EPA and Sammy Fretwell of The State Playing South Carolina for Suckers

Lisa P. Jackson, the new head of the Enviromental Protection Agency, sat down with Sammy Fretwell of The State and pretended that the EPA’s new “climate change” regulations would only “go after the big boys” and have no effect on anyone in South Carolina except that pesky millionaire in the top hat and monocle who’s secretly planning to profit from global warming by investing heavily in sun screen. Everyone hates that guy, so if the EPA lays some hefty fines on him and destroys his business no one will care and the air will magically become cleaner, so it’s a class war win-win, right?

Sammy Fretwell lapped up this asinine, Orwellian twisting of reality like any so-called journalist these days, noting that “many scientists” agree that evil corporations release greenhouse gases that destroy the environment. Like so many journalists who have the intellectual curiosity, integrity, and common sense beaten out of them with copies Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals it never occurs to Fretwell to pose the three basic questions about “global warming” that anyone with half a brain should ask:

1) Since by “greenhouse gasses” we generally mean CO2 (which plants need to grow and produce oxygen), doesn’t a program designed to significantly reduce CO2 in the atmosphere run the risk of hurting crop production in the long run?

2) Since global warming would literally create millions of acres of new farmable land in places like Greenland and Canada at a time when we are having a hard time producing enough food, wouldn’t we want the earth to warm up?

3) Why are NASA models showing a significant cooling trend and an increase in glacial ice formation?

But that’s too much to ask. How could a “journalist” be expected to take a break from tongue bathing a technocrat to do a little research or critical thinking? But even if Fretwell and Jackson didn’t want to bother dealing with the more esoteric questions about climate change (like, is it even real since even Phil Jones admits there has been no global warming since 1995?) and instead just wanted to promote their Green Revolution I am still shocked that they would work together in corporatist harmony to spread such a blatantly obvious lie. Either these two think you’re stupid, or neither one of them understands how the world works:

In an exclusive interview with The State newspaper, Jackson said her agency will focus the nation’s first greenhouse gas regulations on large industries that produce about 80 percent of the pollution linked to global warming. She labeled as unfounded reports in South Carolina that the rules would apply to businesses like restaurants and apartment complexes.

“Not while I’m head of the EPA,” Jackson said before an environmental justice conference in Columbia. “I don’t know where that comes from, except that people are rightly afraid of stuff they don’t understand.”

But Jackson said “it doesn’t make sense” that the EPA would place the burden on small businesses.

You go after the big folks. You don’t start with the little ones,” she said. “It wouldn’t be in anybody’s interests.

Okay. There’s a lot wrong with this statement but let’s take just the most important one. Going back to our evil millionaire frantically putting in orders for every bit of sunscreen stock he can find, how did he make all his money anyway? Obviously by producing something that people consume.

Let’s call it electricity.

But it could also be food, bottled water, gasoline, building materials like concrete or wood, cars, computers, glass, clothing items, or hundreds of other things, but for our purposes let’s just work with power.

When the EPA “goes after” this millionaire, what happens? Either through fines or compliance fees and expenses (most likely both) our millionaire begins to lose money as producing electricity becomes more expensive. Since our millionaire doesn’t run his evil pollution factory (where our electricity is generated) by himself, this loss of money hits dozens if not hundreds of workers who use the salary they make to support dozens of other businesses. In fact, the workers at this electrical plant are some of the few workers in America who actually produce something because more than 60 percent of our economy is consumerism. In other words, most economic activity in America is based on people buying products, not making and selling products which makes our few producers extremely important to our economic survival as a country.

But I digress. Even with layoffs our millionaire is still spending more to make electricity, so what happens next? That’s easy, he charges more for it. And that is the part of the story where Sammy and Lisa hoped you wouldn’t get to, where burdens on large businesses that produce goods that almost everyone needs end up raising the prices on those goods.

But now some of you are saying, “But we want him to go out of business so we can have clean energy!” while shaking a Whole Foods bag filled with fair trade fruits angrily at me. Really? How’s that “clean energy” working out in Minnesota?

Last year, about a dozen Minnesota communities dreamed of clean, green energy: spinning windmills powering hundreds of homes.

Now, months after the deadline, the windmills stand largely immobile, and communities are still waiting for the power to flow.

Eleven cities, including North St. Paul and Anoka, are participating in the wind turbine project, each getting a 115-foot windmill via the Minnesota Municipal Power Association, or MMPA.

The turbines were to be fully operational by Nov. 7. To date, the number is zero.

One reason offered this week at a North St. Paul City Council meeting: hydraulic fluid and lubricating oil in the turbines’ gear boxes.

In cold weather, the fluid turns gel-like and doesn’t flow, said Derick Dahlen, president of Avant Energy, which manages the MMPA.

That can be particularly problematic if the turbines are already at a standstill.

And since “huge amounts of fossil fuels” are needed to make solar panels in a process that leaves behind tons of toxic waste (that companies will be on the hook for to clean up) I don’t see how we’re going to find a way to keep energy prices down.

Of course, maybe if there was a professional reporter who had access to an EPA official I would see exactly how small businesses, who will be looking at higher prices for power, gas, and materials as the best case scenario laid out by the EPA, will be able to avoid being hurt by these regulations. But instead, we have Sammy Fretwell taking dictation from the office of a political appointee who herself cobbled together a series of class warfare-lite platitudes designed to appeal to college co-eds and those creepy baby boomers who hang around Coffee Underground.

On many levels they are playing South Carolina for suckers. The EPA hopes you can be placated long enough for them to put in regulations that will further degrade your purchasing power at the behest of “environmental justice” special interest groups most of which happen to be funded by the Tides Foundation (which coincidentally gives a lot of money to Democrats), and Sammy Fretwell hopes none of you will care that no one is looking out for South Carolinians or asking the hard questions of government officials who are making decisions that will directly affect your life.

So maybe it’s time we all demanded to know exactly how the EPA intends to ensure that their new regulations won’t hurt South Carolina if the regulations’ intended targets produce the things we use everyday and in many cases can’t do without.


Leave a Reply