Republicans Vs The Republican Party Platform | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: The author of this post is Dr. Roy Cordato, who is Vice President for Research and resident scholar for the John Locke Foundation.


    Republicans from Governor McCrory and Commerce Secretary John Skvarla to the leadership and rank and file alike in the General Assembly are falling all over themselves trying to extend and expand so-called business incentive programs, aka corporate welfare. So what does the platform of the party that all of these people claim to be representing say about this subject? This is from the Platform of the North Carolina Republican Party, Article II, section 5:



    In testimony to the US Congress this week, Dr. Donald van der Vaart, Secretary of NC's Department of Environment and Natural Resources, argued that states should not be developing plans to implement new EPA rules regarding stationary sources, i.e., power plant emissions, of carbon dioxide until the Supreme Court rules on their constitutionality. McClatchydc.com is reporting that van der Vaart, "said states shouldn't have to create a plan to meet the federal standards until after the courts settle lawsuits seeking to derail the EPA's climate effort." They report furthermore, "he said the EPA's proposal is illegal and his state should not have to submit a plan to meet the carbon pollution standards until the lawsuits are settled." Van der Vaart told the House Energy Sub-committee that "If the EPA wants to transform America's power system by forcing a round peg into the square hole...it should have the prudence to allow the final rule to be reviewed by the courts before requiring states to undertake such a Herculean effort."

    Three cheers for our new DENR Secretary and his willingness to take a stand in favor of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and reason.


    This article by Matt Ridley from the March 14 Wall Street Journal is a must read for anyone interested in the truth about the importance of fossil fuels to both our present and our future lives. Fossil fuels, in particular natural gas, oil, and coal, have been and will continue to be a godsend in our lives for decades if not centuries to come. In the article, which is quite detailed and fact laden, Rigley takes on what he describes as the three major arguments made by those who believe it important and necessary that government take strong actions to induce society to move away from these sources of energy and toward renewables, particularly wind and solar. He starts out his article by stating that:


    Rigley then proceeds to dissect each of these arguments showing that all three are baseless. There is no way that I can do his arguments justice in this short summary. The facts are the facts, and when it comes to disproving the environmentalist mantras stated at the outset, Rigley lets the facts speak for themselves. In all three areas, Rigley makes an irrefutable case against the idea that the world is doomed if we continue our current reliance on fossil fuels. In fact he shows that there will be much more suffering if, through subsidies and penalties, we force the movement away from these sources and toward fashionable but inefficient and unreliable alternatives.