Latest posts by Nancy Thorner (see all)
- Phyllis Schlafly, Champion OF Investors, Defender of Vigorous U.S. Patent System - February 12, 2018
- Heartland Institute Focuses on New Game Plan for Success - February 8, 2018
- Take Stock in America: Trump’s Way of Governing - February 1, 2018
This may shock the myriad of government employees that work at the Environmental Protection Agency, but there’s a five-year plan being mulled that would lead to the agency’s dissolution. It was one of many discussion topics at Heartland Institute’s 12th annual climate change forum in March.
Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. appeared on a panel titled Climate Politics and Policy at ICCC-12, held in Washington, D.C., March 23 & 24. Other panel members included Scott Armstrong, Ph.D. and the Honorable Dennis Hedke. Moderator was S.T. Karnick.
Dr. Lehr’s topic: The Inefficiency of the EPA.
The EPA inflicted much harm during the Obama administration with its damaging rules and regulations. A turnaround is now taking place with the election of Donald Trump, but is the EPA really needed as a government agency? Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. doesn’t think so. He has a five-year plan to dissolve the EPA.
Jay Lehr’s initial remark was to confess that a 70-year-old novel by Sinclair Lewis, Arrowsmith, had influenced the direction of his life by guiding him toward science.
How CO2 became a greenhouse gas and then a pollutant
In relation to how CO2 became a greenhouse gas and a pollutant that now drives the issue of Global Warming, Lehr noted these two events.
1. In 1895 the problem began when a Swedish scientist (Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) decided that because CO2 had an impact on temperature, it qualified for a greenhouse gas.
2. In 1990 a UN Committee was formed for the express purpose of determining man’s role in running the planet.
Not taken into consideration was how CO2 concentration was much higher in centuries past, yet this had no impact in slowing the natural occurrence of ice ages. The UN-ICC Committee proceeded to construct mathematical models that were so devised to conform to already established ICC predictions that CO2 was the cause of global warming. The ICC report that followed, and subsequent reports, continue to be viewed as consensus science by global warming advocates.
Noted by Lehr was the way Albert Einstein responded to a book published in 1931, 100 Authors Against Einstein. When asked about the book, Einstein retorted by saying “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!
As Lehr reflected, nine times more people die of cold than from heat. There are even credible scientists who believe we are facing colder weather in the coming decade.
Twenty years passed before man discovered that washing hands was important when going from the morgue to the birthing room, and 50 years for Louis Pasteur to have accepted his germ theory medical stance. Lehr hopes it doesn’t take another generation of Americans to reject the messages of doom and gloom advanced by global warming alarmists. As Lehr stated, “If Robert Kennedy, Jr. could have his way, all global warming deniers would be tried for war crimes.”
Dr. Lehr’s 5-year plan to dissolve the EPA
The main thrust of Jay Lehr’s presentation was getting rid of the EPA. Also strongly recommended was withdrawal from the Paris Accords.
The concept of creating the EPA was initiated through a series of meeting that took place from 1968 – 1971. Dr. Lehr, along with 5 other individuals, was responsible for developing the concept of the EPA, which President Nixon signed into law in 1971. During the 70’s seven laws were passed by the EPA that had merit, the one exception being the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act or Superfund Act, but in less than ten years the EPA had become weaponized and part of the Green Movement. As stated by Lehr: “Not a single law was passed after 1980 that advanced the cause of environmental protection in the U.S.
Two years ago that Dr. Lehr presented his plan to dissolve the EPA to participants at ICCC-10 held in Las Vegas, CO. His plan, distributed to all state legislatures, called for dissolving the EPA and turning its responsibilities over to the states. But instead of receiving pushback about his plan, Lehr was asked why a 5-year plan was needed to dissolve the EPA. Wouldn’t one year be enough time to accomplish the task at hand?, to which Jay responded: “It was to give administration and others in the agency a chance to find other work.”
EPA facts noted by Dr. Lehr:
- Out of 14 separate offices within the EPA, each with its own staff and budget, only 5 deal with the environment, two belong in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 7 others are entirely non-scientific offices.
- 15,000 employees are spread between Washington D.C. and 10 regional offices and a few research centers, with a total budget allowance of $8.2 billion.
In essence, a committee would initially be formed of 6 members from each state (300 in all) to evaluate the 14 separate EPA offices as to their effectiveness. The EPA committee finding would then be submitted to Congress, and with Congressional approval, a directive would be issued to dissolve the EPA, contingent upon a two-thirds vote of all 50 states.
Complete elimination of the EPA would take five years to accomplish. Notwithstanding, at the wish of the 50 state environmental agencies, the Office of Research and Development — one of five EPA offices actually dealing with the environment — could be retained under the direction of the states.
EPA, a useless, bloated government agency
The existence of the EPA has only made life miserable for states. It’s useless in its current form. The idea of creating the EPA had considerable merit back in 1971, which it lost after states formed their own EPA structures to deal with environmental problems. The Constitution doesn’t call for the establishment of the EPA, or many entities existing within the federal government, that shift power away from the states to the federal government.
Regarding the one actual field project in recent year the USEPA was engaged in — a waste spill near the Animus River in Colorado — it was botched, which resulted in the pollution of the Animus River for over a month. The EPA response: “We’re sorry.”
Other articles by Thorner from attendance at Heartland’s ICCC-12:
[Originally Published at Illinois Review]