by Joanna Schroeder

Not everyone is happy with President Obama’s new Climate Change Action Plan. The plan did many things including showed support for more renewable energy such as biofuels; tighter regulations on power plants, mandates to increase vehicle mileage; and increased subsidies for solar and wind projects on federal lands.

Those not in favor say the plan calls for unnecessary restrictions and is economically punishing and will actually stifle job creation – not create more jobs. Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director with the Heartland Institute, said, “With clear evidence that the planet hasnot warmed in the past 15 years while carbon dioxide has increased, we know reducing emissions of CO2 will have only one impact: to increase the cost of American energy. Obviously this is Mr. Obama’s intent, and while it will thrill his anti-capitalist environmental supporters, it will hopefully wake up the general public to the fact that he does not have their best interests at heart in creating more radical environmental regulations.”

Lehr’s colleague Craig D. Idso, Ph.D who is a senior fellow, environment and co-editor, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, adds, “In discussing the rationale for his climate change and energy plan, President Obama claims that carbon dioxide, or CO2, ‘causes climate change and threatens public health’ and that ‘cutting carbon pollution will help keep our air and water clean and protect our kids.’ Unfortunately, President Obama’s statements could not be further from the truth. Far from being a ‘pollutant,’ carbon dioxide is the elixir of life.”

Some groups say carrying out the climate plan will create a catastrophe including Emily Wismer, an analyst with the Independent Women’s Forum. “President Obama knows that Americans cannot afford to pay more for energy, which is why he has bypassed Congress to force strict regulations on power plants. The effects will be catastrophic, giving a competitive advantage to unsustainable, unreliable energy sources, while making it much harder for traditional, affordable energy producers to do business.”

Wismer noted as household’s primary bill payers, women understand that the price of energy impacts everything from the ability of small businesses and manufactures to hire new employees to the price we pay for a gallon of milk.

“We understand that the President’s policies will burden the economy and manufacturers with rising energy costs, making it even harder for companies to add jobs in this time of intractable unemployment,” continued Wismer. “Instead of giving an unfair competitive advantage to his friends and campaign contributors, the President should eliminate both traditional and green energy subsidies to create a level playing field and encourage real competition and innovation in the energy sector. This would be the best path to ensuring all Americans have affordable, reliable energy and giving the economy a much needed boost. Sadly, the President decided to go in the other direction,” concluded Wismer.