God “saw all the things that he had made and they were very good” yet EPA policies imply God’s creation, especially CO2-exhaling humans, is very bad. Who’s right?
Today, I’ll use science to prove God right and the EPA wrong in its war on men—and the energy, safety and jobs men extract from refining natural resources like coal and oil.
In Genesis 1:26-31, God makes men in His “image and likeness,” and tells men to “fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.” God continues: “I have given you [man] every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all the trees that have in themselves seed… to be your meat.”
God is explicit on two points: man is “very good” and he dominates the land. But, since the Bible alone won’t sway the EPA, I’ll offer scientific evidence to support God.
“It is man who has slapped nature in the face,” Pope Francis stated this year. Science, however, begs to differ. I interviewed scientists with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and they confirmed—after fact-checking all of the same peer-reviewed science referenced by the UN-sanctioned International Panel on Climate Change—that there is in fact “no hard evidence for a dangerous human-caused warming.”
If any men “slapped nature in the face,” it’s the men working for the EPA, who said they only released “1 million gallons” of mine waste into the Animas and San Juan rivers last month. Activist Erin Brockovich said: "They did not tell the truth about the amount. There were millions and millions of gallons.” Actress Julia Roberts should make Erin Brockovich 2.
Recommended
This is not the EPA’s first time to fudge data. In September of 2011, an internal government watchdog report found the Obama Administration relied on faulty EPA data to issue greenhouse gas regulations without enough scientific evidence that greenhouse gas emissions do in fact endanger human health and wellbeing.
In February of this year, the EPA declared that building Keystone XL would hurt the climate by increasing “greenhouse gas emissions,” when in fact even TIME Magazine has shown that hauling crude oil via pipeline releases fewer emissions than via rail.
“I am opposed to the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline,” EPA fan girl Hillary Clinton wrote last week. Her main reason for opposing the pipeline is actually a reason for building the $7 billion jobs and energy infrastructure project: “Over the past five years, a 20-fold increase in the amount of oil shipped by rail has led to devastating accidents.”
Snapchat, fax machines and multiple mobile devices perplex Hillary—by her own admission. Science, however, really throws her off. Allow me to share a few scientific facts that seem to befuddle Mrs. Clinton:
1. The U.S. State Department—yes, the same agency Clinton headed—declared Keystone XL not once; not twice; but thrice to be environmentally sound.
2. The numerous crude oil train explosions that she references will be exacerbated by not building more pipelines like Keystone XL. However, Hillary’s solution for these spills—eliminating pipelines and improving the safety of rail cars—is to jam a square peg in a round hole.
This is because rail cars are the least safe and least environmentally friendly method of transporting crude oil and no rail car will ever be able to transport crude safely on rail lines that traverse dense suburban areas.
Six billion dollars is the anticipated cost of one crude oil train explosion in a highly populated part of the United States. Fifty trains hauling crude oil cruise through my home state of Minnesota every week, with most of these trains running through the Twin Cities area, according to the Associated Press. The trains cause such frequent traffic jams that local officials are contemplating a $25 million bridge to separate the trains from traffic.
Excuse me for exercising common sense, but a $25 million bridge will do little-to-nothing to keep Minnesotans safe if an oil train explodes. One of the high-risk trains passing through St. Paul “has three schools within its evacuation zone,” according to the Star Tribune. Minnesota is not an anomaly—it is representative of the high danger that our politically correct and unscientific bias against coal and oil pipelines pose for the entire country. A recent spill in Lynchburg, Virginia occurred right outside of a children’s museum.
Why are we waiting for another senseless accident before we do what science—and God—direct, which is to utilize our natural resources so both man and beast thrive?
Coal provides one of the safest and most affordable means of energy. If a train hauling coal spills its cargo, no one gets hurt. However, to use the state of Minnesota again as an example, where coal is essential to keeping residents warm in subzero temperatures, we continue to haul crude oil on trains—while shuttering coal plants.
No strong scientific or theological evidence supports a war against God’s self-proclaimed highest form of creation. For any doubting Thomas who wishes to see before believing, I have detailed and comprehensive evidence of this column’s facts in this Townhall column and in my book, “Let Me Be Clear.”
God says He created the earth for man—while EPA regulations imply man was made for the earth. If the EPA is right, you and I apparently have a moral duty to deny ourselves food, energy, life, liberty and happiness if it means saving a snail. I don’t think so. Share this with your friends who take an interest in the commands of God—and science.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member