Cool or Cold following 2015-2016 El Nino Collapse (Updated 7/1/2016)

NOAA recently released the following statement: “After dominating the tropical Pacific for more than a year, El Niño ended in May 2016. Near- or below-average temperatures existed in 3 out of 4 ENSO monitoring regions of the tropical Pacific. And for the first time in 2016, wind and air pressure patterns were consistent with neutral conditions. There’s a 75% chance that La Niña will develop by winter.”

NOAA also says that “ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) is one of the most important climate phenomena on Earth due to its ability to change the global atmospheric circulation, which in turn, influences temperature and precipitation across the globe.” An El Nino is created when the Pacific Ocean near the equator is not able to dissipate heat as efficiently as it normally does. This time around the El Nino is collapsing faster than normal with concurrent drops in ocean surface and land temperature.

What frustrates those who know what is happening are the outrageous claims that the record warm temperatures in 2015 and 2016 were caused by climate change – with nary a word about El Nino. Climatologist and oceanographer Dr. Fredolin Tangang of the University Kebangsaan Malaysia and vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 2008 to 2015, warned that El Nino and climate change are not related. Says Dr. Tangang, “There is no conclusive evidence that the occurrence of El Nino (frequency and intensity) is influenced by climate change.”
 
Of course, the news about the record-breaking heat of 2015 and 2016 allegedly caused by climate change is now a fact in the public’s mind. The scientists and radical environmentalists feeding the false information to an eager media knew that climate change was not the cause, yet they did it anyway. The bottom line—they successfully lied. That has become the norm for any news on climate change. Don’t believe a word they say.



The June 2016 anomaly is well below the dashed red line which represents the average cooling rate required for the rest of 2016 to tie 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record.

The equatorial ocean and atmospheric temperature comparison from January to June 2016 clearly show that we are entering into a La Nina event that should mature late summer or early fall. Like the La Nina that followed the super El Nino of 2007-2008, the emerging La Nina is likely to be cool and long-lasting.  The global temperature has dropped a “spectacular” -0.37^oC in two months –the second largest drop in the record. For 2016 to be warmer than the warmest year of 1998, the temperature must decline much slower than it is (See graphic above). From 2007 until late 2015 there was no statistical global warming. Except this time the earth may not recover to its former warmth and may, in fact plummet From 2007 until late 2015 there was no statistical global warming. Except this time the earth may not recover to its former warmth and may, in fact plummet.
 

The number of sunspots per 11 year solar cycle has been
sharply declining for the past three cycles. Some solar scientists 
are warning there may be a maximum of 30-60 sunspots in
cycles  25 and 26—the same as occurred in the Little Ice Age.

A growing number of scientists are concerned because the sun is going into a rare 206 year  “Bicentennial  Cycle” of little to no sunspot activity accompanied by a decades-long deep cooling period. The current 11 year solar cycle (Number 24) has the lowest maximum number of sunspots (116) since cycle 14 in 1906 which had a maximum of 107. The “normal” maximum number of sunspots in a solar cycle is 150 to 200. Even at 116 sunspots there have been only a few cycles that had smaller maximum sunspot activity than Cycle 24. Those cycles were concurrent with what history calls the “Little Ice Age.” Cycle 25 which should start in about 6 years, could have much lower sunspot numbers—and colder temperatures. 





A low maximum number of sunspots have a high correlation with

very cold periods in earth's history. Although Galileo didn't perfect

the telescope to be able to actually see sunspots until the

early 1600s, and sunspots were not continuously counted until

1850, there is ample evidence that earth's cold cycles were

correlated with low sunspot activity long before the 1600s.





Why is this important? During the Little Ice Age (approximately from 1300 to 1825) there were massive famines, disease and misery. Hopefully, modern agriculture can overcome the short growing seasons and modern medicine and pest control can keep plagues under control. However, a lot depends on how cold it gets, or even if it gets cold. That is the problem with trying to predict future climate—even when the 206 year cycle of cold is 100 percent correlated with very low sunspot activity. Global warming alarmists seem to believe they have 20-20 foresight to predict catastrophic warming using grossly inaccurate computer models. These climate models have generally predicted temperatures that are 300 percent greater than the actual temperature they are supposed to be predicting. For more information on this potential cold cycle see my article in the 2016 Winter Issue of Range magazine.

Dr. Michael Coffman

 

 

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtmlhttps://www.climate.gov/enso

Good News You Won’t Find in the Liberal Press

 

    Chances are you’ve never heard that U.S. carbon emissions have plummeted since about 2007 and are now at 1994 levels. As important, as a percentage of total global CO2 emissions, the U.S. will make up a small amount. All you ever hear in the liberal press is how bad the carbon emissions are in the good ‘ol USA, giving the impression those emissions are skyrocketing.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has issued several reports the last few months showing how the U.S. is not a major contributor of CO2 emissions today, but its emission contribution will decline significantly through 2040. First, the U.S. emissions declined from 6,000 million metric tons in 2007 to 5,280 in 2015, a drop of 12 percent. No other nation comes close to this reduction. The EIA also found that much of that change has “occurred in the electric power sector because of the decreased use of coal and the increased use of natural gas for electricity generation.”

Before 2007 most of the U.S. emissions from electricity production were from coal, some from natural gas and minor amounts from biomass and other sources. After 2007 use of coal sharply declined and was replaced by natural gas, which emits far less carbon than coal. The use of wind and solar increased substantially (made possible by huge government subsidies) making the “other” category almost zero. Even though the use of electricity remained relatively constant, the total emissions of CO2 by fossil fuels declined to 1994 levels, primarily because of natural gas and a lesser reduction due to renewables. 

Global

On the global scale it is readily apparent that the U.S. emissions (bottom, dark blue) remain static and but a small proportion of the total global emissions. Conversely, the global emissions increase by

one-third between 2012 and 2040, almost entirely driven by the non-OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) developing nations. In 2012 the non-OECD nations emitted 46 percent, while the OECD nations emitted 54 percent. By 2040 the non-OECD nation’s share of emissions jumps to 68 percent with the OECD nations share reduced to 32 percent, a decline of 22 percent.

China and India account for the largest increases. By 2040 U.S. emissions will only be 22 percent of that of China and only 11 percent of that of the entire world. Both nations have very active programs to build coal-fired electrical plants, with China bringing online some 2.5 new coal-fired plants a month. This has created so much smog that the phrase “the brown cloud” was coined. The brown cloud has spread over SE Asia accompanied by citizens having to wearing masks during the worst conditions. Yet, the Paris agreement allows China to postpone any CO2 reductions until 2030.

Having said the non-OECD nation’s account for almost all future increases, they have every right to improve their citizen’s lives by producing more electricity. They have no choice. To expect them to use expensive green energy is absurd. A major global study by the International Renewable Energy Agency found “that many developing countries made huge strides towards deploying renewable technologies over the past decade — but this rise is now leveling off. Instead, these countries are turning towards fossil fuels to meet the energy demands of their citizens. 

Green Energy Benefits are Grossly Overblown

Another major very detailed study by Utah State’s Institute of Political Economy found that every cost estimate of wind power is on average 48 percent lower than its true cost. When all the numerous and very complex cost inputs are considered, the true cost of wind power is $149 per mega watt-hour of power – far greater than fossil fuels.

While proponents of renewable energy brag about how renewables are competitive with fossil fuels, the full costs of these renewables are greatly underestimated. They can only be competitive if the government gives them huge government subsidies paid by you taxpayers. In one subsidy, the Production Tax Credit (PTC), costs $39 per mega watt-hour and is guaranteed for a period of ten years for each power producer. So dependent are green energy producers on this subsidy that the report claims “If the PTC permanently expires in 2016, it is unlikely there will be any new wind installations.” Yet, you will not read this in the liberal press.

The point is that renewable energy is still very expensive and is not yet ready for prime time. Yet, it is being forced on citizens using deceptive practices. Germany and England are slowly awakening to the fact that their electricity costs have risen by over 70 percent because of renewable energy; creating an entirely new class of poverty-stricken citizens in what is called fuel poverty. Fuel poverty is variously defined as a family that can no longer keep their house warm, or they have to spend more than ten percent of their income on electrical energy.

The point is that governments and the liberal media are ignoring the positive things that are happening, like declining levels of U.S. CO2 emissions, and grossly over-exaggerating renewable benefits. This is not academic. President Obama’s plan for reducing CO2 emissions will have a devastating impact on America’s economy and will only reduce CO2’s emissions by less than 0.01^oC. This is further dwarfed by China’s and other non-OECD nations’ increased emissions. In a word, it is insane to continue our renewable energy policy on the false belief that all our economic pain will do any good.

Michael Coffman, PH.D.

The End of the US Dollar as We Know It

 

For years I have written articles explaining how the US dollar and financial system is in a state of crisis and a collapse is inevitable—as early as 2016. Although I didn’t say it, I believed the collapse would occur in 2015. I was wrong and could be wrong again. However, a rapidly growing number of highly respected financial individuals and firms are saying the same thing, so I guess I am in good company. One of those institutions is Stansberry Research, whose founder has had an enviable record of forecasting major financial events.

 

The world has been on a spending binge by going into debt. That includes the US. Consider that:

·        In the six months that have passed since then-retiring House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell cut a budget deal with President Barack Obama that suspended the legal limit on the federal debt until March 15, 2017, the federal debt has increased by more than $1 trillion.

 

·        It took the US 216 years to create the first $8.5 trillion in debt... then just 8 more years to double that amount.

 

·        The US National Debt, now at $19.26 trillion, is on schedule to nearly double during the Obama administration. 

·        If you include local, state, corporate and personal debt, Stansberry warns that our total debt is an unbelievable $65 trillion, up from $55 trillion in 2009.

·       Even more alarming is the realization that the Federal Reserve (Fed) is buying up to 70 percent of US Treasury Bonds with money it created out of thin air. That’s like loaning yourself a million dollars that you don’t have and never will.

  ·   Consider that the Fed literally increased the dollar money supply by 400 percent since 2006—again out of thin air. The adjacent graph shows what has taken place over the past few years with the U.S. dollar is something straight out of Weimar Germany... or the last 20 years in Zimbabwe

  ·   The number of families on food stamps has essentially doubled during the Obama administration.

  ·     Roughly 75% of all Americans live from paycheck to paycheck with essentially no savings.

  ·    “We're looking at a collapse in corporate bonds” claims Stansberry, “plummeting oil and commodity prices.”

·       Research shows the "too big to fail" banks, the top five largest financial institutions (the ones that were bailed out in 2008), are now 25% bigger than they were back then, and more dangerous than ever.

·       Private businesses have taken on more debt than any time in the past 12 years, and an incredible 863 companies that have had their credit rating downgraded last year... the most since 2009.

·       Globally since 2009 world debt has increased by $57 trillion. Twenty years ago global debt of the G20 was $40 trillion. It skyrocketed to $230 trillion today—nearly an 800 percent increase.

·    In recent months Stansberry has seen nearly $8 trillion disappear from world stock markets... and a whopping 70% of investors lost money in 2015. Even Warren Buffett lost $11 billion dollars.  

Lear Capital has been warning for more than a year that “something big” is about to happen. They provide a list of banks and financial institutions that are stockpiling massive amounts of gold and silver while telling their customers that investing in precious metals is not a good idea. Goldman Sachs and HSBC have both stockpiled 7.1 tons of gold by mid-summer, 2015. At $1268 per ounce (price on May 9, 2016), 7.1 tons is $263 million.

This is only a small part of the suicide cliff the US is racing towards. How did it happen? Stansberry states the obvious: “This is what happens when our government embarks on a gross, out-of-control experiment, expanding the money supply 400% in just six years, and more than doubling our national debt since 2006.”

American citizens may not know the details of the rot our politicians of both political parties have put us in. However, they know the ‘establishment’ is guilty of something massive. It is no wonder why the American people are rejecting ‘establishment’ candidates in this year’s presidential election.

Assuming Clinton and Trump will be the two candidates in the general election, which one would do better in minimizing the horrible consequences of a collapsing dollar and economy? Clinton seems more interested in women’s rights and big government, but has little experience dealing with hard financial issues. Trump has experience in business related financial issues but is constantly changing his mind on key problems impacting the nation. He has the best chance of getting the nation through this financial crisis, if he would stay on one path and not personally demonize those who disagree with him.

This is the choice you have. Choose wisely.

Michael Coffman, Ph.D.

Shocker: NASA and Columbia University Admitting CO2 has Benefits

NASA's depiction of the relative increase in earth's greening.
Notice that the Western US has greened by up to 50 percent.
Click on graphic to go to NASA article with larger picture.

For several decades now skeptics of man-caused (anthropogenic) global warming has a “fertilization” effect—it causes plants to grow faster and produce more leaves. Thousands of small enclosure experiments have shown this. However, global warming alarmists have ignored these research studies by claiming that increased disease, insects, drought, heat waves and other large-scale environmental downsides could negate the CO2 benefits. This has given the UN IPCC an excuse to ignore the benefits of CO2. Until now.

A new study published in Nature Climate Change on April 25, 2016 has blown this excuse out of the water and forced universities such as Columbia to acknowledge that CO2 does have real-world benefits. NASA agrees with them. The study involved 32 authors from 24 institutions collaborating with NASA to determine “leaf area index” for the past 35 years. Leaf area index is a relative index of the amount of leaf area in a particular location. The results are stunning as can be seen in the graphic at the top of the page.

The study revealed that 25-50 percent of the earth has experienced greening, of which at least 70 percent is attributed to increased CO2 in the form of CO2 fertilization. NASA puts this into perspective; “The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.” In the U.S., the most stunning revelation is that the arid Western U.S. has shown up to a 50 percent increase in leaf area index. Why? The answer to this is found in another research study also reported in the same issue of Nature Climate Change.

Plants use water more efficiently with higher CO2

Columbia University reports a study published in Nature Climate Change involving 16 researchers from a half-dozen countries on the effects of CO2 on water-use efficiency with different temperatures and drought conditions. Prior small enclosure studies have shown that plants (and crops) exposed to higher levels of CO2 grow better in high temperature or drought conditions than those exposed to “ambient” (normal) levels of CO2. However, like the greening effect discussed above, proponents of CO2 “is an evil gas” did not want to hear this and developed a host of reasons why these results should be ignored. Hence, the IPCC and other promoters of man-caused global warming have ignored the benefits.

The current study undercuts those alarmists that have buried their heads in the sand. They have ignored the positive results of CO2 in helping plants to grow faster in higher temperature or drought conditions. This study not only reviewed decades of small enclosure studies, but also included emerging results from entire farm-field studies:

Based on the current biomass of these crops, water-use efficiency would rise an average of 27 percent in wheat; 18 percent in soybeans; 13 percent in maize; and 10 percent in rice. All things considered, the study projects that average yields of current rain-fed wheat areas (mostly located in higher latitudes including the United States, Canada and Europe), might go up by almost 10 percent, while consumption of water would go down a corresponding amount.

Imagine that. Crops would actually increase in biomass and food production with elevated CO2—something we have known for decades, but denied by politically correct, agenda driven politics. Even so, the study also found that irrigated wheat in China and India declined by 4 percent (perhaps a case of too much water?) and more study is needed for other crops.

While it is refreshing that an ultra-liberal university like Columbia finally acknowledges that CO2 can be beneficial, a disclaimer had to be written. Lead author Delphine Deryng, an environmental scientist at Columbia University’s Center for Climate Systems Research, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the University of Chicago’s Computation Institute dutifully cautions that the study should not be interpreted to mean that increasing carbon dioxide is a friend to humanity–only that its direct effects must be included in any calculation of what the future holds. Such a disclaimer makes the team eligible for the next $100,000 plus grant.

The point is that the politically correct UN, federal agencies and scientists have repressed this good news for decades in order for them to advance their agenda. That agenda includes income redistribution to developing nations and, more importantly, world government by controlling manufacturing and the economies of entire nations by controlling CO2 emissions. We in the USA have a chance of stopping this in our November elections. Vote wisely.

Inevitable: Progressive AG’s Attempt to Use RICO to Punish Global Warming Skeptics

New York Attorney General  Eric Schneiderman is leading an effort by 16 Progressive Democrat AGs to somehow use RICO to prosecute companies and individuals on fraud charges who are Global Warming Skeptics.

   Over the past three decades Democrat progressives have increasingly attacked anyone who disagreed with them, calling them Nazis’, climate criminals, cults and other, even more, atrocious names. In their hatred they have demonstrated that they want to shut down all dissenting discourse, effectively denying the First Amendment of free speech to those they don’t believe deserve it. Until now, however, state and Federal Attorney Generals have steered clear of prosecuting skeptics on criminal charges. That has now changed.

   This jaw-dropping phenomenon includes Senators Eric Schneiderman, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and sixteen of the eighteen progressive state Democrat Attorney Generals. The AGs call themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” They are searching for evidence to punish Exxon-Mobil, Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and as yet undisclosed organizations and corporations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. This, in spite of the fact there is zero evidence of criminal activity to justify it. It is raw intimidation of the type that is typically common in tyrannical governments.

   New York AG Eric Schneiderman brazenly declared that if companies are “committing fraud…we want to expose it and pursue them to the fullest extent of the law” using RICO. He then pontificated “The First Amendment does not give you the right to commit fraud.”
 
   Schneiderman should be careful of his inane outbursts. If anyone should be under RICO investigation it should be the federal government. Almost all the claims and horror stories put out as headlines by NOAA, NASA, EPA and other agencies are wrong. Just to mention a one, the earth has not warmed significantly in 19 years. That’s as long as these agencies said was warming from 1979 to 1998. Even the warm 2016 February had nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with a very strong El Niño, which by the way is now collapsing. Expect much cooler temperatures in the near future. El Niño’s have been occurring as far back as records go.

   In addition, The number of hurricanes and tornadoes is actually down the past 10 years. The coral reefs have recovered from the last strong El Niño in 1998. Claims that the sea level is rising at record levels is also false. It is still rising at the same level as has occurred the past 200 years. It used to be the alarmists at least tried to use data that support their end-of-earth claims, but they don’t even do that anymore. Obama’s 2014 eight-hundred page National Climate Assessment is mainly propaganda, hyperbole and misrepresentation of scientific facts that only occasionally connect to the facts.

    But none of that fazes these progressive Democrat attorney generals. One of the more extremist AG’s from the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker grossly committed an abuse of power by subpoenaing the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) for all their emails, records, reports and donors from 1997 to 2007 by the end of April. This is, of course, impossible which will leave CEI in contempt of court and subject to enormous fines.  The subpoena was part of a consortium of radical environmental groups funded by one of the numerous Rockefeller foundations.

The 21 children ages 8 to 19 that filed a federal lawsuit

claiming their Constitutional rights were violated by global

warming.

 That’s not all. In a stunning decision reported by Forbes, Judge Thomas Collins of the US Federal District Court of Eugene, Oregon ruled that for the first time twenty-one children 8 to 19 were granted permission to sue the US and the fossil fuel industry. The lawsuit claims the federal government has known for decades that when used, fossil fuels emit CO2 which is a greenhouse gas. This, according to the suit is a violation of the Plaintiff’s Constitutional and public trust rights.

   Not only is this a false assumption, how could this judge rule in this way knowing that children have little experience in making valid decisions and are notoriously open to false suggestions?  It borders on child abuse. If the court ever found for the children, how would it be implemented? The US accounts for only a part of the CO2 emissions. Far more is emitted by China and Indonesia. Both are building a new coal-fired generation plant almost every week. Would the US have to sue these and other nations? Would we go to war with China? The case is absurd and opens an unbelievable can of worms.

   It is clear that these AGs intend to use taxpayer resources and the justice system to harass, investigate, intimidate, terrorize, and potentially prosecute or even jail global-warming skeptics. Progressives in the US have long salivated over the hope of eventually using the power of the federal government to squash anyone who disagrees with their unworkable, destructive ideology. We have the opportunity of replacing progressives at all levels of government in November. It’s up to all of us to take advantage of it.

Michael Coffman, Ph.D.

Europe Is Meeting Carbon Reductions by Killing Citizens and Destroying Industry

The elderly suffer the most from the high cost of green electricity. Source: Unknown 

 

  For years I have been warning that Europe’s carbon reduction is going to result in an unmitigated disaster. That day has come. The death toll is skyrocketing in Europe. Forty thousand elderly and poor actually died in 2014, at least half because their power was turned off or they just kept their homes cold because they couldn’t afford the electricity. The culprit; energy poverty. Energy poverty is created when the cost of energy exceeds 10 percent of the household income for heat alone. That doesn’t include lights, refrigerator, washer and dryer, dishwasher, vacuum cleaner, television, computer, or anything else–just home heating, just in the months when it’s required. That has forced many of the poor and elderly have to decide whether to eat or be warm.

  Professor Dame Sally Davies, England’s Department of Health’s chief medical officer, said “Excess deaths are not just deaths of those who would have died anyway in the next few weeks or months due to illness or old age. There is strong evidence some of these deaths are indeed “extra” and are related to cold temperatures, living in cold homes as well as infectious diseases such as influenza.”

  Germany’s Focus wrote: “In 2014 Europe suffered about 40,000 winter deaths because millions of people were unable to pay for their electric bills – the so-called energy poverty currently impacts about ten percent of all Europeans. In the past 8 years the price of electricity in Europe has climbed by an average of 42 percent.” (bold original) In Bulgaria people see half of their income gobbled up by energy costs alone. In Spain 28 percent of the citizens live in “energy poverty”. In Germany 7 million households are considered to be living in “energy poverty”.

A comparison of electricity costs from developed nations worldwide. Note that the US has the lowest rate in this comparison, which should make it highly competitive. However, China subsidizes its heavy industry making it the largest steel and aluminum manufacture in the world. 

 

  Overall, Focus reports that ten percent of Europe now lives in energy poverty. Environmentalists have made coal and nuclear power into evil words in Europe, just as they have in the US. In Germany, however, Chancellor Angela Merkel was pressured by environmentalists to shutter all nuclear plants following the Fukushima meltdown in Japan. At the time 35 percent of German power came from these nuclear plants. By 2016 it had been slashed to about 14 percent. It will be phased out entirely by 2022. Energy is becoming a luxury in Europe.

  The production of green energy is grossly inefficient. The Internet news source Handelblatt notes that “The inefficiency is shocking: the renewable energy produced by €25 billion ($28.5 billion) in electricity-bill surcharges this year will only be worth €3.6 billion ($4.3 billion) on the market, according to the economics ministry.” That means people and companies will be charged €25 billion ($28.5 billion) in electrical surcharges that would only cost €3.6 billion ($4.3 billion) using fossil fuels and nuclear. Because of the incredible inefficiency of green power, E.ON and RWE, German’s biggest electrical producers, have to keep their fossil fuel and nuclear power plants going to instantly fill in the loss of green power when the sun goes behind a cloud or the wind stops blowing. Environmentalists know this, but they don’t care as long as they get their coveted green energy.

  The transition to green energy has been devastating. Handelblatt reports that 32,000 jobs have been lost in just two utilities; E.ON and RWE. Thousands more have been lost in the supply chain. Together, both companies have lost 76 percent of their stock value. Of course, local communities supporting the utilities have also been decimated. All at the holy alter of green energy.

Heavy industry is being destroyed in Europe because of the high cost of green electricity. Source: edie.net.

 

  The catastrophe has not been confined to Germany and mainland Europe. England suffered a major shock when England’s largest steel producer, Tata Steel, announced it was selling its entire production facility in Port Talbot. While the lousy economy and cheap Chinese steel account for some of the losses the company faces, the increased electricity costs also plays a big role. The increase in electricity tariffs and alternative energy charges for energy intensive industries is now £390 million ($555 million) annually and climbing.

  These energy intensive industries provide about 600,000 jobs and £52 billion ($74 billion) to England’s economy. England’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is working to provide its energy intensive industry an exemption from tariffs and add-on energy renewable costs. So far no plan as to how to make up the economic losses to the government by the exemption has been revealed.

  That, however, may be the least of the government’s concerns. There has been a quiet, but steady investment migration of industry from Europe to other nations like the US where energy is still cheap. The loss of industry will eventually gut the economy of Europe. But the socialists and greenies in Europe really do believe that green energy will eventually pay for itself, ushering in an era of utopia. Additionally, if the huge death toll of the elderly and poor continues because of energy poverty, the current government may be the victim of a voter revolt.

  Environmentalists are not the friend of people. They suffer from some sort of psychosis that blinds them to the enormous destruction they are causing. It is becoming obvious to anyone who has eyes. What they are doing is utterly evil. The enormous political clout they have in the Western World must be neutralized before they send us back to the dark ages.

 

Michael Coffman, Ph.D.

The Road to Regulatory Tyranny II

 

Most citizens are shocked to find out that federal regulations cost our economy nearly an estimated $1.9 trillion annually. That's 11% of the US gross domestic product. It's a huge drag on our entire economy. This is one more reason why it is important to vote wisely this election cycle.

The greatest hit comes from environmental ($386 billion), economic ($399 billion) and tax compliance ($316 billion); areas that impact every person and business in America. To be sure some regulations are necessary and needed. However, these needed regulations are but a small portion of those that actually necessary and needed. Most regulations, however, are lawless (unconstitutional according to original intent), allowing federal agencies the ability to abuse citizens in their jurisdiction.

The information comes from Ten Thousand Commandments, an annual in-depth report on federal regulation by Vice President for Policy Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Before you continue reading be sure to take your blood pressure medication. A couple of aspirin wouldn't hurt either.

Lest you think this doesn't pertain to you, the study found that if your family is average, your family's share is $14,976, or 29% of the $51,000 expenditures you make every year. That's only slightly less than the $17,148 your family pays annually for your mortgage and maintenance of your home.

Regulations are a hidden tax that falls on everyone, but especially heaviest on the poor. If you never seem to get ahead of the game, it's probably because of the huge regulatory cost making everything much more expensive. Take for instance, small business. In 2014 Congress passed 224 laws (and you thought it was a do-nothing Congress) that were then used by unelected federal bureaucrats to impose 3,554 “final rules” found within 77,687 pages of the Federal Register. Those "final rules" essentially become the law.

If that doesn't overwhelm you, there have been 90,836 final rules since 1993. Worse, the agencies publish 24,000 public notices annually, usually buried in the back of the newspaper somewhere where those impacted won’t find them. Big companies have a bevy of lawyers to keep up with the myriad of new rules. But a small business can't afford that.

Small businesses may not even know about a destructive "final rule" until a zealous agency enforcer or informer rats on them and the business suddenly finds itself out of conformance facing penalties of tens of thousands of dollars a day. Many go out of business, along with the jobs they provide. If they manage to stay in business these companies pass the cost onto the consumer, increasing the cost of living.

There is a benefit to federal agencies promulgating thousands of final rules every year. There is rarely any oversight. Very few of the final rules are accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis. Even if there is, the benefits of the final rules are greatly exaggerated; often by orders of magnitude larger than justified. The examples are legion, yet the agencies are rarely challenged.

Writing for CFACT Paul Driesson states, "Many [rules] are supported only by 'homogenized,' manipulated data; elaborate, imaginative or imaginary regulatory benefits; cavalier dismissal of costs; and no mention of benefits from the activity, chemical, energy source, industry or jobs being regulated, sometimes into oblivion." Obama's War on Coal is a good example. (See the previous blog)

During the Obama administration it has become the rule for agencies to grab as much power as possible; making examples of individuals and businesses as part of the process. If their overreach is challenged in court, and they lose, so what? It is your money they are spending. In the meantime the agency lives to create three new rules for the one they lost in court. It is lawless tyranny.