by Chris Horner
Senior Legal Fellow
[Click here to view the e-mails Horner cites in this article]
On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear an important case, Murray Energy v. EPA, regarding what used to be the Environmental Protection Agency’s global warming agenda. At issue are sweeping rules that amount to rewriting the Clean Air Act, an effort made necessary when Congress, via the proper democratic process, rejected turning that act into a global warming law for rationing our most abundant sources of energy.
The reason behind Congress rejecting the scheme also explains President Obama’s effort this past week to sway the court, indicating in an interview widely promoted by the White House that global warming possibly caused his daughter Malia’s asthma…
[In 2009] EPA senior communications adviser Allyn Brooks-Lasure sent a memo to then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson explaining the need to “shift from making [the global warming agenda] about the polar caps [to] about our neighbor with respiratory illness.”
In essence, he wrote, “Americans are worried about the air they’re breathing. We hear them. And this is why we’re doing [this]. This is part of EPA’s proactive mission to protect Americans.”
He continued: “[W]e must begin to create a causal link between the worries of Americans and the proactive mission we’re pursuing,” and using “effective communications and a proactive agenda, we can directly address concerns that haunt the majority of Americans.” EPA’s public relations adviser called the switch “a tremendous opportunity for this agency.”..
The reason the Obama administration’s global warming agenda, which few claim would have an impact on global warming under any scenario, is now a strategy for fighting asthma is simple: Americans struggling to breathe polls better than a theory that has suffered greatly from scientific scandals and, of course, real-world observations proving that the computer models on which the agenda was premised are wrong.