the forthcoming 5th Assessment report of the UN-IPCC, I can tell you without breaking confidence that the IPCC fails to make its case for AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Here is the abstract of talks I will be giving over the next couple months.
On the policy side, we work mainly with established organizations, such as the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. They are larger than we, have a talented staff of policy analysts and access to legal advice. Our contribution is to provide scientific back-up. For example, we were co-plaintiffs against the EPA, challenging their Endangerment Finding.
In 2013 we will face a large number of proposed EPA regulations that will do little for the environment but will certainly retard or even stop economic growth. For a (partial) listing see http://www.americanthinker.com/2012
Our task is to show that most of these regulations are destructive, unscientific and unnecessary.