Climate Change Alarmists Continue to Threaten Taxpayers, Economy

In his latest push, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper is moving towards cutting 35% of all carbon emissions in the state via executive order. If issued, Hickenlooper would be forcing the state government to resume operations in fulfilling the state’s Clean Power Plan to fight climate change, replicated off of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan which is stalled in litigation at the Supreme Court.

The governor indicates that climate change is hurting the state’s economy, despite the fact that in 2015 Colorado was ranked third by Business Insider for having one of the fastest growing economies in the United States.

Nonetheless, the order will provide more power to the state’s executive branch to direct all utilities in the state to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 35 percent by 2030 compared with 2012 levels. That being said, a mandated carbon emissions cut could have major repercussions for Colorado’s ever-growing fracking industry. The state’s coal industry is also at risk at completely falling off the map.

Hickenlooper was on Hillary Clinton’s short list for Vice President and is expected to be given a role in a potential Clinton Administration. Like Clinton insiders, Hickenlooper and the majority of officials in his administration, show no regard for common sense economics in a free market model.

National threats to the economy

Climate change policy across the country is eroding away at the free market. Despite the fact that researchers have proven that climate policy and regulation promulgated by all levels of government are direct threats to the economic health of a society, climate alarmists continue to insist that the world is on the brink of cataclysmic event.

Heritage Foundation analysts concluded that, “Energy is a key building block for economic opportunity. Carbon-dioxide-emitting fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provided 87 percent of America’s energy needs in the past decade, and have been the overwhelming supplier for over a century.” Citing the edicts of the United Nations’ 2015 climate agreement in Paris, domestic policy that restricts certain sectors of energy viewed as high polluters show absolutely no economic or environmental benefits.

The Taxpayers are the real victims of climate change

With a national debt that has been estimated to be at $19.3 trillion by the end of Fiscal Year 2016, the climate change expenditures of the current federal administration have and will continue to cut into the nation’s goals for economic growth in the energy sector. But what is the cost? Who actually is brunting the “here and now” effects of the climate change controversy? The taxpayers.

According to President Obama’s 2014 Budget proposal to Congress, over $21.4 billion was needed for climate change activities. Granted this is before the Paris agreement and Obama’s outlandish commitments to the International community proving that climate change policy has long been a pillar of Obama’s annual policy goals.

Back in February, over $12 trillion for climate policy was earmarked, according to projections made by Bloomberg. Citing sections in the Paris climate agreement, an enforcement of such edicts in domestic American policy requires a long term investment from taxpayers. Considering the current state of affairs for the United States’ fiscal health, it is just unreasonable to force such an obligation.

Regardless of any current and future actions made by the state and Federal governments to push the climate policy agenda, the narrative that was concocted by these very climate scientists originally comes at a great cost to the average taxpayer. The National Review reported that one climate researcher has acquired over $6 million in federal (taxpayer-funded) grants from agencies like the National Science Foundation. In addition, a highly cited 2014 U.S. Senate report from the then-Republican minority staff for the Committee on Environment and Public Works also revealed a “billionaire’s club” that funds extreme climate justice groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace and provides financial backing to the “credulous” science behind climate change.

Despite all efforts, the recent pushes for the institution of a “climate-sensitive” society solidify the real effects of a global warming agenda; but, the environment seems to be much safer than the American taxpayers’ pocket books when it comes to climate change, I hate to say, based on what has been presented to you. If nothing is done to prevent more government growth and economic shrinking, then taxpayers will continue to be ripped off and the climate policy agenda will grow even more out of control then it already is.

Originally published on REGATED: