My Modest Proposal on "Climate Disruption"

It used to be called "Global Warming", but it stopped warming; then it became "Global Climate Change", but then the climate stayed about the same for going on 18 years by some reckoning, and now it has become "Global Climate Disruption", to imply that even though it's not changing in aggregate, the number of unpleasant weather events is, even though there's really no evidence that the number or intensity of hurricanes and tornadoes is increasing, that floods and droughts are more common, fish and frogs are falling from the skies etc, etc...

The Obama administration, fresh of it's successes in Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal and Obamacare has now set it's sights on changing that old saw "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it", by planning a offensive to. . . do what? Change the weather? Complete with glossy report that says that to keep the weather from getting any more disruptive, we need government (and their hired guns scientists) to tell us how much carbon it is safe to take out of the ground and burn to produce energy.

No, of course, the President doesn't really intend to do anything about the weather. Even his chosen head of the EPA has admitted that US efforts to restrict fossil fuel use will make no significant difference in climate whatevers. What he really wants is another excuse to to attack Republicans for "inaction" on what he will claim is the greatest problem facing mankind; the fact that weather changes from time to time, and provides some unpleasant surprises.  Henceforth, all adverse weather events are to be ascribed to "Global Climate Disruption" and laid at the feet of those who have resisted taxes and controls on the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, he hasn't really proposed anything at all, although his EPA continues to try to take control over the whole economy in the name of Global Warming, Global Climate Change, Global Climate Disruption.

Judging from past efforts, new attempts to address hot, cold, wet, dry, as my friend William Teach at Pirate's Cove calls it, will include proposal for increased taxes on fossil fuel use, particularly coal, increased gasoline taxes, continued, and even increased subsidies on renewable energy such as wind and solar, increased regulations on energy efficiency on a wide variety of industries, and even household items, and a restrictions on consumer products in the name of energy savings.

Much of this would, in theory, require a vote from Congress to put into practice (with this president, who knows?), and because one house of Congress is opposed to the president on this, it is unlikely in the extreme to occur. This is, of course, part of the plan, for the President to attack to Republicans for "obstruction" every time the weather turns ugly.

However, there is much that the President can do to reduce energy use on his own, simply as a function of his actual job, directing the work of the vast federal government.  The federal government spends approximately 20% of GDP, approximately $14 trillion (with a "t") worth. The president, with a single statement, could commit one fifth of the economy to cut its energy use as much as he would like.

So here is my modest proposal.  The president should issue an executive order for all agencies to cut their reliance on energy from fossil fuel 50%. Give them 5 years, 10% per year. Allow each agency to make it's own decision on how to cut their reliance on fossil energy but force them to make it. Allow them to adjust for the amount of renewable energy they can use. Turn down the thermostats in winter and turn them up in summer. Take out unnecessary lights.

If their local power grid contains 80% fossil power and 20% renewable, they have to cut their electricity use only 40%.  If they wish to generate their own power using renewable energy using wind, solar or geothermal, great, provided they do it within the same budget. That would cut the US fossil fuel usage by a gigantic 10%, about the same as the great recession.

Fuel fuel transportation must be cut by the same amount. Less traveling, more video conferencing, more economical cars.  The energy budget must also include the other goods and services they buy (otherwise, they'll just contract it all out, and claim to be exempt), the energy costs that go into producing and delivering those goods and services.  The simplest way would be to simply cut those in half as well.

Would these restrictions apply to the military?  Yep.  Heck, you don't intend to use it anyway. Generals and Admirals should definitely be forced to give up their energy intensive perks.

Draconian?  Perhaps.  But the government wouldn't think twice about imposing similar restrictions and costs on private citizens and business in pursuit of "climate justice" as they sometimes call it.  If the President is serious about changing our energy future, he could lead the way immediately.  But, as Instapundit often points out, I won't believe they're serious about it until that act like they really worry about it.