Inhofe Calls Obama’s Climate Agenda A ‘Wealth Redistribution Scheme’

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Daily Caller: Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe criticized President Barack Obamas doubling down on fighting global warming Tuesday night, arguing that the presidents planned climate regulations were simply a wealth redistribution scheme.

 

Why the pain for no gain? Inhofe asked in a rebuttal to Obamas State of the Union speech. As The Wall Street Journal put it when reporting on just one of the presidents many climate regulations, this is a wealth redistribution scheme being imposed by the president through the EPA.

 

This is the real climate agenda the president chose not to address tonight. It is no wonder because it would impose the largest tax increase in the history of America, Inhofe added.

 

Obamas second-to-final State of the Union speech Tuesday night focused mainly on his middle class economics plan to increase taxes on the wealthy and ramp up social programs. His speech only mentioned the word climate four times. But the president warned that doing nothing to fight global warming means well continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.

 

Obama also touted his own policies put in place to fight global warming. Though the president did not specifically mention his most contentious policies: proposals to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new and existing power plants.

 

Thats why, over the past six years, weve done more than ever before to combat climate change, from the way we produce energy, to the way we use it, Obama said. Thats why weve set aside more public lands and waters than any administration in history.

 

In Beijing, we made an historic announcement : The United States will double the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions, Obama continued. And because the worlds two largest economies came together, other nations are now stepping up, and offering hope that, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to protect the one planet weve got.

 

Inhofe slammed Obamas climate grandstanding, arguing that fighting global warming will accomplish little and harm the economy.

 

The presidents War on Fossil Fuels and nuclear energy is most evident in his unbridled mandates being issued by the EPA, Inhofe said. While he markets these regulations as a means to save us from global warming, a recent NERA [consulting company] study predicts the presidents climate agenda would only reduce CO2 concentration by less than one-half of a percent; it would only reduce the average global temperature by less than 2/100th of a degree; and it would only reduce the rise of sea levels by 1/100th of an inch or the thickness of three sheets of paper.

________

 

Yes, it is a scam-so why did you go along with your colleagues in voting for it?

[Cyber_Liberty]

Hmmm? What's "Let's raise taxes on gas" Inhofe got to say today??

 

God put Republicans on Earth to cut taxes. Jimmy failed to get the memo.

[Valin]

: Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe criticized President Barack Obamas doubling down on fighting global warming Tuesday night, arguing that the presidents planned climate regulations were simply a wealth redistribution scheme.

 

 

Yes, it is a scam-so why did you go along with your colleagues in voting for it?

 

 

Jim Inhofe flips the script on Democratic climate-change-is-a-hoax vote

Philip Bump

January 21 2015

 

The United States Senate voted Wednesday to agree that climate change "is real and not a hoax." That was it, the full extent of the amendment to the Senate's slow-moving Keystone XL pipeline bill. Final tally: 98 to 1.

 

This was one of two traps set up by Democrats to get their opponents on the record as disputing the authenticity of human-caused global warming, a phenomenon nearly universally accepted by the scientific community. But it didn't go as expected.

 

(Snip)

 

Update: Two later votes on amendments linking humans to climate change were rejected. One was introduced by Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who ended up voting against it. A vote to end a filibuster on that amendment failed 59 to 40. Another, from Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), said that humans were "significantly responsible" for climate change. It failed to achieve cloture as well, 50-49, after Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) argued that it placed too much emphasis on human causes. Several Republicans supported it.

 

How will these votes come to bear on future elections? In every case, senators can say they supported the idea that climate change is real, which would blunt their votes on the other amendments. Well, in almost every case: Mississippi's Wicker can't say that, but it seems unlikely to hurt him.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

So the question is Why did he vote for it. 1. Climate Change is real, the climate is always changing 2. The impact of this amendment in the real world is right around zero...ie doesn't mean a damn thing. 3. He's a pretty sharp politician.