Category — Climate Change
“The climate change adaption program could make EPA a powerful master that could dictate to all departments in the government. Already the Department of Energy, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Defense have numerous programs that promote President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.”
At her public announcement June 2, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy made the following comments about the economic consequences of the Clean Power Plan:
I know people are wondering: can we cut pollution while keeping our energy affordable and reliable? We can, and we will. Critics claim your energy bills will skyrocket. They’re wrong. Any small, short-term change in electricity prices would be within normal fluctuations the power sector already deals with. And any small price increase—think about the price of a gallon of milk a month—is dwarfed by huge benefits. This is an investment in better health and a better future for our kids.
Here is her math:
In 2030, the Clean Power Plan will deliver climate and health benefits of up to $90 billion dollars. And for soot and smog reductions alone, that means for every dollar we invest in the plan, families will see $7 dollars in health benefits. And if states are smart about taking advantage of efficiency opportunities, and I know they are, when the effects of this plan are in place in 2030, average electricity bills will be 8 percent cheaper.
Bottom line? [Read more →]
July 11, 2014 2 Comments
“Slight increases [in CO2] can have no effect on causing asthma or stimulating its attacks…. It may be that EPA’s calling ‘wolf’ causes parents to keep their children inside homes where actual air pollution is more severe. EPA should go back to the drawing board and work from the science out rather than from the agenda in.“
Along with the postmodernistic claims of averting catastrophic climate events, the Obama Administration introduced its proposed carbon pollution standards with a hearty, but bogus, claim of public-health benefits.
The Guardian (May 31) carried an article, “Obama heralds health benefits of climate plan to cut power plant emissions,” which described a presentation President Obama made–with white-robed individuals in the background–in an asthma ward at the Children’s National Medical Centre in Washington, DC. The President said, “just in the first year the plan would reduce asthma attacks by 100,000 and heart attacks by 2100.”
Ditto on June 2 when EPA Administrator Gina McCarty announced EPA’s Carbon Pollution Plan would reduces illnesses like asthma by reducing what she called carbon pollution. “The first year that these standards go into effect, we’ll avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks–and those numbers go up from there,” she claimed.
A seven-page report from The White House, “The Health Impacts of Climate Change On Americans,” listed their claims of health problems from global warming.
Buyer beware. [Read more →]
July 10, 2014 4 Comments
“CO2 emissions are quite the opposite of the dirty soot (sulfur dioxide, or SO2) that older people remember turned snow black in the winter, ruined laundry hung outside to dry, and coated outside parked cars. EPA’s power grab is a direct attempt to deceive the public about the nature of the hazard being foisted upon them.”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is off environmental track. Having addressed the real pollutants, the agency has invented an unconquerable “pollutant” to regulate–not to enable more and better human living but to satisfy an anti-industrial agenda and give itself new purpose for money and power.
The emission at issue is carbon dioxide (CO2), the green greenhouse gas, also accurately characterized as the gas of life.
EPA’s mantra has worked against what otherwise is man-made energy abundance. The regulatory result is higher energy prices, as well as a recession in coal country beyond that from increased competition from natural gas. Such has contributed to the U.S. economic malaise of the last several years.
June 2nd Power Plant Proposal
The latest assault occurred last month with the EPA’s Carbon Pollution Standards, a proposal to require a 30 percent reduction in carbon pollution from existing power plants below the 2005 level by the year 2030.
The year 2005 was a high CO2-emission time for the United States with total carbon dioxide emissions of 6.723 billion tons and 2.642 billion tons for electric power generation (39 percent). A 30 percent reduction in power emissions by 2030 is 0.793 billion tons, leaving no more than 1.85 billion tons of carbon emissions for electric power generation.
CO2 emissions are quite the opposite of the dirty soot (sulfur dioxide, or SO2) that older people remember turned snow black in the winter, ruined laundry hung outside to dry, and coated outside parked cars. EPA’s power grab is a direct attempt to deceive the public about the nature of the hazard being foisted upon them. [Read more →]
July 9, 2014 1 Comment
“The business voices change, the decades change, but the arguments are familiar. Problem is, the global average temperature today is not appreciably higher than when Ken Lay penned his op-ed. The year 1998 would be the temperature peak, in fact, that marked the beginning of ‘the pause‘.”
Henry Paulson began his recent New York Times opinion-page editorial, “The Coming Climate Crash,” as follows:
“There is a time for weighing evidence and a time for acting. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned throughout my work in finance, government and conservation, it is to act before problems become too big to manage.”
Ken Lay ended his Houston Chronicle opinion-page editorial of December 5, 1997, “Let’s Have an Ounce of Global-Warming Prevention,”  similarly:
“It’s time to stop debating the issues surrounding climate change initiatives and focus instead on simple, realistic, cost-effective solutions. This is one area where an ounce of near-term prevention will be worth considerably more than a pound of cure later on.”
Consider this parallel 17 years apart. Paulson 2014: [Read more →]
June 30, 2014 4 Comments
“A government is the only known vessel that leaks from the top,” newspaper journalist James Reston once wrote.
There could be no more apropos example of this than Barack Obama’s new proposed rules to mothball “dirty” coal power plants; to reduce CO2 power plant emissions 30 percent from their 2005 level by 2030; and to set voluntary targets for the percentage of renewable energy in each state by 2029.
Obama’s new push is an attempt to address leakage, at least within the United States. The term is not meant to describe the leakage in a high-voltage electric transmission line that can cause fires, damage, or electrocution. Rather, it is meant to describe the migrating of jobs, industries, population, and votes to other states due to planned higher electricity rates mainly in California and other Blue states as a result of forcing a shift to inferior renewable energies.
California Wins, Neighbors Lose
June 24, 2014 4 Comments
“Come to fabulous Las Vegas to meet leading scientists from around the world who question whether ‘man-made global warming’ will be harmful to plants, animals, or human welfare. Learn from top economists and policy experts about the real costs and futility of trying to stop global warming.”
The leading sustainability threat is not mineral resource depletion, air or water pollution, or anthropogenic climate change. It is statism, and in the case of climate change, policy activism in the name of “stabilizing” or “saving” the planet.
Enter the Heartland Institute and their 9th International Conference on Climate Change, to be held July 7–9 at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas. Consider the conference in the background of the “pause” in global warming, which is 15-years-going-on-20 as shown in the graph below. [Read more →]
June 23, 2014 No Comments
“EPA’s actions routinely violate the Information Quality Act…. The closed circle of well-paid ‘peer reviewers’ employed by EPA, coupled with its close relationships with numerous Big Green environmentalist pressure groups, hardly satisfies [IQA] requirements. Worse, EPA consistently drags its feet on responses to FOIA requests….”
The Food and Drug Administration requires that companies seeking approvals of medical product meet high standards for the quality, integrity, and transparency of data and information submitted in support of applications. Missing information means products won’t be approved; improprieties in studies or submissions mean companies and employees can face fines, jail, or other penalties.
What if the same standards applied to government agencies regarding the scientists and institutions they hired or utilized? Their taxpayer-supported work affects virtually every American.
Last year, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Congress enacted 72 new laws, while federal agencies promulgated 3,659 new rules. The Code of Federal Regulations now stands at more than 175,000 pages. Each year, these rules cost American businesses and families $1.86 trillion – equal to a hidden $15,000 tax on every family. State and local jurisdictions add still more taxes and regulations.
More Regulation After Bad
It’s hardly surprising that America’s economy shrank by 1% the first quarter of 2014, our labor participation rate is a miserable 63% and real unemployment stands at 14% (and much worse for blacks and Hispanics). Keynesian economics did not work in the 1930s; and it has not worked in our time. Little wonder that a recent Gallup poll found that 56% of respondents said the economy, unemployment, and dissatisfaction with government was the most serious problems facing our nation – versus 3% who said environmental issues was the most important problem (with climate change only a small segment of that). [Read more →]
June 17, 2014 2 Comments
It’s become almost common knowledge that global climate computer models used to project future temperatures based on assumptions about greenhouse gas emissions miss the mark. So common that much of the American public even knows it.
But the National Climate Assessment released May 6, 2014, uses them anyway to predict future climate changes and their impact for the United States.
How does it defend that? By claiming that the models “do a good job at reproducing the broad features of the present climate and changes in climate, including the significant warming that has occurred over the last 50 years” (p. 809, FAQ-R).
How does it substantiate that claim? With this graphic: [Read more →]
May 28, 2014 5 Comments
“When a liberal says it’s time for you to shut up, it usually means they’re losing an argument. When they want you arrested and prosecuted, well….”
- Steven Hayward, “Climatistas Double Down on Stupid,” Power Line, March 29, 2014.
When faced with a powerful, threatening argument to a troubled paradigm, those in denial will first ignore. If this does not work, they will ridicule. And it this does not work, they will shout and even use hateful talk.
“You just don’t get it,” Jeff Skilling would tell Enron’s detractors. Ken Lay, in the middle of his company’s implosion, likened short sellers and media critics to ‘terrorists’ (his last speech to employees was a few months after 9/11). The Enron duo wanted an undeserved peace. They were really saying: “Stop the criticism. Just believe the shared narrative, and we will all be better off.” Enron, indeed, was a postmodern corporation.
Enter the Shared Narrative of catastrophic global warming. The data is going the other way, the public has all but turned off the alarm, and the climate lobby has increased their shrillness. The scholars’ hope for midcourse correction seems all but lost, given all the emotional (and financial) investment in a failing paradigm.
Romm on the Term ‘Denier’
Consider Joe Romm who in a moment of moderation (he is very emotional on the subject) once tried to distance himself from the ‘denier’ screed against critics of climate alarmism. Two years ago in a post titled “Climate Science Disinformers are Nothing like Holocaust Deniers,” he wrote: [Read more →]
May 22, 2014 6 Comments
“This is not sober, balanced science; it is ObamaScience for open-ended government planning.”
Despite uncooperative data regarding global warming (in a 15+ year ‘pause’), hurricanes, and tornadoes; despite the failure of climate models to predict and thus explain; despite the inability of the same models to attribute regionally; and despite the well-known benefits of carbon dioxide fertilization and moderately warmer/wetter climate scenarios, Obama and the Malthusian Left (including many cooperating scientists) soldier on.
But it will not be easy. The all-in effort to stretch climate science beyond the normal peer-review literature (John Holdren got his wish) may well backfire. Good science drives out bad, and the public is already alerted to the politicization of climate science and the nefarious agenda of “saving the planet.”
A Wall Street Journal article, “Obama Climate Push Faces a Lukewarm Public,” explained the climate conundrum. For Democrats and much more so for conservatives, climate-change is a low priority of concern. [Read more →]
May 9, 2014 3 Comments