The Flabby Arms of Krupp (2)

Last week I took aim here at the weak Wall Street Journal op-ed from Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, celebrating Obama’s “Clean Power Plan” for being a revolutionary, game-changing, world-saving measure. Today a number of letters to the editor appear sounding the same notes, such as:

Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp’s “A Clean-Energy Breakthrough” op-ed, Aug. 4) is utter nonsense, starting with the inarticulate term “carbon pollution” (soot?) that ultimately morphs into “climate pollution” (whatever that is). If one means carbon dioxide, then say it and be clear about it. . .

Mark Strauch, Livermore, Calif.

Mr. Krupp mentions that clean-energy investments create three times as many jobs per dollar invested as fossil-fuel investments. This is a bad thing. If energy can be created with fewer laborers, those laborers can pursue more productive endeavors elsewhere in the economy, while paying less for energy. Investments in sweatshops where laborers sew by hand “deliver” more jobs per dollar than investments in sewing machines.

Gavin Roberts, Denver

If these guys aren’t Power Line readers, we must be getting through to them by the mercury fillings in their teeth.

But there’s one more important point to be made about Krupp’s complete insincerity and hackery: when the Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” plan was up before Congress in 2009 and 2010—a plan EDF loves because they act like they invented emissions trading (long story—too long to go through here), they and other environmentalists said almost as a chorus, “Oh, we have to pass cap and trade because we don’t want to regulate greenhouse gases through the Clean Air Act! It’s too cumbersome and unsuitable for this problem [true] and would be too bureaucratic,” etc.

But now that the EPA is going with this Rube Goldberg Clean Air Act plan, people like Krupp are partying like it’s 1999. It’s almost like they’ll say anything at this point.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.