Open Email to Congress:
Dear Representatives and Senators,
Pres. Obama is continuing his program to destroy the American economy and reduce the US to a third world country. His latest program is a resurgence to climate control. His previous efforts have met with no enthusiasm on the part of Congress. So, he is now using the process of executive order. According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming. The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build "resilience" against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the President's order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger -- and likely at a higher price tag.
I call this a sneaky process of moving ahead with an undesirable project by looking at a minor favorable aspect. Most everyone believes that we need adequate bridges, and with floods in the news, many, including yours truly, believe in flood control. The catch comes in with the specification of larger and stronger structures. How much larger and stronger? What would be the increased cost? Are they necessary? The obvious answer is that we don't need them. Engineers and architects know what they must do to protect buildings and other structures against the undesirable effects of weather conditions and other calamities. One extreme negative example was in the collapse of the twin towers in New York at the 9/11 terrorist attack. In that case, the towers were improperly designed because of government disallowance to use asbestos to protect the steelwork from fire.
Other than the recent executive order on structures, Pres. Obama still has a goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 17% by 2020, and the Environmental Protection Agency is working on rules that would impose tougher regulations on coal-burning power plants. The key issue here is that neither the US federal government nor any other individual or agency has ever shown an appropriate cause-and-effect relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and climate. To proceed with attempts to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and redesign buildings and other structures for more extreme climate based upon an assumption of more extreme weather variation is completely unjustified.
I'm calling this to the attention of Congress not only from the point of view that there is no justification for action to prepare for climate change, but more importantly that some procedures or methods must be developed by Congress to control ridiculous projects of Presidents.
Dear Representatives and Senators,
Pres. Obama is continuing his program to destroy the American economy and reduce the US to a third world country. His latest program is a resurgence to climate control. His previous efforts have met with no enthusiasm on the part of Congress. So, he is now using the process of executive order. According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming. The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build "resilience" against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the President's order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger -- and likely at a higher price tag.
I call this a sneaky process of moving ahead with an undesirable project by looking at a minor favorable aspect. Most everyone believes that we need adequate bridges, and with floods in the news, many, including yours truly, believe in flood control. The catch comes in with the specification of larger and stronger structures. How much larger and stronger? What would be the increased cost? Are they necessary? The obvious answer is that we don't need them. Engineers and architects know what they must do to protect buildings and other structures against the undesirable effects of weather conditions and other calamities. One extreme negative example was in the collapse of the twin towers in New York at the 9/11 terrorist attack. In that case, the towers were improperly designed because of government disallowance to use asbestos to protect the steelwork from fire.
Other than the recent executive order on structures, Pres. Obama still has a goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 17% by 2020, and the Environmental Protection Agency is working on rules that would impose tougher regulations on coal-burning power plants. The key issue here is that neither the US federal government nor any other individual or agency has ever shown an appropriate cause-and-effect relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and climate. To proceed with attempts to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and redesign buildings and other structures for more extreme climate based upon an assumption of more extreme weather variation is completely unjustified.
I'm calling this to the attention of Congress not only from the point of view that there is no justification for action to prepare for climate change, but more importantly that some procedures or methods must be developed by Congress to control ridiculous projects of Presidents.
No comments:
Post a Comment