The President’s Climate Action Plan – the good, the bad, and the ugly (with full documents)

WH_Climate_action_planThis post was written last night, shortly after I received the document. It is autopublishing at 6AM EDT (3AM PDT) since I’ll hopefully be asleep here in California when the embargo time passes.

There were two documents provided to the press: a fact sheet/summary and the full plan. Both are available as PDF’s at the end of this essay. I see a lot of “pie in the sky” language in the plan document, with little in the way of concrete ideas. It seems just another expansion of “big government” bureaucracy with little tangible benefit to the American citizen.

This is by no means a complete point by point commentary, I’m just touching on things that caught my eye. Readers are encouraged to submit responses to specific points in the comments section below.

THE GOOD:

1. There is no carbon tax/excise tax increase on gasoline that I can find. Some people thought there may be a plan to tack on some sort of additional carbon tax for gasoline, or some pitch for the excise tax to be increased by congress.

2. The claim is made that “the President’s plan will help American families cut energy waste, lowering their gas and utility bills.”.  A worthy goal to be sure, but, knowing that government doesn’t do anything well or efficiently, I seriously doubt we’ll see lower utility bills. I expect the opposite.

3. The plan “invests to strengthen our roads, bridges, and shorelines so we can better protect people’s homes, businesses, and way of life from severe weather.”. Hurricane Sandy would have had less impact if NYC had better sea defenses, so building up these long ignored issues is a no-brainer. But, at what cost and from what funding?

4. The plan “Commits to partnering with industry and stakeholders to develop fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles to save families money at the pump and further reduce reliance on foreign oil and fuel consumption post-2018″. On the surface this seems good, because better fuel efficiency is always a good thing, but at the same time this might translate into an unreachable draconian CAFE standard that automakers don’t even have technology for now.

5. The plan calls for “investment in a range of energy technologies, from advanced biofuels and emerging nuclear technologies – including small modular reactors – to clean coal.” Biofuels are a waste of effort and money IMHO, small modular nukes sound good, as does clean coal. I like the clean coal part if only for the irritant factor it will be for the greens.

6. They haven’t declared fossil fuels to be evil. The plan says “Spurring Investment in Advanced Fossil Energy Projects: In the coming weeks, the Department of Energy will issue a Federal Register Notice announcing a draft of a solicitation that would make up to $8 billion in (self-pay) loan guarantee authority available for a wide array of advanced fossil energy projects under its Section 1703 loan guarantee program.” Again, that will tweak the greens.

7. There’s no mention of the KXL pipeline at all, but there is this bit of language:

“In addition, when it comes to the oil and gas sector, investments to build and upgrade gas pipelines will not only put more Americans to work, but also reduce emissions and enhance economic productivity.” The document then goes on to mention the Bakken Oil field as an example, but seems not limited to this.

My take on this: I think what is going on here with this document is that Obama is throwing environmentalists a bone, especially with coal power plant restrictions mentioned, while at the same time telegraphing that KXL is likely to happen. As I’ve said before, the Canadian Tar Sands oil will get burned someplace, and the USA may as well take advantage of the opportunity.

8. Launching a Climate Data Initiative: Consistent with the President’s May 2013 Executive Order on Open Data – and recognizing that freely available open government data can fuel entrepreneurship, innovation, scientific discovery, and public benefits – the Administration is launching a Climate Data Initiative to leverage extensive federal climate-relevant data to stimulate innovation and private-sector entrepreneurship in support of national climate-change preparedness.

This sounds good, but I’m not sure it will do anything to improve the already shoddy surface temperature data. For example, NCDC spent millions on the Climate Reference Network, but has yet to even mention it in their monthly State of the Climate Reports.

9. Many of these things will take years to implement, and by then we might have some sanity in the White House. What can be done by executive order can be undone by executive order.

10. This plan is likely to put backlashes in place on Democrats from the citizenry, thus perhaps enabling a power shift in the Senate.

THE BAD:

1. More hand-outs for an already bloated climate science culture.

Developing Actionable Climate Science: The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget provides more than $2.7 billion, largely through the 13-agency U.S. Global Change Research Program, to increase understanding of climate-change impacts, establish a public-private partnership to explore risk and catastrophe modeling, and develop the information and tools needed by decision-makers to respond to both long-term climate change impacts and near-term effects of extreme weather.

Apparently Obama never got the memo that climate models aren’t working.

2. More regulations on existing power plants, as if they don’t have enough already. This will translate into higher electricity prices everywhere.

President Obama is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Environmental Protection Agency to work expeditiously to complete carbon pollution standards for both new and existing power plants. This work will build on the successful first-term effort to develop greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for cars and trucks.

Great, I can just see the warning sticker on my next new car. Warning: This vehicle emits dangerous carbon pollution known to the Federal Government to cause bad weather. A tax is paid at purchase to mitigate your contribution to bad weather by daring to own this vehicle.

3. Pie in the sky savings.

Establishing a New Goal for Energy Efficiency Standards: In President Obama’s first term, the Department of Energy established new minimum efficiency standards for dishwashers, refrigerators, and many other products. Through 2030, these standards will cut consumers’ electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars and save enough electricity to power more than 85 million homes for two years. To build on this success, the Administration is setting a new goal: Efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings set in the first and second terms combined will reduce carbon pollution by at least 3 billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030 – equivalent to nearly one-half of the carbon pollution from the entire U.S. energy sector for one year – while continuing to cut families’ energy bills.

Yeah, people are going to just rush right out and buy new appliances in this economy. That’s the ticket. Better efficiency is a good thing, but I think the adoption rate will be slower than they think.

4. Outright lies. (from the fact sheet)

“In the President’s first term, the Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development completed efficiency upgrades in more than one million homes, saving many families more than $400 on their heating and cooling bills in the first year alone.”

Really? Where? In the greenest state of the union, California, my electricity bill has increased since 2008. I recently put solar on my home not as a climate hedge, but as a hedge against skyrocketing electricity rates.

5. The trucking industry is going to get hit again. This will translate into higher cost for goods.

During the President’s second term, the Administration will once again partner with industry leaders and other key stakeholders to develop post-2018 fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles to further reduce fuel consumption through the application of advanced cost-effective technologies and continue efforts to improve the efficiency of moving goods across the United States.

6. Fast-tracking green energy – more pie in the sky since just about every green initiative and handout in Obama’s first term has ended in failure.

Accelerating Clean Energy Permitting: In 2012 the President set a goal to issue permits for 10 gigawatts of renewables on public lands by the end of the year. The Department of the Interior achieved this goal ahead of schedule and the President has directed it to permit an additional 10 gigawatts by 2020. Since 2009, the Department of Interior has approved 25 utility-scale solar facilities, nine wind farms, and 11 geothermal plants, which will provide enough electricity to power 4.4 million homes and support an estimated 17,000 jobs.

Green jobs aren’t generally like real jobs, there’s usually a handout or subsidy tied to them, and they tend to be transient, because after the solar field or wind farm is built, what then?

7. No comprehensive nuclear power plan, no mention of a Thorium reactor initiative, much like China is doing. A Thorium power initiative would go a long way to having safe, clean, and reliable electricity infrastructure without this nuclear waste issues that plague Uranium based reactors. Instead, they are chasing after wasteful biofuels initiatives which will do little. Have a bad crop year? Sorry, you can’t fill up with biodiesel.

8. Giveaways.

Mobilizing Climate Finance: International climate finance is an important tool in our efforts to promote low-emissions, climate-resilient development. We have fulfilled our joint developed country commitment from the Copenhagen Accord to provide approximately $30 billion of climate assistance to developing countries over FY 2010-FY 2012. The United States contributed approximately $7.5 billion to this effort over the three year period.

9. Higher prices at the pump.

President Obama is calling for the elimination of U.S. fossil fuel tax subsidies in his Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 budget, and we will continue to collaborate with partners around the world toward this goal.

This will of course get passed on to consumers.

THE UGLY:

1. Multiple citations of the crazy idea that carbon dioxide is “carbon pollution”, when it is essential to almost all life on Earth.

The phrase “carbon pollution” is mentioned 21 times.

2. Equating carbon dioxide to mercury and arsenic, which is just nuts.

Cut Carbon Pollution in America: In 2012, U.S. carbon emissions fell to the lowest level in two decades even as the economy continued to grow. To build on this progress, the Obama Administration is putting in place tough new rules to cut carbon pollution – just like we have for other toxins like mercury and arsenic – so we protect the health of our children and move our economy toward American-made clean energy sources that will create good jobs and lower home energy bills.

3. Elevating a fake crisis.

While this progress is encouraging, climate change is no longer a distant threat – we are already feeling its impacts across the country and the world. Last year was the warmest year ever in the contiguous United States and about one-third of all Americans experienced 10 days or more of 100-degree heat. The 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15 years. Asthma rates have doubled in the past 30 years and our children will suffer more asthma attacks as air pollution gets worse. And increasing floods, heat waves, and droughts have put farmers out of business, which is already raising food prices dramatically.

No mention or recognition of the siting issues and adjustments that lead to these temperatures:

Watts_et_al_2012 Figure20 CONUS Compliant-NonC-NOAA

The claim of “The 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15 years.” isn’t supported by the state all time high temperature records, it only exists in the highly adjusted national average.

This graph by Alabama State Climatologist, Dr. John Christy:

Christy-Number-State-High-Low-Temperatures-Aug-2012[1]

It also isn’t supported in the general population of stations, this graph is by Greg Carbin of NOAA:

updated-june-at-max-temp11[1]

And asthma attacks? Really?  Pollution levels are down since the 1970’s. Unless you live in China, air pollution is now far less than what it once was.

Summary:

I’m not impressed at all with the Obama plan. It lacks real vision, and seems written mainly to appease activist groups. While there are some glimmers of positive things in it, the lack of a real way forward (solar, biofuels, and wind aren’t it) combined with new restrictions can only mean higher energy prices in our future, most of it due to government meddling in the free market.

Like most everything from this president, it is likely to be mostly lip service and tied up in legal battles for years. By that time Obama will no longer be President, and we’ll be left to wrestle with the consequences.

The documents: (Thanks to Marc Morano of CFACT for getting access to these documents.)

Fact Sheet(PDF)

President’s Climate Action Plan (PDF)

About these ads

204 thoughts on “The President’s Climate Action Plan – the good, the bad, and the ugly (with full documents)

  1. We Canadians call it the Oil sands. Tar sands is a term used by opponents of development!. I hope you are right about Keystone XL. Obama’s treatment of a very close US ally is shameful.

  2. It is essential to hit the ‘Carbon Pollution’ claim head on as it is the driver for all these insane policies. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is having any effect. Indeed the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is based on carbon dioxide causing temperatures to rise, and the rise increasing evaporation and the increased amount of water vapor driving warming. But relative humidity has NOT increased and there is no tropical tropospheric hotspot so the basis of the hypothesis is falsified.

    It is this simple basic argument that needs to be put strongly and simply at every opportunity. Increasing percentages of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases crop growth but apart from that there are no measurable effects. Water cycle has stayed constant and the atmospheric temperatures have remained the same for more than 15 years despite carbon dioxide levels rising,

    There is NO justification for the President’s direction to the EPA for damaging regulation.

  3. The States and the People did NOT grant the federal government the power to regulate the climate ( or healthcare, or retirement, … ). More importantly, as bad an idea as Prohibition was, at least the fools of that era realized they lacked Constitutional authority and passed an Amendment ( let’s disregard the overall folly of it for now ).

    The current fools residing in the District of Criminals have such utter disdain and contempt for the Constitution and the States and the People that they don’t even feel the need to cover their follies under the fig leaf of an Amendment. This is how far we have fallen in just a couple of generations so just imagine what five or ten more into the future will bring. There will only be a USSA that dwarfs the heyday of Communist China and the Soviet Empire, except it will carry the illusion on Constitutionality. This will be the worst of all possible forms of “government” ever witnessed because structural tyrannies can be easily toppled, but Socialism disguised as (D)emocracy cannot, and will lead to catastrophic civil war. Folks better wake up now because there will come a time when it is too late.

    Our Congress should use Barry’s Climate power grab for an article of impeachment, then convict him in the Senate and remove this scrawny little girl from the office he should never have been allowed to enter in the first place. Then all the members of Congress should impeach themselves and shut down the place until the next election. aside from nuking it from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

  4. The President compares carbon dioxide to arsenic and mercury. *shakes head*. How on earth did America get to this point?

  5. It’s sort of reassuring to see that the UK govt isn’t that much more incompetent than the rest of the world.

  6. “9. Many of these things will take years to implement, and by then we might have some sanity in the White House. What can be done by executive order can be undone by executive order.”

    So if climate scientists are only broadly right, we’re stuffed.

  7. Their juggernaut just continues to roll on, no matter what doubts or contrary evidence emerges. They misuse and abuse all the terminology, carbon dioxide is a toxic pollutant, climate change never happened before etc. I’m not fully convinced that a new ice age would actually shut them up, they would just try to ride it out.

  8. Just Obama making sure his main contributors (manipulators) are getting their share of our wealth. Soros must have been p*ssed that he had to wait until the second term to get the carbon scam going.

  9. “THE UGLY:
    1. Multiple citations of the crazy idea that carbon dioxide is “carbon pollution”, when it is essential to almost all life on Earth.
    The phrase “carbon pollution” is mentioned 21 times.
    2. Equating carbon dioxide to mercury and arsenic, which is just nuts.”

    Yeah I lambasted David Appell for that a few dasys back as well. THe Left just loves perverting language.
    They own the colleges so they can rewrite history. Expect Arrhenius to become a bigger genius each year; while the average temperature during his day continues to drop.

  10. Clean coal, to me meaning scrubbing boiler gasses to remove SO2, is an easy process producing more CO2 and a saleable product, calcium sulphate used in Gyproc plasterboard. (Americans may call it something else but it is used in the US building industry). CCS is another matter since it has yet to be found possible and uses an enormous quantity of energy to achieve.
    CCS is not actually necessary.

  11. Village Idiot, as a group, climate scientists are not even remotely broadly right.

    In the event that a “projection” actually comes to pass, it is not because they understand enough about climate to make a “projection”, it’s the same reason someone wins the lottery – pure luck.

    The problem is, if ignorant politicians continue to make knee-jerk decisions based on faulty science, or fabricated science to buy votes, we’re stuffed.

  12. This at a time when US CO2 output has fallen to 1994 levels because of increased use of natural gas. Heck with the failed models, does the President even keep up with how much CO2 the US puts out in the first place?

    The first thing to do is call for a petition for him to quit using Air Force One for travel — the carbon footprint on that thing is horrendous. I’m pretty sure the Brits travel on military aircraft — if it’s good enough for the Queen of England, it’s good enough for a community organizer.

  13. The argument about conserving energy to increase its abundance is like saying the solution to starvation is to eat less.

  14. “Developing Actionable Climate Science”

    Think about the phrasing.
    We need “Actionable Science”.
    In other words, any science that does not produce “Actionable Science” will not get funded.

    Any chance we can fund “Accurate Science” ???

  15. Why am I writing this at 5:30 in the morning CDT? Maybe it’s because my power just came on after almost 11 hours. And that gives me a very bad feeling just before the formal unveiling of ‘The President’s Climate Action Plan.’ Aw, what the heck, I’ve had bad feelings about everything else this guy’s unveiled, openly and transparently, over the last 5 years.

    May I humbly recommend that the title of this should be changed from ‘The President’s Climate Action Plan’ to something more accurately descriptive. How about, ‘The President’s Climate Action Plan Scandal’? After all, besides just the EPA, which has its own scandal, the Climate Action Plan – oops, Climate Action Plan Scandal – will probably also involve the IRS, NSA, DOJ, ATF, State Department, Secret Service, Security Council, OSHA, FTC, and others, all of which, well you know…scandal.

    There, now I don’t feel so bad about my power having been out for only 11 hours. Wait’ll it’s a scandal.

  16. “cut carbon pollution – just like we have for other toxins like mercury and arsenic” Well, you have to admit that carbon is present in every disease and therefore could be considered a more potent toxin than either mercury or arsenic. I wonder if Dear Leader also signed a ban DHMO petition.

  17. I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theory nutcase here, but every sound-minded person on this site, and other sites, who dare speak out against the nonsense that will be proposed this afternoon need to beware. We will be attacked mercilously and rudely on the blogs by alarmist fanatics. This has been bad in the past, but in the past several days, I’ve noted a significant escalation of what appears to be organized attacks on so-called “deniers”. I’ve heard a few credible rumors from reliable people of cyberattacks on “non-believers”.

    The alarmists are going nuts out there. Be careful.

  18. The comparison with arsenic is curious. I wonder if a local could comment on why this might be chosen. It is not a poison threat that immediately comes to mind. And I am not sure the comparison is gonna work — I mean, we all learn in school the importance of CO2 to photosynthesis…but arsenic has only deadly associations.

    Why would mercury and arsenic replace the old couple CFCs and DDT? Could it be that they wish to avoid the lack of consensus there also? Arsenic is also interesting in terms of enviro scares because the wonder of DDT in the 1950s was that as a pesticide it replace a dangerous known poison — arsenic.

  19. I see this post has Anthony’s byline, our President (it appears) is going to refute science in his speech.
    The unwashed masses are tired of the “unwashedness”, some will show up for the spectacle as if their jobs depend on it, but many (if they know it or not) should be learning a lesson.

    The emperor has no clothes.
    Never did.
    (Here we go).

  20. Fuel economy: This is a 2 edged sword. Greater mpg means less sales tax collected at the pump to maintain roads, etc. Look for additional taxes based on miles traveled. This has already been floated.

  21. 5. The trucking industry is going to get hit again. This will translate into higher cost for goods.

    “During the President’s second term, the Administration will once again partner with industry leaders and other key stakeholders to develop post-2018 fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles to further reduce fuel consumption through the application of advanced cost-effective technologies and continue efforts to improve the efficiency of moving goods across the United States.”

    This probably includes support for efforts to convert heavy trucks to LNG and the creation of LNG fillup stations across the country. Companies that would benefit are Westport Innovations (WPRT) and Clean Energy Fuels (CLNE).

  22. “Developing Actionable Climate Science”

    The word “actionable” is most commonly used in a legal setting to denote something which is potentially open to legal action. So is Obama thinking about dragging some climate scientists into court?

  23. All that really matters is the effect this plan has on the 2014 election, if it costs him one seat in the Senate or saves one. I suspect their polling shows people don’t care much about climate issues, thus this wishy-washy punt. Their fund raisers will point to the good parts as required for the audience.

  24. Point number four in “The Good” section mentions vehicle fuel economy standards. I hate to see more bureaucratic rules, but I wonder if manufacturing energy could not somehow be included in such standards.

  25. 5. The plan calls for “investment in a range of energy technologies, from advanced biofuels ….”

    I think the only company making “advanced” biofuels is Solayme (SZYM), which uses genetically modified algae in a vat. (It also makes and sells more practical products like myristic acid, the high-value component of palm oil.) Here’s a positive article on the firm, posted yesterday:

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1518442

  26. One term to look at and possibly revise in your post. The term “tar sands” is used by the anti-extraction groups to colour the argument against development, “oil sands” is the preferred term here in western Canada.

  27. There are examples (A village in Africa) of low lying areas/valleys where people have died due to excess CO2 which, being heavier than air, displaces O2 suffocating all mammals in the affected area. The other two mentioned are toxins on the other hand, plenty of evidence to support the fact they are deadly. Still, these “scientists” and politicians are claiming that it’s just the ~50% airborne fraction of the ~3% human contribution to the ~400ppm/v CO2 concentration is DRIVING climate to change in a BAD way (I am ignoring CH4 at ~1800ppb/v). That’s the hypothesis. So far there is no evidence to support that.

  28. “GunnyGene says:

    June 25, 2013 at 4:10 am”

    Since 1974 (Thanks Muldoon), in New Zealand there is a “duty” on petrol called Road User Charges (RUC). It’s included in the price of gas at the pump, you cannot not pay it. As fuel efficiency has improved in petrol engines since 1974, the duty has increased. Which brings me to diesel vehicles in NZ. You have to record you odometer mileage and then pay a duty based on that. Don’t pay on time, and you are “caught”, you receive a stiff fine, and still have to pay the RUC. Diesel is more fuel efficient. Either way, (Road/vehicle) users pay. Personally, I don’t have a problem with that *IF* the revenue raised goes into road maintenance and building projects. Never happens!

    When I arrived in NZ in 1995, the UK’s road fund license that year for private light vehicles alone raised, based on the NZ$/GBP exchange rate then, NZ$75bil. At that time represented ~75% of the GDP of NZ. Only NZ$5bil was spend on roads, road maintenance and projects.

    Money for jam!

  29. As I’ve said before, the Canadian Tar Sands oil will get burned someplace, and the USA may as well take advantage of the opportunity.

    Yes, and al long as we’re unwilling to tap our own resources US dollars will be sent someplace to buy oil, and better Canada than some other places I could mention.

  30. Would not a steady rate of high temperature records per year indicate a rising overall temperature? Unless of course there was fluctuation around a mean so you had a steady rate of low temperature records as well. Then it would be an increase in variability not in overall temperature averages.

  31. Ian H says:
    June 25, 2013 at 4:17 am

    “Developing Actionable Climate Science”

    The word “actionable” is most commonly used in a legal setting to denote something which is potentially open to legal action. So is Obama thinking about dragging some climate scientists into court?

    I read it the other way. Climate ‘scientists’ say X is bad for the environment because it will cause the Arctic ice to disappear in 200 years. Therefore, anyone guilty of emitting X is guilty of an ‘actionable offense against the climate’.

    Sounds moronic enough so it must be what is meant.

  32. I suppose it could be worse. One thing that caught my eye – … develop post-2018 fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles to further reduce fuel consumption …. The trucking industry is well aware of how much fuel costs, the truck manufacturers are well aware they could make money selling more efficient vehicles.

    He does include an off-hand reference to efforts at developing a LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) fueling option on long-haul trucking routes:

    Since heavy-duty vehicles are expected to account for 40 percent of increased oil use through 2030, we will encourage the adoption of heavy duty natural gas vehicles as well.

    As for emerging nuclear technologies, I assume that doesn’t include thorium, as the only place that’s emerging is in China. I’ll try not to mention all the work going on in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (aka cold fusion), and especially not Rossi’s E-Cat.

    III. Using Sound Science to Manage Climate Impacts

    Scientific data and insights are essential to help government officials, communities, and businesses better understand and manage the risks associated with climate change. The Administration will continue to lead in advancing the science of climate measurement and adaptation and the development of tools for climate-relevant decision-making by focusing on increasing the availability, accessibility, and utility of relevant scientific tools and information.

    “The Administration will continue to lead in advancing the science of climate measurement….” Gee, all this time I thought it had done nothing. Perhaps we should start up one of those silly online petitions to direct the Administration to grant a bucket of cash to Anthony et al’s work on that and access to CRN data.

  33. The fact is Obama can do just about anything he wishes given the delegation of power Congress has granted the agencies. Almost limitless regarding groups like the EPA, for example. If that’s not enough, then the EO (Executive Order) will do the trick. If you’re not familar with EO’s and how they’re treated as “law”, do some research, you’ll be amazed.

    All in all, energy costs are set to go up by around 20-40 percent. Could be even more depending on what regs are issued on fracking.

  34. The Obama climate “plan” is simply an embroidered lie, that’s all you need to say. It is not an entertainment, like the movie “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly”; there is no good in it that can make up for the very, very bad science and politics–the total lack of honest and competent thinking–enshrined in it.

    Organizers of one stripe or another–conservative, independent, libertarian, whoever still has a reasoning mind–should have worked to put a crowd of protestors against the follies of Obama in front of mainstream media cameras, as close to him as possible, when he dares to come out and speak on this. The opposition has to be large and obvious, to be widely seen and understood. The system is broken and he is the hatchet man intent upon doing as much damage as he can. (Steven Goddard used a cartoon image of Homer Simpson to represent James Hansen recently, and I have been playfully haranguing him to use that image in all of the pictures he presents on his blog–or failing that, to put an image of Obama holding an axe in all of them. That is the image the whole country needs to see, seriously.)

  35. “rules to cut carbon pollution – just like we have for other toxins like mercury and arsenic –”

    TOXINS !? WTF !

    All the “carbon pollution ” crap is bad enough but toxin?

    Sure, even waters toxic if you drink two gallons every ten minutes or stick you head a bucket, that does not mean we need to start getting rid of the stuff.

  36. Patrick says:
    June 25, 2013 at 4:39 am

    There are examples (A village in Africa) of low lying areas/valleys where people have died due to excess CO2 which, being heavier than air, displaces O2 suffocating all mammals in the affected area. The other two mentioned are toxins on the other hand, plenty of evidence to support the fact they are deadly. Still, these “scientists” and politicians are claiming that it’s just the ~50% airborne fraction of the ~3% human contribution to the ~400ppm/v CO2 concentration is DRIVING climate to change in a BAD way (I am ignoring CH4 at ~1800ppb/v). That’s the hypothesis. So far there is no evidence to support that.

    It was Lake Nyos in Cameroon when a large amount of carbon dioxide volcanic was given off in the crater lake.

    But using the same logic far more people die from exposure to too much DHMO so the EPA also should take action against it for the same reasons.

  37. Patrick says:
    June 25, 2013 at 4:39 am

    There are examples (A village in Africa) of low lying areas/valleys where people have died due to excess CO2 which, being heavier than air, displaces O2 suffocating all mammals in the affected area.

    Lake Nyos in Cameroon

    Well gee, perhaps we should also work at reducing DHMO levels too. It’s little discussed, but the Lake Nyos disaster would not have happened if the lake had been dry.

  38. ***
    A worthy goal to be sure, but, knowing that government doesn’t do anything well or efficiently, I seriously doubt we’ll see lower utility bills. I expect the opposite.
    ***

    You can be sure of that. In fact, it’ll be far worse than we expect.

  39. “Developing Actionable Climate Science”
    So he’s endorsing my plan to write an R routine to go back an “un” adjust the climate data, thus removing the anthropomorphic signature.

  40. Aside from the howls of protest parts of his “plan” will evince from the ecoloons out to destroy the US economy, I see nothing good in it whatsoever. It is Big Government telling businesses and people what to do, on the basis of an enormous, ugly lie. It’s more of the same throwing $billions at a non-problem.

  41. If Obama gave fewer speeches, the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would drop precipitously.

  42. I’d like to think the man is just an idiot, but most everything Obama does seems consistent with that old socialist professor’s (U. Chicago) theory that the best way to bring capitalism down was to capture the White House and then spend the United States into the ground. To date, renewable energy has cost us tens of millions of dollars for every job created and there’s no accounting of the jobs destroyed. You can also kiss reliable electric power goodbye when the federal government gets done implementing its “smart grid” plans. History will not be kind to us.

  43. …1. Multiple citations of the crazy idea that carbon dioxide is “carbon pollution”, when it is essential to almost all life on Earth.

    The phrase “carbon pollution” is mentioned 21 times.

    2. Equating carbon dioxide to mercury and arsenic, which is just nuts…

    I’m thinking of starting a chain of ‘New Age’ Health Salons – terribly chic and expensive, all across California and other Green parts of the world. Germany springs to mind.

    After paying a stiff fee, and signing a no-sue disclaimer, the prospective clients will enjoy an old Native American process, based loosely on colonic irrigation, during which all the nasty carbon is removed from their bodies. I was going to advertise it in all the Conservation and Environmental magazines, and get a few celebrities to attend for some publicity.

    Anyone want to come in with me? It ought to make millions….

  44. The “Ugly”
    Yesterday afternoon a very quick and very strong storm blew through my town and we were out of power for over a hour.
    Nothing to do but sit around and wait.
    Amazing what we don’t have when there is no electricity.

    For anyone that supports the President’s plan, there’s going to be more of that

  45. I think it is justifiable to call CO2 a pollutant. After all what is a pollutant? Most of the stuff we call pollutants are essential to life. Take Nitrogen and Phosphorus for instance, the two ingredients that are most closely tied to water pollution from sewage. Both of them are essential nutrients to plants.

    Take Nitrogen oxide which is a chemical compound closely related to urban smog. This stuff is also an essential Nitrogen source for plant. It reacts with water, first to Nitric Acid, then Nitrate, which is an essential nutrient.

    The problem occur when we create too much of these stuffs and in a wrong place.

    The claim that CO2 cannot be a pollutant because it is an essential chemical compound for life is not very meaningful.

  46. Obama is up to his ears in scandals, cover-ups and scams . . . he really wants to change the channel and a fawning media loves Glowball Warming stories.

    They’ll lap up this carbon pollution meme like kittens at a bowl of cream.

  47. John V. Wright says:
    June 25, 2013 at 3:21 am

    The President compares carbon dioxide to arsenic and mercury. *shakes head*. How on earth did America get to this point?

    By electing people that went to the “wrong universities” where they learned the “wrong stuff”.

    Teach a man false information and he’s likely to parrot false information.

    We have a president that’s wrong.

  48. So the President is cowardly. Instead of leading and forging a law or laws with Congress, he sidesteps Congress and abuses the USSC ruling on CO2.
    He is lazy: He would rather pontificate on a problem instead of reviewing the underlying assumptions. Since there is no climate crisis, his war on coal is merely a war on America.

  49. John V. Wright says:
    June 25, 2013 at 3:21 am

    The President compares carbon dioxide to arsenic and mercury. *shakes head*. How on earth did America get to this point?

    ==================================================

    One word: Liberalism

    Its an ideology of feel good, no thought policies.

    When one uses feelings they always get it wrong..

  50. Carbon dioxide is a toxin. Edward Snowden is a traitor. Obamacare will raise the level of medical care while making it more affordable. What is this, Comedy Central?

  51. Dodgy Geezer says:
    June 25, 2013 at 5:40 am

    …1. Multiple citations of the crazy idea that carbon dioxide is “carbon pollution”, when it is essential to almost all life on Earth.

    The phrase “carbon pollution” is mentioned 21 times.

    2. Equating carbon dioxide to mercury and arsenic, which is just nuts…

    I’m thinking of starting a chain of ‘New Age’ Health Salons – terribly chic and expensive, all across California and other Green parts of the world. Germany springs to mind.

    After paying a stiff fee, and signing a no-sue disclaimer, the prospective clients will enjoy an old Native American process, based loosely on colonic irrigation, during which all the nasty carbon is removed from their bodies. I was going to advertise it in all the Conservation and Environmental magazines, and get a few celebrities to attend for some publicity.

    Anyone want to come in with me? It ought to make millions….

    ==================================

    Sounds like an add for a funeral home crematorium… puts out a lot of CO2, but in the end your body no longer can…

    Just saying… :)

  52. I think y’all are missing the point. This is all intended to create higher prices, to lose jobs to put more people on welfare and thus create democratic voters, dependent on the government for food and housing. The KXL pipeline will not be built, it would take people off welfare and thus less dependent on government. There will be more government grants to Democratic supporters that can go bankrupt in the future, but in the mean time have funneled much of that grant back to Democratic political groups.

  53. Too bad it isn’t possible to teach the laws of thermodynamics in law school… then maybe idiot politicians would know that increasing efficiency is more difficult than simply enacting a law dictating higher efficiencies. The laws of nature will always trump the laws of man.

  54. Ian W says:
    June 25, 2013 at 5:10 am

    “But using the same logic far more people die from exposure to too much DHMO so the EPA also should take action against it for the same reasons.”

    Apparently, apparently there are a lot of greens that would actually agree with you :

    :))

  55. rogerknights says June 25, 2013 at 4:12 am

    This probably includes support for efforts to convert heavy trucks to LNG and the creation of LNG fillup stations across the country.

    Anyone know what a BLEVE is?

    “Happy Motoring”

    .

  56. James Schrumpf says June 25, 2013 at 3:51 am

    This at a time when US CO2 output has fallen to 1994 levels because of increased use of natural gas. …

    SOME would contend it is because the economy is in the dump; have you actually seen the gasoline sales figures for the last 10 years?

    Kinda looks like its down by half eyeballing it:

    Refiner Motor Gasoline Sales Volumes

    http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=a103600001&f=m

    And that’s not including diesel or JP4/kerosene consumption …
    .

  57. 1. More hand-outs for an already bloated climate science culture.

    Developing Actionable Climate Science: The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget provides more than $2.7 billion, largely through the 13-agency U.S. Global Change Research Program, to increase understanding of climate-change impacts, establish a public-private partnership to explore risk and catastrophe modeling, and develop the information and tools needed by decision-makers to respond to both long-term climate change impacts and near-term effects of extreme weather.

    Well, this elevates the climate scientists (and others in the climate industry with their hands in the government money pot) to yet another Washington Special Interest Group.

    Remember – Green Greed is Good! ™

  58. Three things come to mind: Sugar coated graft. It hasn’t worked for any other country, so why should we also do it? And, it’s the government, it’s here to help (what could go wrong?)

  59. Anyone who thinks that the owners of trucking companies and heavy equipment aren’t pushing the manufacturers of these things to increase energy efficiency already, has no understanding of how the economy works.
    For most of these companies, fuel is one of their biggest expenses, and even small savings there go straight to their bottom line.
    There is no need for govt to push companies, because their customers are already doing it.

  60. Apparently Obama never got the memo that climate models aren’t working.

    He sees that as a feature, not a bug. Why let facts and data confuse the issue when failing climate models support your actions?

  61. Regarding efficiency standards for new appliances.
    Anything that increases the cost of new appliances will result in people keeping their old appliances longer. In the short to medium term, this could actually increase energy use as older, less efficient appliances are maintained for a few more years rather than being replaced.

  62. @BillH

    ..After paying a stiff fee, and signing a no-sue disclaimer, the prospective clients will enjoy an old Native American process, based loosely on colonic irrigation, during which all the nasty carbon is removed from their bodies. I was going to advertise it in all the Conservation and Environmental magazines, and get a few celebrities to attend for some publicity.

    Anyone want to come in with me? It ought to make millions….
    ==================================

    Sounds like an add for a funeral home crematorium… puts out a lot of CO2, but in the end your body no longer can… Just saying… :)…

    Actually, I was thinking of having their bodies eaten from the inside out by fire ants introduced per rectum .

    An old Native American process, as I said. Actually, an old Native American torture, but I think that the word ‘process’ is so much greener… good for the animals, as well….

  63. Regarding truck standards. The result is going to be smaller, less powerfull trucks that can’t haul as much goods. The result of that will be more trucks on the road, eating up most of the “savings” the new standards “created”.

  64. Village Idiot says:
    June 25, 2013 at 3:35 am

    The climate scientists aren’t even remotely right, much less broadly right.

  65. jkanders says:
    June 25, 2013 at 5:44 am

    I think it is justifiable to call CO2 a pollutant. After all what is a pollutant? Most of the stuff we call pollutants are essential to life. Take Nitrogen and Phosphorus for instance, the two ingredients that are most closely tied to water pollution from sewage. Both of them are essential nutrients to plants.

    Take Nitrogen oxide which is a chemical compound closely related to urban smog. This stuff is also an essential Nitrogen source for plant. It reacts with water, first to Nitric Acid, then Nitrate, which is an essential nutrient.

    The problem occur when we create too much of these stuffs and in a wrong place.

    The claim that CO2 cannot be a pollutant because it is an essential chemical compound for life is not very meaningful.

    You are using the term ‘pollutant’ in its normal English usage sense. In the legal sense ‘pollutant’ means something that the EPA can regulate. The recent ‘victory’ in the SCOTUS was that the EPA has the authority to declare anything a pollutant and therefore can regulate anything – and will do without any congressional interference under Executive Orders. They have already tried it with water in Virginia.

  66. Obama’s personal belief system is adversarial to the interests of the United States, and openly hostile toward US Industry. This is generally veiled beneath extensive Bureauspeak. My guess is that this document doesn’t openly reveal what is very damaging, punitive policy.

  67. Calling for 10 GW of new renewable plant permits on Federal lands by 2020? That’s the energy production equivalent of one new nuclear plant with 2 reactors. The response to this climapocalypse is underwhelming.

    The good news is that wind and solar cheerleaders claim that both have reached grid parity without subsidies. To acknowledge this claim, the POTUS should, in addition to nixing the subsidies, skyrocket the lease fees and taxes on these new renewable plants to put them on par with competing energy sources.
    The windfall revenues can be used to pay for new climate research efforts…

  68. Zek202 says:
    June 25, 2013 at 4:59 am
    Would not a steady rate of high temperature records per year indicate a rising overall temperature?
    ===========
    high temperatures have not been increasing. it is the low temperatures that have been increasing, which increases the calculated mean and reduces the calculated variability.

    in other words, global warming makes weather less extreme.

  69. What plane is this, B C D or F like it reads.

    He Keeps coming up with more lies, not his fault, it all goes back to a one parent upbringing. He should be focused on keeping families together not ripping them apart.

  70. We will be attacked mercilously and rudely on the blogs by alarmist fanatics.

    I’ve taken to pointing and laughing at the alarmists. It seems to really, really upset them, which means that I consider it a win.

  71. rogerknights says June 25, 2013 at 4:12 am

    This probably includes support for efforts to convert heavy trucks to LNG and the creation of LNG fillup stations across the country.

    And Roger this is what an LNG ‘accident’ and it’s aftermath will look like on the highway (compare this to a simple diesel fuel spill):

    “Power of Liquid Natural Gas Explosion Accident 2 China”

    .

    Before you start with “But that was a tanker …” THINK about how this LNG will be distributed to truck stops around the country. There isn’t the piping/pipeline infrastructure in place to each of these truck stops so TANKERS will be used to transport the LNG to points of distribution at truck stops …

  72. increased fuel economy comes at a price. spending $10,000 to save $5,000 at the pump isn’t sound economics. especially if the government adds $5000 in new gasoline taxes to help “encourage” economy.

    before obama air
    spend $10,000 at the pump
    ==========
    total cost $10,000

    after obama air
    spend $10000 for increased efficiency
    spend $5000 at the pump (saves $5000)
    spend $5000 in increased taxes
    ===========
    total cost $20,000

  73. “And increasing floods, heat waves, and droughts have put farmers out of business, which is already raising food prices dramatically.”

    Nonsense. This is the worst statement for me.

    Both floods and droughts have increased at the same time? How does one do this, when areas of flood or drought are categorised based on lower and higher percentiles of rainfall, meaning if you flood an area you decrease the drought level, and vice versa. Spatially, one cannot both increase a high rainfall area and increase a drought area at the same time, you can only increase or decrease the level of variability of rainfall over a period. Moreover, floods bring much needed silt to soils, meaning farmers survive better in drought years. Where are the stats for farmers out of business and raised food prices? No mention of increase in crop production due to C02.

    Carbon like arsenic and mercury? Pity we are made of it.

  74. What you need over there is another Boris Johnson (current London mayor), who tells it as it is:
    “the erroneous meteorologists who have, frankly, been taking the piscine.”
    btw. he was born in USA, and has very strong multinational pedigree.

  75. “carbon pollution –just like we have for other toxins like mercury and arsenic – so we protect the health of our children “

    Do Americans eat bread, cornflakes, sugar, drink coke, …..mind boggles.!

  76. Anthony, please stop using the phrase “Tar Sands”. It is not “tar”. It is “oil”. Tar is man-made. Oil is not. The climastrologists use “Tar Sands” as a slur. Please don’t repeat their propaganda.

  77. This is what you get when you have the major media in bed with the government: no honesty, corrupt agencies, high unemployment, monitoring “dissidents”, illegal use of power, control of health and energy, poor economy, lies, etc. while blaming others for problems (Bush).
    It does not matter what the facts or science indicate, it is difficult to keep a Government in check without a 4th estate.

  78. Thanks for the heads-up and getting this stuff out early. We just have to keep fighting this madness coming out of the Administration. It would be nice to place all the eco-freaks on their own planet that had no CO2 – they would not last long, and this planet would be so much better.

  79. vukcevic says June 25, 2013 at 7:10 am

    What you need over there is another Boris Johnson (current London mayor), who tells it as it is:

    What we have, vukcevic, is a president hunkered down (think of the ‘paper hanger’ in the last days of WWII) in the WH behind a first line of ‘defense’ composed of a ‘press corps’ (next line being the entrenched bureaucracy formed to isolate a president from the ppl).

    Repercussions such as IRS audits can result by being “too vocal” as well. I would not say we are living on a Stazi State just yet, but we get closer each day.

    It does not help either that his closest advisers (Axelrod, Jarret et al) are impervious to logic and immune to reason.

    .

  80. Re: “Good” #7
    He said: investments to build and upgrade gas pipelines
    He could have said: investments to build and upgrade oil and gas pipelines
    He chose not to include the “oil and”

    Re: Good, Bad and Ugly.
    “The are two kinds of people in this world, my friend.
    Those who win elections with loaded guns…
    And those who dig.”

  81. berniel says:
    June 25, 2013 at 4:06 am
    “ — I mean, we all learn in school the importance of CO2 to photosynthesis…

    I wonder about this? If by “school” you mean the k thru 12 public schools of the USA there are anecdotal reports of that science being swamped by the ‘carbon pollution’ pseudo-science of the President and his agents. I have no information about what is taught in the public schools and in post-high school programs many students never hear of the process of photosynthesis.

  82. Anthony you dont need to feel left out on Carbon taxes on gas…. hell you can share some of ours in the UK 70% in total Taxed like 70’s Rock stars (although I did read that some paid as much as 96% & they nearly all migrated to the US anyhow = no tax for the then Labour Govt)
    Now I know why they banned gun ownership over here :)
    Why is it nearly always left wing Govts seem to have a kiss of death effect to the economy
    Obama must be green with envy when he sees all the Carbon Taxes being raked in in Europe

  83. This plan isn’t going to pass through the legislative process, unless they load it up with so much corporate welfare that everybody thinks they can benefit at somebody else’s expense. Of course, somebody is going to pay for it.

  84. Seems like a continuation of the “ugly” and “bad” from the previous Administration (hello corn people!) with a bit of new fluff, some of which reads well in a presso.

  85. Politicians love to spend public money and call it an “investment,” which it rarely is. What this plan calls for is more expansion of the federal government into more things they have no business doing. It’s another statist, central-planning fiasco in the making.

  86. James Schrumpf says:
    June 25, 2013 at 3:51 am
    This at a time when US CO2 output has fallen to 1994 levels because of increased use of natural gas. Heck with the failed models, does the President even keep up with how much CO2 the US puts out in the first place?

    The Puppet President has no need to keep up with anything. He just reads what the TOTUS (Teleprompter of the US) tells him, and what it tells him is written by his handlers in the White House, doubtless with George Soros kindly looking on from on high. They have no interest in science, nor facts, and certainly not truth. Their aim is to use the dogmas of the Left to promote their own political interests, i.e. to establish themselves as the Ruling Class of the Socialist State of America.

    Obama’s worshippers in the media and in Congress will aid and abet in every way they can. If you’re in Massachusetts, please vote today to stop one of the chief Democrat toadies and the worst Global Warm-monger in the House from advancing to the US Senate: Vote for Gabriel Gomez, and stop Ed Malarkey!

    /Mr Lynn

  87. And increasing floods, heat waves, and droughts have put farmers out of business, which is already raising food prices dramatically

    I cannot wait for Gail Comb to unleash a salvo on this target.
    Food prices are going up.
    Farmers are going out of business.
    But the causes are floods of federal mandated paperwork, regulations,bureaucrats,
    and a drought of common sense and justice.

  88. “Asthma rates have doubled in the past 30 years and our children will suffer more asthma attacks as air pollution gets worse.”

    How do I know are government is either ignorant or only interested in using scare tactics to promote an agenda? When they attempt to link higher asthma rates to temperature.

    Asthma is an autoimmune issue and in my eyes seems much more likely to be caused by diet, namely a diet high in carbohydrates and low in fat. I cured my asthma (no attacks in several years) by changing my diet, not by lowering the thermostat in my house.

  89. Obama, leftists, MSM, educators, enviro-wackos, CAGW grant whores, the UN, Progressives, Universities, etc., still fail to realize the incredible blowback they’ll receive once CAGW is officially thrown on the trash heap of junk science and failed theories.

    CAGW will go down in history as the biggest and most economically destructive boondoggles in human history. Taxpayers will be furious once they realize the $trillions of their hard-earned money that was flushed down the toilet on a scam many scientists knew wasn’t a viable theory, yet said nothing; “not to speak is to speak, not to act, is to act”–they were complicit.

    Hopefully the demise of CAGW will be a catalyst for citizens to realize that gigantic centrally controlled elitist bureaucracies don’t work and there will be a movement to much smaller/less controlling/intrusive governments and a return to free-market economies…… Or not….

    I can’t believe not one word was mentioned about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. That conspicuous absence should tell everyone that cheap, abundant, reliable and safe energy is NOT the true agenda of this administration; but rather a nefarious one is in the works.

    CO2 a poision??? Really??? The increase in CO2 has greatly increased crop yields and forest growth and the slight increase in global temperatures has increased arable land in Northern latitudes and slightly increased rainfall. I don’t think that can be said about mercury or arsenic…

    I’m sick and tired of all this madness. Where is the money coming from? The US already has $17 TRILLION in national debt, annual deficits of almost $1 trillion and we’re printing $85 BILLION of bogus bucks A MONTH!

    Americans elected Obama not once, but TWICE! They’re gonna get what they deserve.

    It’ll all work out eventually, but it ain’t gonna be pretty in the process.

    And so it goes…….until it doesn’t….

  90. My take is it is all pretty meaningless. There is actually almost nothing he is actually planning to do before he leaves office. Mainly, I look at this proposal as a head fake to the environmental wing of the party to make them feel good about supporting Obama while actually giving them nothing concrete.

  91. Dave says:
    June 25, 2013 at 6:10 am

    Too bad it isn’t possible to teach the laws of thermodynamics in law school…

    The US has more than a million lawyers–that’s more than the rest of the world combined. And you’re right–they don’t teach the laws of thermodynamics in law school; they don’t teach any science at all. A law student would have to get that in his undergrad classes, and most law students are political science majors (sorta like “climate science” people–way short on “science”).

    We’re dealing with people that are absolutely clueless, and the cluclessness starts at the head but infects the whole body.

  92. “Pie in the sky savings—Establishing a New Goal for Energy Efficiency Standards: In President Obama’s first term, the Department of Energy established new minimum efficiency standards for dishwashers, refrigerators, and many other products.”

    If we actually look at the existing efficiency standards industry has outstripped the standards by a wide margin…i.E…State of the Art Air Conditioning systems currently have SEER ratings above 21, to qualify for ‘Energy Star’ an air conditioner only needs a SEER rating of 14.(Last time I checked).

    When I was shopping for a new tV last X-mas 9 out of 10 models in the store had energy usage significantly lower then the most efficient model on the labels.

  93. >http://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/is-climate-change-theory-belief-genocide-by-false-prophecy/
    >
    >Is Climate Change Theory and the War On Fossil Fuel Genocide By False Prophecy?
    >
    >A child dies every 5 seconds from hunger and these people are happy making money by turning food into fuel. In the 3 minutes it takes you to fill your tank with ‘green’ E85 fuel – 38 children will have died from starvation. Good to be green?
    >
    >The world is facing a hunger crisis unlike anything it has seen in more than 50 years.
    >
    >925 million people are hungry.
    >
    >Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes.
    >
    >That’s one child every five seconds.
    >
    >http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/23/greedy-africans-are-starving-our-cars/
    >
    >Climate Change Is Not The Problem – Energy Poverty Is

  94. physics geek says:
    June 25, 2013 at 7:03 am

    We will be attacked mercilously and rudely on the blogs by alarmist fanatics.

    I’ve taken to pointing and laughing at the alarmists. It seems to really, really upset them, which means that I consider it a win.

    Ridicule works quite well. Pointing out that history will show how abjectly ignorant and stupid they were may also work.

  95. @Layne Blanchard 6:55 am
    My guess is that this document doesn’t openly reveal what is very damaging, punitive policy.
    Most definately. This is a strategic directive. The “Ugly” details will be left to the administrators in departments, agencies, and commissions such as EPA, Depts of Transportation, Agriculture, Interior, Energy, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    Meanwhile, the President jets off to Africa on a family vacation in his private air force of Air Force One (through Eight) leaving in a week a carbon footprint behind him bigger than an average family makes in a lifetime.

  96. Thanks Anthony. For me, reading these sorts of political documents has become a mental punishment. Words such as investment, partnering, actionable, advanced, and so on always cause a flashback to a former President pointing out the questionable meaning of the word is.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Matthew W says:
    June 25, 2013 at 5:43 am
    “The “Ugly”
    Yesterday afternoon a very quick and very strong storm blew through my town and we were out of power for over a hour.
    Nothing to do but sit around and wait.

    – – –
    “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” [Rahm Emanuel]

    Always keep a case of beer in your refrigerator. When the power goes out you can sit around and drink it – to protect it from getting warm.

  97. So Obama will do nothing of significance but ensured his green friends will be protected.

  98. “rules to cut carbon pollution – just like we have for other toxins like mercury and arsenic –”

    So no more Coca-Cola then?

  99. Climate change is natural, so let’s legislate against it and employ lots of expensive bureaucrats to enforce the legislation.

    In the bizarre world of Mannian maths and the ecoloon cults that might make sense, but nowhere else.

  100. In the enlightened age of 1886 a US five dollar bill truly celebrated instead of demonized the life affirming advantage of electrical power and good old Edison light bulbs:

  101. 5. The plan calls for “investment in a range of energy technologies, from advanced biofuels and emerging nuclear technologies – including small modular reactors . . . .”

    Rick Werme says:

    As for emerging nuclear technologies, I assume that doesn’t include thorium, as the only place that’s emerging is in China. I’ll try not to mention all the work going on in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (aka cold fusion), and especially not Rossi’s E-Cat.

    Well, Rossi’s E-Cat IS “emerging.” You don’t suppose . . . ?

  102. When it comes to the oil sands, we Canadians are cleaning up the biggest oil spill in history. The fact that we are making money in doing so, is irrelevant. We are cleaning up the pollution; that is what ought to matter to the ecofascists.

  103. President Obama thinks hes King Canute

    Thinks he can magically stop Hurricanes and Tornadoes with more Taxation.

    Well he cant the stop the Recession .stop the war in Syria .stop war in Afghanistan stop High school shootings or stop the NRA or stop Al Quida attacks on US soil.

    Climate Change something else he seen to be unable to do anything about.
    Think these Politicians would realize that Climate Change is Rod for their own back.Bobby Trap of their own making.Why not just wash quietly their hands of it.

  104. Nia says:
    June 25, 2013 at 8:26 am
    oh boy now Im kinda of worried – is Obama not aware of Europe’s failure post green fever
    ================================
    Of course he is aware of the Green failures of Europe.
    But Obama is operating with Progressive Smart Power (™) and knows that he can defy the laws of thermal dynamics and simple economics and make it work.

  105. Ok, since I’ve had 5 hours since I last wrote a comment about this I’ve had a bit more time to think about this; whatever your definition of the meaning of the word ‘this’ is.

    Anyway, I drive an Italian car. A 23 year old Italian car. An Italian car with 128,000 miles on it. (I know what you’re thinking so stop it.) Anyway, any time I bring it to the shop (not an infrequent occurrence), well, they take a least 2 weeks to fix it. And that’s if they’ve done nothing. For instance, last month I took it to the shop because the battery was dead and asked them to check the alternator. How hard is that? Put a gauge on it; it’s charging or it’s not charging. Well, guess what? – they couldn’t find a problem. And it took ‘em two weeks.

    Why? I have a theory. You see, when I bring the car in the mechanics think to themselves, ‘no one in their right mind would ever rely on a 23 year old, 128K miles, Italian car for daily transportation so we can put it on the back burner and look at it when we have nothing to do.’ Well, guess what, yours truly does, does rely on it for daily transportation (although the definition of the word ‘daily’ has changed).

    Now, be creative and try to apply the foregoing to the President’s Climate Change Action Plan. Since the whole CAGW thing is basically a 23 year old, high mileage Italian car that the climate scientists rely on for daily funding; we, the mechanics (I.e. money source) can recognize it for what it is, and put it on the back burner.

  106. Good post and comments
    But on balance is not this just a nothing announcement from Obama which just plays lip service to the discredited notion of AGM?
    The actions he has taken are either meaningless waffle or scheduled to act in the far future.
    He wants to build flood defences and this that and he other but a the same time he wants to cut government spending and borrowing. Is anything going to happen?

    When you hear things like, ‘provide approximately $30 billion of climate assistance to developing countries over FY 2010-FY 2012. The United States contributed approximately $7.5 billion to this effort over the three year period.’ then you see why those on the gravy train want to keep it on the rails.

    BTW – given that infrastructure was given a mention its also worth pointing out that civil engineers and civil engineering are also happy to fall in line for the hand louts.

  107. John F. Hultquist says:
    June 25, 2013 at 8:01 am

    .
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    – – –
    “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” [Rahm Emanuel]

    Always keep a case of beer in your refrigerator. When the power goes out you can sit around and drink it – to protect it from getting warm.
    ===================================================
    The irony is that there were adult beverages in my fridge but I has just told my 10 year old not to open the fridge and let the cold out !!!
    Hoisted by my own petard !!!!

  108. Dear Anthony,
    I would appreciate any comment you have to this:
    CC Climate alarmists, perhaps now you can relax.
    The alarmists are right about the key claim fueling their panic engendered by their climate models; positive atmospheric moisture feedback.
    This positive feedback has brought us out of the snowball earth, raised our average temperature by 31 C and allowed evolution of the higher forms of life on earth. Luckily a negative feedback mechanism* is also driven by atmospheric moisture feedback. Since it starts with the same phenomenon, temperature driven-water evaporation, it will always be available to match the positive feedback. Match is the key word. If the negative feedback had not reached a value to fully compensate for the positive feedback, the earth temperature would have continued to rise to values which would par broil the higher forms of life hundreds of millions of years ago. We know this is true because it is true. We see the evidence in all of our paleo-temperature measurements all the way up to our present day. The earth temperature** lies in a relatively narrow band between ice ages and climate ‘optimums’ such as we are presently enjoying. Ipso facto the earth climate physics has solved these feedback term equations whether we are presently able to measure, in a short term, these minute energy flows with adequate precision to prove it or not.

    *Negative feedback from additional cloud formation due to increased cloud albedo(short wave reflection) and increased latent heat transport to the top of the troposphere in thunderheads where it can be radiated (long wave radiation) away into space is well understood.
    ** Variations in temperature driven by well understood external forcing by Milankovitch cycles and variations in solar radiation and coronal mass ejections. The very minor forcing from trace CO2 forcing is undetectable in the face of these the natural forceings which the earth’s self regulatory feedback mechanism has withstood for eons.

  109. The Athabaska sands were called “tar sands” by those who first visited them, because the sand bitumen mixture resembled what they knew as tar.

    But the oil and gas industry refers to formations according to the product they are extracting from them. Thus we have “gas sands”, “oil shales”, “gas shales”, and of course “oil sands”.

    The econazi movement has decided that “tar” sounds vaguely less salubrious than “oil”, so they use the term “tar sands” exclusively as a pejorative.

  110. There is nothing wrong in reducing our industrial air pollutants which have an adverse effect on human health and environment. Our air quality index defines these as GROUND LEVEL OZONE, FINE PARTICULATE MATTER, NITROGEN DIOXIDE, SULPHUR DIOXIDE, CARBON MONOXIDE, and TOTAL SULPHUR REDUCED COMPOUNDS. Ground level ozone is formed by a chemical reaction between nitrogen dioxide [NOx] and volatile organic compounds [VOx] in the presence of sun light. Ground level ozone and fine particulate matter are the main components of smog that plague our major cities world wide. We should strive to reduce these pollutants from our industrial emissions as our overall funds allow considering also all our other public priorities a well like jobs and a healthy economy. There is nothing wrong with a practical pollution control policy. The problem arose when pollution control was mixed in with a flawed climate science causing an unhealthy brew.

    Notice that CARBON DIOXIDE is not among the pollutants since the medical profession does not consider carbon dioxide as a pollutant. nor is it part of any air quality index.

    So if carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and if it is not causing global warming as predicted [17 years of rising CO2 levels with no impact on climate] then why are we still at this late stage spending billions of dollars trying to eliminate it? The problem is further compounded by forcing power generating plants to close prematurely prior to reaching the end of their useful or design life. We should upgrade them to the maximum level practical, let them finish their useful life and any NEW plants can then be constructed to new and cleaner technologies. No economy can withstand such waste of public tax money by wastefully and irresponsibly spending hard earned taxpayers funds to retool our energy supply at the changing whim of our political establishment with no real value to the public .

  111. Sacrificing our economies on the barren altar of carbon strangulation is not even going to affect the climate.

  112. Actionable science? The Left has waged a highly public semantic war since at least 1980. The fact that their bastard terminology could make it into a presidential address is, quite frankly, terrifying. “Actionable science” is an oxymoron on steroids. What the Left means by “actionable science” is science that dictates a particular action or set of actions. But science is understanding attained through empirical research conducted in accordance with scientific method. Our understanding of nature never compels us to act. The imperative to act comes into play only through our moral beliefs. Once again, the Left foolishly insists that scientific understanding dictates moral action. Once again, the Left has confused science with morality and religion. The Left remains in the shadow of the Eugenics movement.

  113. CFI writes:
    “I’m not fully convinced that a new ice age would actually shut them up, they would just try to ride it out.”

    No. They will call it part of the warming process.

  114. “Fightning” a non-existent problem…with non-existent solutions. Every intelligent, honest person knows it’s just a social agenda. Meanwhile, India has 300 million people without electricity. They have some 500- new coal fired plants in the works. And China builds 1 or 2 a week with our coal!!! Increasingly, the U.S. is becoming more and more irrelevant. And of course, that is the goal here.

  115. Some remarks:
    – After having emphasized several times the negative aspects of carbon (‘carbon pollution’), the Climate Action Plan reminds us of one positive side of the carbon element: forests need carbon to grow. But in perfect agreement with his bad ideas about carbon, the author formulates this fact as follows: ‘America’s forests play a critical role in addressing carbon pollution, removing nearly 12 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions each year.‘ He does not understand that carbon is an indispensable factor in the cycle of life. 18 percent of the mass of humans consists of carbon. Carbon dioxide is a valuable gas with a large number of uses that include horticulture, production of chemicals, refrigeration systems, fire extinguishers, water treatment processes, and many other applications. The author of the plan seems tilting at windmills (Don Quixote).
    To build on this progress, the Obama Administration is putting in place tough new rules to cut carbon pollution – just like we have for other toxins like mercury and arsenic – so we protect the health of our children … Indeed, efforts have been made to reduce the mercury pollution from power plants but at the same time more mercury from CFLs is polluting the environment (after the ban of incandescent light bulbs). Especially China, where most CFLs are produced, is a victim of this pollution but also America, where most CFLs are not disposed of properly.
    – Arsenic is a common substance in LEDs ((Aluminum) Gallium arsenide). California lists gallium arsenide as a carcinogen. The ban of incandescent light bulbs makes that more arsenic is polluting the environment.
    In Indonesia, the Millennium Challenge Corporation is funding a five-year “Green Prosperity” program that supports environmentally sustainable, low carbon economic development in select districts. That reminds us of the recent smog alarm in Singapore. It is known that big palm oil companies are involved. Rainforests are burnt for palm oil plantations. “The oil is increasingly used in the manufacture of cosmetics, soaps, pharmaceuticals and industrial products. It is also used to make biodiesel fuel.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/indonesia-fires_n_3479727.html)
    – I found no clear condemnation of the existing not ‘advanced biofuels’.

    All consequences have to be factored in on a global scale (not only in the US). No imaginary ennemies have to be attacked. No lies have to be told. (EPA is still declaring that power plants emit 0.012 mg Hg/kWh. Unfortunately, this number is much too high!) The harmful effects are not mentioned what makes the whole plan onesided and worthless.

  116. In the category of “WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG” I offer up the following video titled:

    . . . . . . . “Refueling your Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Truck”

    Note: This procedure is Heavy on Safety!

    Note the protective gear to be worn on head and face, the hands and the body!
    Note the need for possible venting required on the vehicle to be fueled!
    Note the requirement to assure the mating surfaces/connectors are clean and undamaged!

    The actual fueling procedure begins at about the 3:33 point in the video.

    .

  117. Samurai shouts:
    ” The US already has $17 TRILLION in national debt, annual deficits of almost $1 trillion and we’re printing $85 BILLION of bogus bucks A MONTH!

    Americans elected Obama not once, but TWICE!”
    ——————————————————————–
    Yep, I voted for him. Sent money to his election efforts. That debt did not come from idiotic AWG programs, it came form launching two unnecessary wars while cutting taxes.
    I don’t appreciate his scientific illiteracy anymore than you do, but we sure have had worse presidents overall.

    • @Doug – the 10 years cost (2001-2011) of the “2 wars” was $1.29t (source: Treasury.gov). The “cost” of the tax cut according to the CBO was $1t over 10 years. 1+1.29=2.29. Obama’s debt over the first 4 years? $6t.

      Want to try a course in basic math again?

  118. Here is what Mike MacCracken, Director of the Climate Institute in Washington put forward to prove his CAGW points:

    “Here goes:
    1.The CO2 concentration is going up do to human activities (clear from emission compilations, isotopic changes, etc.)
    2.Molecules with three atoms or more absorb and radiate IR radiation (laboratory experiments, etc.) and are a cause of the surface climate being warmer than were there no such molecules in the atmosphere (comparison of planetary climates, paleo changes, simulations with radiative-convective models, etc.)
    3.The climate has been changing since the start of the Industrial Revolution (data compilations of a range of variables) and the spatial and temporal patterns of climate change are inconsistent with changes being due to solar and volcanic forcings alone, and generally consistent with changes expected when both natural and anthropogenic forcings are included based on their quantitative contributions (“fingerprint” type analyses that are indicative of anthropogenic forcings—for example, that the stratosphere has been cooling is not consistent with solar forcing being the cause of surface warming)
    4.Adding more GHGs to the atmosphere will cause further warming (if one subdivides the atmosphere into layers, it is clear that the altitude at which saturation occurs, to the extent that it does occur).
    5.There will be significant impacts on the environment due to changes in climate (just walk up a mountain, or tour the country). Lowering ocean pH and the rise in sea level are pretty obvious types of impacts. From 20 ka to 8 ka, sea level rose roughly 120 meters as temperature rose 6 C, so about 20 m/degree change in global average temperature (is the slope going to really change to zero right at this critical juncture?).
    6.It will take a very sharp drop in CO2 emissions to stop the growth in its atmospheric concentration (a range of isotopic and tracer studies make this clear).

    All the rest is details—they matter for some purposes, but not really on whether it is important to be moving aggressively to start limiting emissions.

    Mike MacCracken”
    ===

    For a guy who just could not explain a simple weather event… LOL

  119. TomRude says:
    June 25, 2013 at 9:56 am

    Here is what Mike MacCracken, Director of the Climate Institute in Washington put forward to prove his CAGW points:

    Considering his post he has missed the major step. That is that the heat delayed by the carbon dioxide causes temperatures to rise and the rate of evaporation of water to increase. Water vapor is more effective at ‘trapping’ infrared and therefore the atmospheric temperature rises and this causes more evaporation … etc to calamity. One indication that this is happening is of course the tropical tropospheric hotspot. This hotspot does not exist and the atmospheric humidity has not been rising so therefore the CAGW hypothesis is falsified.

  120. This is going to be an extremely expensive venture in policy built without a proper engineering study detailing costs vs savings and other consequences for undertaking this policy.

    It’s pretty funny to spend this much on a bad policy when most models are predicting +2C max by 2100 and it looks like they’re severely overshooting measurements, and the fact that IPCC SREX has found no correlation between natural disasters and temperature increases to date. One could even assert that there’s an inverse relationship between natural disasters and temperatures with the hurricane drought the US is currently experiencing.

    As for adaptation, take any 2 cities in the US where one is 2C warmer than the other, even to the point of hot places like Phoenix and even Las Vegas, and you’ll see that adaptation is fairly simple to engineer – especially with such a ridiculously a slow-moving problem – infrastructure will have to be rebuilt or renovated by the time there’s a problem to the new conditions – so there’s really no problem.

  121. If you are a labor boss there is much to love in this proposal. It reads like a thousand year labor stimulus plan. This should keep all the new immigrants busy. This is about 6 Hiroshima units of vote buying per year.

  122. The claim of “The 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15 years.” isn’t supported by the state all time high temperature records, it only exists in the highly adjusted national average.

    By the way, Anthony, what’s the progress on Watts-2012?

    An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends

    Is it getting the IRS-TeaParty “Special Treatment”: Delay, Delay, Delay?

    REPLY: No, I’m the reason. We got some very good feedback last year, and it required a complete redo of the metadata analysis to deal with the issue, and this required going back to B91 forms and the like to pull out the information we needed. Very tedious work. All done now, and hope to submit for publication soon. – Anthony

  123. _Jim says:
    June 25, 2013 at 7:03 am

    Before you start with “But that was a tanker …” THINK about how this LNG will be distributed to truck stops around the country. There isn’t the piping/pipeline infrastructure in place to each of these truck stops so TANKERS will be used to transport the LNG to points of distribution at truck stops …

    There are similar issues with hauling propane around the country. Cold LNG introduces a new set of problems, we’ll see how the risk vs benefits (inflated by the Greens) work out.

    I’m at work now, I’ll look at your videos later from home.

    If this helps drive NG pipeline construction, that would be a good thing. Probably won’t help New Hampshire, as we’re near the end of the road, but we could use more pipeline capacity.

    BTW, development is happening now. In http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/03/cheap-natural-gas-but-wait-theres-more/ I quoted

    Clean Energy is spending $225 million to complete 70 stations by the end of this year and another 80 next year, all of them spaced along long-haul truck routes to create a truly viable natural gas support network, Clean Energy’s Feighner said.

    And LNG truck fueling stations cost less than half as much as CNG stations, according to Clean Energy. A four-pump LNG station costs $2 million, whereas a CNG station of the same size would cost $5 million.

    The Clean Energy and Shell truck stations will offer LNG pumps. Shell plans to open its first LNG fuel lanes next year.

  124. Mercury, arsenic and carbon dioxide, nothing new:

    Statement by EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
    September 2, 2011 – Since day one, under President Obama’s leadership, EPA has worked to ensure health protections for the American people, and has made tremendous progress to ensure that Clean Air Act standards protect all Americans by reducing our exposures to harmful air pollution like mercury, arsenic and carbon dioxide. This Administration has put in place some of the most important standards and safeguards for clean air in U.S. history: the most significant reduction of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide air pollution across state borders; a long-overdue proposal to finally cut mercury pollution from power plants; and the first-ever carbon pollution standards for cars and trucks. We will revisit the ozone standard, in compliance with the Clean Air Act.

    http://www.epa.gov/glo/actions.html

  125. Speaking of Lisa Jackson, did she ever turn over the rest of FOIA Richard Windsor emails?

    She claimed she needed the account for official business, then turned over thousands of news feeds, press releases and other junk emails.

  126. With Asthma in Central Florida I can tell you… the ONLY things that trip my asthma are diesel exhaust and tobacco smoke. Not the diesel they use on locomotives though… This I see as a sign of one of the additives for road use being the pollutant.

  127. Tar sands? I work directly here in Fort McMurray – and I have NEVER, EVER mined tar. Has this site turned into Greenpeace lately? Might I ask who exactly is buying tar these days?

  128. So to counter the claims that the 12 last hottest years on record have occurred in the last 15 years you cite Dr. Cristy and Watts et al. as evidence? Isn’t that a bit circular in the logic department? What about the BEST project which confirmed the reliability of preexisting surface temperature records?

  129. Ric Werme says June 25, 2013 at 11:17 am

    There are similar issues with hauling propane around the country. …

    In somewhat limited amounts if you notice (in contrast to the *volumes* that will be consumed in motor fuel use) in a wide-ranging proposal to power the nation’s trucking fleet! (Examine the differences in VOLUME you will be dealing with for propane vs methane.) And, I might remind that we *do* have the occasional propane truck and/or rail tank car accident (which apparently you have no issue with? I’m sure that aspect was considered, right? Just asking here ya know … since that is part of the ‘flip side’ to this argument.) Overall, this LNG push looks to be another case of ‘pushing string up hill’, un-economical and ‘pushed’ by those with vested interests (T. Boone Pickens and his nat gas plans anyone?) in moving LNG to markets that will bear a higher profit margin, as methane cost per BTW vs diesel cost per BTU is a winner, but there are other considerations such as the form e.g. liquid or gas and cryogenic fluid and placing those materials in more possibly accident-prone ‘hands’. When you buy propane, do you fill your own containers? Delivery here for home heating is done via a truck and an operator who performs that task.

    Lets then address the real issues like a _lower_ energy density compared to anything else, the need to distribute LNG/Methane ___to___ the truck stops (how? It’s a necessary logistics consideration … no?), and the issues I address later regarding ‘the handling’ by a public NOT used to “cryogenic fluids” (which LNG is) and the REQUIRED SAFETY HANDLING PRACTICES of same.

    I just want the dirty underbelly (like in the ‘trvth’) out there before we get Lemming-like over the cliff embracing a new fuel technology without knowing the possible and potential down side. What is it you see as a shortcoming to the present liquid fuel delivery system(s) we have now, aside from the nutty enviros who have the ‘mental’ issues against their use?

    BTW, did you watch or view the video titled: “Refueling your Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Truck”? Looks like a giant PITA compared to the present diesel-fueling ‘procedure’.

    .

  130. A speaker sweats when under stress like when saying something they don’t want to say or when they are lying, or when they think they what they are saying is completely unbelievable. Or? From oily wet Alberta, Canada

  131. The phrase “carbon pollution” is mentioned 21 times.

    Why do greenhouse growers pump in 1,000ppm of this toxic stuff over their beloved vegetation? Is co2 now a plant fertilizing pollutant? Co2 is indeed a Satanic gas.

    Randall J. Donohue et. al. – 31 May, 2013
    Abstract
    CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments

    [1] Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the ‘CO2 fertilization’ effect – the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels – is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analysed to remove the effect of variations in rainfall, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilisation effect is now a significant land surface process.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract

    May 2013
    Abstract
    A Global Assessment of Long-Term Greening and Browning Trends in Pasture Lands Using the GIMMS LAI3g Dataset

    Our results suggest that degradation of pasture lands is not a globally widespread phenomenon and, consistent with much of the terrestrial biosphere, there have been widespread increases in pasture productivity over the last 30 years.

    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/5/5/2492

    10 APR 2013
    Abstract
    Analysis of trends in fused AVHRR and MODIS NDVI data for 1982–2006: Indication for a CO2 fertilization effect in global vegetation

    …..The effect of climate variations and CO2 fertilization on the land CO2 sink, as manifested in the RVI, is explored with the Carnegie Ames Stanford Assimilation (CASA) model. Climate (temperature and precipitation) and CO2 fertilization each explain approximately 40% of the observed global trend in NDVI for 1982–2006……

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gbc.20027/abstract

    I mistakenly thought geologically speaking is Earth at the lower end of Co2 in the atmosphere?

  132. Regulating the private lives of citizens is a slippery slope (think gun control, medical decisions, land control, etc). Regulating private industry soon follows (limits on how you sell what you grow, making light bulbs and making/selling transportation). Pretty soon what a person does or a business does, makes or produces isn’t our own anymore. Once that has been accomplished what one has is a castle surrounded by serfs who do the bidding of the lord, and are allowed to keep only a barely sustainable portion of our toil. Worse yet, many folks seem willing to serve as his slaves.

    So how do we change this? How do we keep left-controlled metropolitan centers deciding what the entire state will do? How do we keep highly controlled states from dictating to the rest of us? The State and Federal reach into my personal life and bedroom has now surrounded our country and invaded everything. We have, in our sleep, reversed the individual, state, and nation freedoms my ancestors fought and died for!

    Obama has endeavored to rewrite the consitution and is largely succeeding as a resurrected King George!

  133. Nia says:
    June 25, 2013 at 8:26 am

    oh boy now Im kinda of worried – is Obama not aware of Europe’s failure post green fever

    Yes, he’s aware of it as a very effective criminal scam which directs taxpayer money to his cronies in a reciprocating loop, clearly knowing that the money [or any "wealth" still available] will disappear in their quick bankruptcies, ~19 and counting merely as a result of his “green energy”, er, “stimulus”. Obama is simply more comfortable dealing with his own kind: criminals, dictators/any totalitarian, and parasites. Rinse and repeat. Meanwhile, he hasn’t won a realistic one-on-one debate, involving what’s best for the rest of people, yet – starting with Joe The Plumber.

  134. I presume the refueling will be done by attendants, like the ones gs stations used to have in the past.

    Maarten says:
    June 25, 2013 at 8:43 am

    talking about respecting the embargo

    It was at 6 AM Pacific time and 9 AM Eastern. Anthony observed it.

  135. The president is not a deep enough thinker and is far to lazy to have written this mess so it was written by other group and his name was place on it, Can we say plagiarism? The other issue is while this blog said no new fuel taxes, a great deal of money will have to be provided to pay for all the government “Help” and much will need to spent to buy the “New and Improved” products as we will not have the option to buy lower cost older designs. Can we buy 100 watt incandescent bulbs when we have an application that calls out for this type of bulb? We are looking at design by government and not design by market need.

  136. The “good” is just there to mask and make the “bad” and the “ugly” more palatable.

    Somewhat akin to spraying air freshener in an outhouse.

  137. Re:Anthony’s reply to Stephen Rasey 10:48 am
    By the way, Anthony, what’s the progress on Watts-2012?
    REPLY: ..We got some very good feedback last year, and it required a complete redo of the metadata analysis to deal with the issue, and this required going back to B91 forms and the like to pull out the information we needed. Very tedious work. All done now, and hope to submit for publication soon. – Anthony

    FWIW, I followed the 2000+ comments on the July 2012 draft. I thought the Time of Observation criticism was overwrought and the suggested remedy (i.e. applying fudge factor corrections) was misdirected. In a paper about how corrections to raw data are misrepresenting the signal, doing more corrections based on Time of Day seemed suspect to me.

    That’s why I thought your presentation in the final hour of the Gore-athon 2012 where you only used data without a TOBS issue worthy of quick publication in itself, even if just the video.

    Your last hour of the Gore-athon 2012 covered a revision of your July paper where you did a fine finesse of the Time of Observation issue. You simply and elegantly filtered the data to only those stations were Time of Observation wasn’t an issue. Brilliant! Don’t correct troublesome data, omit it! ( April 12, ’13)

    Good luck with the peer-review and I hope it gets published before its lessons and conclusions are rendered politically moot.

  138. Good to know he is compared to Mercury because Mercury isn’t pollution its a natural part of the environment- tonnes from natural sources every year- only if its in particular forms is it toxic namely metallic and methylmercury.

  139. Yes, “clean coal” sounds good. But it isn’t. The language around climate has been corrupted. the explicit “man-made global warming” became the pliable “climate change”. Now, whenever anyone says “climate change” it is taken to mean “man-made global warming”, and anyone who wants to refer to real climate change has to qualify it. The simple “carbon dioxide” or “CO2″ has become the pejorative “carbon pollution”. Now, anyone who wants to refer to real pollution such as particulates, and even NOx and SOx, has to qualify it. As MarkW points out above, they have done the same with “clean coal”. “Clean coal” doesn’t mean the use of coal in a power station with scrubbers and other pollution controls. It means carbon capture and sequestration.

    So, Anthony, I have to take issue with your statement on “clean coal”. Like everything else now, it needs to be qualified, otherwise the corrupted meaning will be assumed.

  140. Are you sure Obama isn’t a secret Taliban agent or No3 on Blofelds board at the European SPECTRE ready to deal the USA a financial beheading
    Totally ‘unbelievable’ speach I dispair for the future of liberty ……
    Maybe he feels another Nobel Prize coming on .. please remind me WHY he got the first one ?

  141. We certainly do have a carbon pollution problem and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.should qualify as a superfund site. I honestly thought no one could be worse than Bush. I pulled a CMIP.

  142. Ian W says:
    June 25, 2013 at 3:20 am

    It is essential to hit the ‘Carbon Pollution’ claim head on as it is the driver for all these insane policies. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is having any effect…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually Carbon Dioxide is TOO LOW not only for plants but for humans as well.
    Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California Heading into another glaciation (when ever it will occur) without building up a decent level of CO2 is going to starve C3 plants. Humans have returned this much needed SCARCE nutrient to the biosphere.

    Second increasing CO2 increases the water efficiency of C3 plants because they do not have to keep their stomata wide open. Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener

    And the one point everyone misses is CO2 is REQUIRED for healthy lungs and controlling blood pH (No CO2 and you stop breathing BTW)
    CO2 Heals Lung Damage and Lung Injury

    CO2, Blood pH and Respiratory

    These are the points we need to hammer into the pointy little heads in Washington DC.

  143. Refutations of 2 of the Liar in Chief’s speech points:

    1. Asthma rates have doubled in the past 30 years and our children will suffer more asthma attacks as air pollution gets worse.

    Medical Facts About CO2:

    (1)”Health Effects of CO2 … Inspired air contains 0.03%, mixed expired gas 3.5-4% and alveolar gas contains 3-4%. Breathing of 5% of CO2 in air or oxygen is tolerable … Carbon dioxide stimulates respiration … .” [http://anesthesiageneral.com/health-effects-of-carbon-dioxide/]

    (2) “There are numerous uses of carbon dioxide in modern anesthesia … To increase cerebral blood flow during carotid artery surgery. … To stimulate the respiration after artificial hyperventilation. … .” [http://anesthesiageneral.com/uses-of-carbon-dioxide/]

    (3) “Classic Asthma Symptoms and Signs … Bronchoconstriction (narrowing of airways: bronchi and bronchioles) – caused by CO2 deficiency … .” [http://www.normalbreathing.com/diseases-Asthma.php]

    … A bronchodilator is a substance that relaxes smooth muscles or airways … and improve airflow to the alveoli of the lungs. … CO2: the chief natural bronchodilator … hypocapnia (CO2 deficiency) in airways leads to bronchoconstriction.”
    [http://www.normalbreathing.com/CO2-natural-bronchodilators.php]

    [emphases mine]

    ******************************************************************************

    2. And increasing floods, heat waves, and droughts have put farmers out of business, which is already raising food prices dramatically.

    Facts about Higher Food Prices

    1) — “Pump prices are now more than $2 higher than they were when President Obama took office.”
    [http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/041812-608273-how-gas-prices-affect-food-prices.htm]

    — “Energy and transportation accounts for about 8.2 cents of each dollar spent on food,… .”
    [http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-24/fuel-costs-plus-u-dot-s-dot-drought-equals-higher-food-prices]

    2) ” … this year’s [2012] drought—the worst in 50 years—isn’t the primary reason for record-high food prices. The drought made things worse, but the leading driver of long-term increases in food costs is a deeply flawed federal mandate. In 2005, Congress enacted the Renewable Fuel Standard to mandate the use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline. The cost of food commodities immediately began to rise.”
    (WSJ.com 11/28/2012) [http://www.montana.edu/ebelasco/agbe210/Homework/FoodPrices.pdf]

  144. From Ian W: It is essential to hit the ‘Carbon Pollution’ claim head on as it is the driver for all these insane policies. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is having any effect.

    This is the exactly the issue. Everything else is irrelevant if CO2 is not a pollutant and has no effect on temperature. All other debate about economic impact, adjusting to climate changes, etc is noise based on a wicked lie that has been repeated to the point where no one questions it. CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT. PERIOD..

  145. beng says:
    June 25, 2013 at 5:15 am

    ***
    A worthy goal to be sure, but, knowing that government doesn’t do anything well or efficiently, I seriously doubt we’ll see lower utility bills. I expect the opposite.
    ***

    You can be sure of that. In fact, it’ll be far worse than we expect.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I hope you are wrong because I am expecting a lot higher energy bills.

    Obama’s war on coal hits your electric bill
    The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt…. These are not computer models or projections or estimates. These are the actual prices that electric distributors have agreed to pay for new capacity. The costs will be passed on to consumers at the retail level.

    The EPA and Department of Energy drastically underestimated the effects of the new EPA rulings. Many more plants are closing than anticipated. This means electricity prices will sky rocket and the electric grid could become unstable New Regulations to Take 34 GW of Electricity Generation Offline and the Plant Closing Announcements Keep Coming… According to EPA, …. these regulations will only shutter 9.5 GW of electricity generation capacity. OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated and now Obama wants to shut down even more according to Anthony’s point #2

    That brings us to point # 3. Pie in the sky savings.

    Establishing a New Goal for Energy Efficiency Standards: In President Obama’s first term, the Department of Energy established new minimum efficiency standards for dishwashers, refrigerators, and many other products. Through 2030, these standards will cut consumers’ electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars and save enough electricity to power more than 85 million homes for two years. To build on this success, the Administration is setting a new goal: Efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings set in the first and second terms combined will reduce carbon pollution by at least 3 billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030 – equivalent to nearly one-half of the carbon pollution from the entire U.S. energy sector for one year – while continuing to cut families’ energy bills.

    Anthony miss what point #3 is really about.

    What the Obama neglect to say is wiping out coal plants and replacing them with wind mills and solar plants will destablize the grid therefore to make the plan work you HAVE TO INSTALL SMART METERS.

    The Department of Energy Report 2009

    A smart grid is needed at the distribution level to manage voltage levels, reactive power, potential reverse power flows, and power conditioning, all critical to running grid-connected DG systems, particularly with high penetrations of solar and wind power and PHEVs…. Designing and retrofitting household appliances, such as washers, dryers, and water heaters with technology to communicate and respond to market signals and user preferences via home automation technology will be a significant challenge. Substantial investment will be required….

    These controls and tools could reduce the occurrence of outages and power disturbances attributed to grid overload. They could also reduce planned rolling brownouts and blackouts like those implemented during the energy crisis in California in 2000.

    So expect to be required by law regulation to buy new household appliances or pay to have the old appliances retrofitted. It just needs a one word amnendment to an older law.

    “Smart” meter planning in the United States is related to the Energy Act of 2007 and administered by the US Dept of Energy, the FCC, and each state’s public utilities commission (PUC). However, in that Act, there was NO mandate to force all residential customers to accept installation of “smart” meters–only that they would be offered….

    Q: Who, then, does the “smart” meter benefit?

    Only the utility companies benefit. The utility can save itself money by getting rid of meter readers. Because the “smart” meter measures hour by hour, the utility can charge you more for electricity used during certain periods of the day of their choosing.

    Their story is that this device will save you money. But there are no studies, no evidence, to back this up. In fact, in the one study done so far (from Canada), customers’ bills went up, not down.

    http://stopsmartmeters.org/frequently-asked-questions/faq-smart-meter-basics/

    And of course Smart Meters, [are] an attractive opportunity for Investors This theoretically allows residential electricity to be turned off so the system can be balanced as wind and solar power surges and declines. Of course with renewables bankrupting, smart meters not installed and coal plants closing at three time the rate expected, this put a real big kink in that plan. OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated AGAIN so we have rolling blackouts to look forward to. Heck they have already started.

    Energy InSight FAQs

    ….Rolling outages are systematic, temporary interruptions of electrical service.
    They are the last step in a progressive series of emergency procedures that ERCOT follows when it detects that there is a shortage of power generation within the Texas electric grid. ERCOT will direct electric transmission and distribution utilities, such as CenterPoint Energy, to begin controlled, rolling outages to bring the supply and demand for electricity back into balance.They generally last 15-45 minutes before being rotated to a different neighborhood to spread the effect of the outage among consumers, which would be the case whether outages are coordinated at the circuit level or individual meter level. Without this safety valve, power generating units could overload and begin shutting down and risk causing a domino effect of a statewide, lengthy outage. With smart meters, CenterPoint Energy is proposing to add a process prior to shutting down whole circuits to conduct a mass turn off of individual meters with 200 amps or less (i.e. residential and small commercial consumers) for 15 or 30 minutes, rotating consumers impacted during that outage as well as possible future outages.

    There are several benefits to consumers of this proposed process. By isolating non-critical service accounts (“critical” accounts include hospitals, police stations, water treatment facilities etc.) and spreading “load shed” to a wider distribution, critical accounts that happen to share the same circuit with non-critical accounts will be less affected in the event of an emergency. Curtailment of other important public safety devices and services such as traffic signals, police and fire stations, and water pumps and sewer lifts may also be avoided.

    As problems with an unstable grid due to Solar/wind becomes worst expect Smart Meters to become mandatory.

    Smart Meter Deployment <a "Remote meter turn on and off – Smart meters enable Dominion to turn your electric service on and off without having to send an employee to your home or business."
    Can BGE use the smart meter to shut off my electricity?

    In 2013, the smart meters will enable BGE to remotely turn service on and off at customer premises. This feature will be used when customers move out of their current homes and start service elsewhere. This capability was mandated by Maryland’s Public Service Commission in their requirements for smart meters. This cost effective feature eliminates the need for a BGE field visit when customers move or start service. BGE’s policies for situations involving a disconnection will be the same as they were prior to the installation of smart meters. The remote connect feature will also enable BGE to place customers back into service more expeditiously.

    Don’t want smart meter? Power shut off
    The rollout of smart electric meters across the country has run into a few snags: one woman doesn’t want one, and ended up in the dark as a result.

    You might not think that would be an issue. But it is, because Duke Energy is now beginning to disconnect any homeowner who refuses a new electric meter.

    Other electric companies are not pulling the plug…yet…..

    Given how bad the government is when it comes to managing anything, I expect trying to manage a complete revamping of the US power system to blow-up in their face….

    HMMMmmm may be that is why DHS is stockpiling Ammo. I do not want to be in a big city when instead of getting Obama money the sheeple have their TV, A/C and other electric toys shut off because the power is shunted to the nearest factory or public building and it not only happens with greater and greater frequency but you power bill doubles and triples or worse.

    Pennsylvania and Ohio had the highest numbers of new unemployment filings just after the election with thousands of layoffs in the construction, manufacturing, and automobile industries. If you look at the following graph Ohio is closing 12 plants. This is the state that will be hit with ” a shocking $357 per megawatt” instead of the $16 per megawatt for the old plants.

    The USA is closing 10% of our energy resources Graph and that is just those plants that have announced closures. In October 2011 it was 28.3 GW of generating capacity would close and by June 2012 it had increased to 34 gigawatts (GW) of capacity retiring because of the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Rule. The EPA modeling predicted the regulations would only shut down 9.5 GW of electricity generation capacity. The reality is that over 35 GW of power generating capacity will likely close. graph of closures.

  146. To go with the prospect of a 22-23% unemployment rate, spiraling energy costs and possibly being REQUIRED to replace major and costly appliances like refrigerators, stoves, washing machines, dish washers…

    CNN: 76% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck
    Roughly three-quarters of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, with little to no emergency savings, according to a survey released by Bankrate.com Monday.

    Fewer than one in four Americans have enough money in their savings account to cover at least six months of expenses, enough to help cushion the blow of a job loss, medical emergency or some other unexpected event, according to the survey of 1,000 adults. Meanwhile, 50% of those surveyed have less than a three-month cushion and 27% had no savings at all….

  147. _Jim says:
    June 25, 2013 at 7:03 am
    ….And Roger this is what an LNG ‘accident’ and it’s aftermath will look like on the highway….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    A good reason to stick with diesel.

    However that is not the propaganda now being put out by the natural gas companies say.

    CNG Fuel Safety

    CNG has safety advantages compared to gasoline and diesel: it is non-toxic, and has no potential for ground or water contamination in the event of a fuel release. An odorant is added to provide a distinctive and intentionally disagreeable smell which is easy to recognize. The odor is detectable at one-fifth of the gas’ lower flammability limit.

    CNG, unlike gasoline, dissipates into the atmosphere in the event of an accident. Gasoline pools on the ground creating a fire hazard….
    Natural gas has a high ignition temperature of about 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit, compared with only about 600 degrees Fahrenheit for gasoline. Natural gas also has a narrow range of flammability, which means that in concentrations below about 5 percent and above about 15 percent when mixed with air, natural gas will not burn. The high ignition temperature and limited flammability range make accidental ignition or combustion of natural gas less likely.

    Time has proven NGVs to be safe in actual operation. Based on a survey of 8,331 natural gas utility, school, municipal and business fleet vehicles (NGVs) that traveled 178.3 million miles…

  148. Excellent research (as always), Gail Combs.

    Your point about the unemployment rate is the crux of the matter v. a v. the effect of Dope’s anti-CO2-CONTROL-the-people-agenda. Declaring by fiat CO2 to be an “actionable” [good point about the legal significance of that term, Ian W] “pollutant” makes possible the utter devastation of the U.S. economy. No economy can long bear the burden of such onerous taxing and choking regulation.

  149. more soylent green! says:
    June 25, 2013 at 7:34 am

    This plan isn’t going to pass through the legislative process….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Obama already said he is not going to bother with trying to go through Congress. link

  150. Ms. Combs, just to clarify, you are saying above only that natural gas-powered motor vehicles are “unsafe at any speed” [Nader about the Corvair a long time ago, LOL], correct?

    I’ve found that natural gas for heating and for cooking and for powering an emergency electrical generator for the home is excellent.

  151. albertalad says:
    …. Has this site turned into Greenpeace lately? Might I ask who exactly is buying tar these days?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The same people who are stockpiling feathers.

  152. _Jim says:
    June 25, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    Ric Werme says June 25, 2013 at 11:17 am

    There are similar issues with hauling propane around the country. …

    In somewhat limited amounts if you notice (in contrast to the *volumes* that will be consumed in motor fuel use) in a wide-ranging proposal to power the nation’s trucking fleet! (Examine the differences in VOLUME you will be dealing with for propane vs methane.) And, I might remind that we *do* have the occasional propane truck and/or rail tank car accident (which apparently you have no issue with? I’m sure that aspect was considered, right? Just asking here ya know … since that is part of the ‘flip side’ to this argument.)

    The higher the volume the sooner new pipelines get built. If it works out, trucking LNG will be a blip in history.

    Obviously there are explosions due to propane truck crashes or tank damage, however, I don’t know anyone who was directly impacted by one. One good thing about natural gas is at air temperature it’s buoyant, whereas propane sinks. Cold natural gas also sinks, as your Chinese videos (of one incident) show. BTW, I don’t think the US allows propane trucks in tunnels. A friend with a camper has to research routes carefully because he has a small propane tank on it. Risk vs. benefit. Oh, I said that already. I find the current risk acceptable, you don’t. That’s okay.

    When you buy propane, do you fill your own containers? Delivery here for home heating is done via a truck and an operator who performs that task.

    Oh get real. I could fill my grill’s propane tank with a little training, and that procedure is more complex than the LNG truck, even with the ground strap. Take hose, attach right adapter, screw onto tank, (after checking and cleaning mating surfaces), start pump, open tank valve, open hose valve. When filled by weight (or at another place where they fill until the overfill float trips), close hose, turn off pump, close tank, open vent, release more gas than that truck connector did, close vent, unscrew from tank, maybe take off adapter. Eye protection and gloves are probably mandatory by rule, but ignored in practice. Liquid propane at atmospheric pressure is -42°C, not good stuff to get on skin or in eyes.

    A LNG truck traveling across the country likely won’t have the issues in the video about warm tanks or high gas pressure.

    BTW, when I heated my past houses with fuel oil (basically diesel with a different dye) or propane, the truck driver did the transfer, in large part because he was there. Filling heating fuel oil tanks is essentially like filling a gasoline or diesel car, propane much like the 20 pound grill tank. Except you have to drag a heavy hose further.

    Lets then address the real issues like a _lower_ energy density compared to anything else, the need to distribute LNG/Methane ___to___ the truck stops (how? It’s a necessary logistics consideration … no?), and the issues I address later regarding ‘the handling’ by a public NOT used to “cryogenic fluids” (which LNG is) and the REQUIRED SAFETY HANDLING PRACTICES of same.

    You’ve beaten the handling issues into the ground. Once upon a time the public didn’t know how to control more than a few horsepower at a time. People figured it out. We still die at that too. Acceptable risk. I encouraged my parents to get seat belts when they were an after market option. More recently a pickup truck tested our air bags. Worked pretty well, I got bruised by both belt and bag.l

    Let’s talk about energy density. Mind if I use some sciency units? Of course you do, because I’m using MJ/kg. Megajoules per kilogram. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion, their high-end estimates for popular fuels:

    Hydrogen 141.8 (which is why the space shuttle main engines used it)
    Methane 55.5 (that’s the main component of natural gas, some 90%)
    Ethane 51.9 (most of the other 10%)
    Propane 50.4
    Gasoline 47.3
    Diesel 44.8
    Ethanol 28.8 (Wow. Drink it, don’t burn it!)
    Methanol 19.9 (Don’t drink it!)

    See, I knew you wouldn’t like sciency units. BTW, wait until hydrogen fueling stations come along. Hydrogen is explosive at a very wide range of fuel::air ratios. I’m not so sure about that risk, though the Hindenburg got a bit of a bum rap – it burned, it didn’t explode, and most of the injuries were from people jumping instead of staying on board. Let’s see how things work out with LNG or CNG first before embracing the hydrogen economy.

    I just want the dirty underbelly (like in the ‘trvth’) out there before we get Lemming-like over the cliff embracing a new fuel technology without knowing the possible and potential down side. What is it you see as a shortcoming to the present liquid fuel delivery system(s) we have now, aside from the nutty enviros who have the ‘mental’ issues against their use?

    Why didn’t you read http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/03/cheap-natural-gas-but-wait-theres-more/ ? I gave you the URL. The big shortcoming with diesel and gasoline is that natural gas comes along for the ride. It’s basically a waste product, we might as well use it instead of flaring it off. What do you want people to do with it? I’m an engineer, not a lemming. I don’t like seeing resources wasted. I deal with risk vs benefit. Long distance trucking seems to me like a good place to gain experience with handling LNG.

  153. Doug says:

    “Yep, I voted for him. Sent money to his election efforts. That debt did not come from idiotic AWG programs, it came form launching two unnecessary wars while cutting taxes.
    I don’t appreciate his scientific illiteracy anymore than you do, but we sure have had worse presidents overall.

    ================================

    I’ll admit Bush was a complete disaster, too, with his prolonged war in Afghanistan (should have gone in, bombed the crap out of Al Queda, killed Osama and left it in shambles; a two-year process) and we shoukd have never invaded Iraq. DHS is awful, the Patriot Act shredded the Constitution, the un-funded Prescription Drug Bill was a budget buster, and the fiscal and monetary policies of Greenspan/Bernanke caused the 2008 sub-prime loan crisis.

    Regardless, I think historians will rank BHO as one of the worst presidents in US history for: the fastest increase in spending/deficits in US history, the colossal train wreck of Obamacare, the massive increase in rules/regulation compliance costs, even worse fiscal and monetary policies, massive increase of entitlements, the insane $850 billion “stimulus” program that did nothing, numerous scandals (Fast & Furious-gate, IRS/Tea Party-gate, NSA-gate, Benghazi-gate), and the unfolding of worst economic collapse in human history, which already started in the bond market last week after Bernanke just hinted at tapering the QE $85 billion/month money printing fiasco.

    You won’t believe what’s coming: collapsing US$, spiking bond yields, bank collapses, stock market crash, real estate implosion, 10%+ unemployment, bond defaults, 10%+ inflation, etc. it won’t be pretty.

    And so it goes….until it doesn’t…..

  154. The Climate Reference Network? Much to NCDC’s shock and dismay, it did what it was claimed it would do.Thereby discrediting all the rest of NCDC’s data and collection and analysis systems.

  155. Paul Matthews says:
    June 25, 2013 at 6:09 am

    Surely the bit about asthma is ridiculous. Is there any evidence to support this?

    Obama says: “Asthma rates have doubled in the past 30 years and our children will suffer more asthma attacks as air pollution gets worse.”

    But if an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration causes asthma – where increased resistance to air flow is the problem – then everyone should already have it! Because the inconvenient truth is that the concentration of CO2 in the lungs’ alveoli and airways is already at a healthy 40,000-56,000 ppm.

    Likewise, Obama and his EPA thugs Zealots have not only not staid current on “mainstream” Climate Science’s abject prediction failure rate, including CO2’s record as a climate “pollutant”, they appear to be hard at work to subserve one of Ideological Liberalism’s main Commandments: “Thou shalt remain as far behind the curve as possible, but preferably not even on the graph.”

    Yet regardless of the fact that Obama makes himself out to be a scientific, mathematical, economic, and etc., illiterate, he also proves that he doesn’t even believe what he has just said: immediately following his climate change speech, he’s apparently setting out to set a “carbon footprint” record for any recent Head of State – at least since Saddam Hussein torched up the Kuwaiti oil fields in Gulf War I – by embarking upon a 60-$100 million “tour” of Africa.

    No one else should believe him, either, a result which is rapidly becoming one of his major successes.

  156. Here is what’s happening to 10-yr US bond markets:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USGG10YR:IND/chart

    a 1% percentage point (1.63% to 2.6%) spike in 10-yr bond yields in just under two months. Scary stuff, especially considering America’s $17 trillion national debt, which these bonds are supposed to finance…

    When bond yields hit 5.8%, interest payments on our national debt will eventually reach $1 trillion/yr. Total 2012 US tax revenue was around $2.45 trillion/yr, while spending was $3.7 trillion. We could hit 5.8% bond yields over the next 18 months.

    Yeah, let’s go ahead and pour more gas on the fire with more expensive energy, more CO2 regulation compliance costs and more wind/solar/bio-fuel subsidies, right when the huge costs of Obamacare start kicking in, in 2014…

    That’ll work out great…..

  157. . Ian W says:
    June 25, 2013 at 6:55 am

    jkanders says:
    June 25, 2013 at 5:44 am
    I think it is justifiable to call CO2 a pollutant. [SNIP]

    You are using the term ‘pollutant’ in its normal English usage sense [SNIP]

    Yes, I usually do, and I think it is fair that people who do not use the terms that way specify it.

    And I think that it is justifiable to talk about C02 pollution in the same way as we talk about NOX pollution, particulate pollution and sewage pollution.These are all compounds that are harmless in some situations but undesirable in others.

  158. The New South Wales State transit authority stopped buying LPG powered buses in the last contract.The old LPG buses had big banner signs explaining how they were using clean fuel.
    The old buses were unreliable lacked power over heated and were often off the road. They have gone back to diesel.And yes there were fires.
    If Obama wants to pick winners he could look no further than NSW, Australia.
    Making all your trucks gas powered may be a step in the wrong direction.

  159. Obama promotes the biggest source of waste which is the bloated Federal Government. If you want to create energy savings pull the plug on the NSA. Pull the plug on the Department of Energy which doesn’t create any energy. Pull the plug on the Department of Education which doesn’t educate anybody. End the Federal Reserve which creates the funding for oversized houses and cars. The Department of Defense could be chopped in half and the country would be safer. End “free trade” which is actually just the use of virtual slavery and massive coal burning in China. Delete the DEA, FDA, CIA, and all the other big brother innovations. Obama’s masters just want to force more people into poverty so the 1% can pretend nothing is wrong.

  160. Janice Moore says:
    June 25, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    Ms. Combs, just to clarify, you are saying above only that natural gas-powered motor vehicles are “unsafe at any speed”….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No, _Jim is saying that with photos and videos included. I just showed a ‘Commercial’ that says they are ‘Safer’ which, given _Jim’s information and graphic evidence doesn’t jive.

    I found it when I went looking for a comparison of flammability for diesel, gasoline and compressed natural gas. I used to perform this test and this test routinely.

    I am calling propaganda because it points out a property of ALL combustible liquids and gases and uses that to say it is ‘Safe’
    FROM OSHA

    …FLAMMABLE (EXPLOSIVE) LIMITS

    When vapors of a flammable or combustible liquid are mixed with air in the proper proportions in the presence of a source of ignition, rapid combustion or an explosion can occur. The proper proportion is called the flammable range and is also often referred to as the explosive range. The flammable range includes all concentrations of flammable vapor or gas in air, in which a flash will occur or a flame will travel if the mixture is ignited. There is a minimum concentration of vapor or gas in air below which propagation of flame does not occur on contact with a source of ignition. There is also a maximum proportion of vapor in air above which propagation of flame does not occur. These boundary-line mixtures of vapor with air are known as the lower and upper flammable limits (LFL or UFL) respectively, and they are usually expressed in terms of percentage by volume of vapor in air. See figure below.

    In popular jargon, a vapor/air mixture below the lower flammable limit is too “lean” to burn or explode, and a mixture above the upper flammable limit is too “rich” to burn or explode. The LFL is also known as the lower explosive limit (LEL). The UFL is also referred to as the upper explosive limit (UEL). No attempt is made to differentiate between the terms flammable and explosive as applied to the lower and upper limits of flammability….

    From what was said in the above propaganda I cited:

    …Gasoline pools on the ground creating a fire hazard….
    Natural gas has a high ignition temperature of about 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit, compared with only about 600 degrees Fahrenheit for gasoline. Natural gas also has a narrow range of flammability, which means that in concentrations below about 5 percent and above about 15 percent when mixed with air, natural gas will not burn. The high ignition temperature and limited flammability range make accidental ignition or combustion of natural gas less likely….

    I do not have a CRC handbook at home. However I did find part of the CRC online.

    Natural gas is mostly methane CH4 link which has this link- The Combustion of Methane

    From CRC: Flammability is 5% to 15% and ignition temperature is 537C for methane. (998.6F)

    gasoline is a complicated mixture of hydrocarbons boiling between 120 and 400 degrees F, with chemical formulas between C6H14 and C12H26, but a good “average” compound is C8H18

    From CRC:
    Octane, C8H18 – Flammability is 1.0% to 6.5% and ignition temperature is 206C (403F) However gasoline (and diesel) being mixtures would have broader range for both.

    I said I prefer diesel. Diesel is composed of about 75% saturated hydrocarbons (primarily paraffins including n, iso, and cycloparaffins), and 25% aromatic hydrocarbons (including naphthalenes and alkylbenzenes). The average chemical formula for common diesel fuel is C12H23, ranging from approx. C10H20 to C15H28… Petrol is more volatile than diesel, not only because of the base constituents, but because of the additives that are put into it…. When discussed in terms of motor fuel, diesel is said to be more fuel efficient, giving almost 1.5 times the fuel efficiency of petrol.
    Gasoline is more flammable than diesel because of its higher volatility. It is the fumes, (vapor in the air) that makes it so flammable. Diesel will actually solidify in your tank at minus 30 F (-34C) BTDT

    For diesel you have to go to link

    Ignition Temperature of Diesel Fuel

    The Physics Factbook™
    Edited by Glenn Elert — Written by his students

    Material Safety Data Sheet [pdf]. Syntroleum, 19 Oct 2004. “Flammable properties: Flash point (PMCC): 100-125 F(37.8-51.5 C)

    OSHA Flammability Class: Combustible Class II Liquid LEL (vol%): ~0.6 UEL (vol%): ~4.7
    Autoignition temperature: ~257°C (~494°F)” 530 K

    These are Diesel No. 1, Diesel No. 2, and Diesel No. 4. The ignition temperature of Diesel fuel No.1 ranges from 450 to 602 Kelvin, Diesel fuel No. 2 ranges from 527 to 558 Kelvin, and Diesel fuel No .4 is 536 Kelvin.

    That is the chemistry aspect.

    The propaganda part is all of this is talking about AUTOIGNITION where the chemical spontaneously bursts into flames. This is NOT what happens in an accident. You have static electricity, metal parts scrapping on the ground (sparks), the electrical system of the vehicles and the idiot bystanders smoking cigarettes.

    In this case it is not the autoignition temperature but the VOLATILITY that is the key factor.

    Methane has a boiling point of −161 °C (−257.8 °F) at a pressure of one atmosphere. So it all become a gas at normal temperature ranges.

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flash-point-fuels-d_937.html
    The flash point of a chemical is the lowest temperature where enough fluid can evaporate to form a combustible concentration of gas.

    The flash point is an indication of how easy a chemical may burn. Materials with higher flash points are less flammable or hazardous than chemicals with lower flash points.
    Fuels and their flash points at atmospheric pressure are indicated in the table below:
    Fuel Flash Point (oF)
    .
    .
    Benzene 12
    .
    Diesel Fuel (1-D) 100
    Diesel Fuel (2-D) 125
    Diesel Fuel (4-D) 130
    Ethyl Alcohol 55
    Fuels Oil No.1 100 – 162
    Fuels Oil No.2 126 – 204
    Fuels Oil No.4 142 – 240
    Fuels Oil No.5 Lite 156 – 336
    Fuels Oil No.5 Heavy 160 – 250
    Fuels Oil No.6 150
    Gasoline -45
    .
    .

    Kerosine 100 – 162
    .
    Motor oil 420 – 485
    .
    .
    Propane -156
    .
    .
    .

    The Auto-Ignition Temperature is not the same as Flash Point – The Auto-Ignition Temperature indicates the minimum temperature required to ignite a gas or vapor in air without a spark or flame being present.

    Since we just found out my farm is sitting on the Triassic Basin shale gas, I am shooting myself in the foot by posting this. However I put the safety of other people above my monetary gain and always have (Gotten fired for it too.)

  161. Stephen Rasey says: @ June 25, 2013 at 7:40 am

    “And increasing floods, heat waves, and droughts have put farmers out of business, which is already raising food prices dramatically”

    I cannot wait for Gail Comb to unleash a salvo on this target….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    ROTFLMAO, I think I will just put up a couple of links and let Doreen speak for me this time.

    The long and the short of it is farming is unprofitable if you are not vertically integrated like JB swift. The Big Boys use monopsony (one buyer who sets the price) to drive independent farmers out of business. However this didn’t work as well as was hoped because farmers just got a full time job to support the farm and kept on farming. So a new action plan, regulation requiring reams of paperwork, was put into action via the World Trade Organization (1995). In 2010 during the lameduck session the new regulation called the Food Safety Modernization act was passed.

    Congressional Record: …In my State of Minnesota, family farm income has decreased 43 percent since 1996 and more than 25 percent of the remaining farms may not
    cover expenses for 2000. Every month more and more family farmers are being forced to give up their life’s work, their homes, and their communities…..The farm share of profit in the food system has been declining for over 20 years. From 1994 to 1998, consumer prices have increased 3 percent while the prices paid to farmers for their products has plunged 36 percent. Likewise, the impact of price disparity is reinforced by reports of record profits among agribusinesses at the same time producers are suffering an economic depression..

    My comment on who benefits

    Analysis of the usual lies to get the pro-big business law passed by creating a food scare.

    Analysis of the proposed bill by a lawyer

    And a farmer’s reaction to the situation:

    Doreen Hannes LET THEM EAT GRASS

    “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” -Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence

    This week, the United States Senate is likely to pass Continuing Resolution HR 3082, to fund the US Government through September of 2011. It’s ballooned from 423 pages when it left the House with 238 of those pages being the “Food Safety Modernization Act,” to 1,924 pages. [*] It gives earmarks and special favors to particular areas with Senators who find themselves in the position of being able to buy future votes. It also still includes S.510, which expands the FDA’s authority to make mandatory recalls and require farms to implement HACCP plans (Hazard and Critical Control Point) and “good agricultural practices” on their farms. This will create somewhere in the realm of 4,000 additional federal employees and put independent farming to death. But hey, people ‘think’ their food will more safe, so it’s all worth it, right?

    A nation that cannot feed itself cannot be free. This is not a difficult concept to wrap one’s brain around, but people have become so removed from food creation that, as a nation, we are apparently going to have to be hungry or worse before we understand that animals are made out of meat, manure is a fertilizer and life is dirty. If you’re going to live, something else has to die.

    Even if you’re a militant vegan, you still kill the carrot when you consume it. Life feeds on life, whether you like it or not. That’s just life. That is why we should be thankful for what sustains us and not delude ourselves about reality. If you can’t sustain yourself on everything you can grow on the balcony or the cracks in the sidewalk out front, you had better get yourself educated on the impacts of regulations and constraints on farms that will supposedly ‘make you safe’…..

    The consolidation and concentration in agriculture has been ongoing since the founding of this country. To some degree it is natural, but in the last fifty years, it has been completely orchestrated. … [SEE: link G.C.] Contraction and consolidation began in earnest in the 1950’s after the OECD came out with a report recommending US farmers “get big, or get out.”

    This has happened in every segment of farming. “Get big, or get out” has been the mantra of agencies and corporations for half a century. In 1980, there were over 117,000 dairy farms in the US. Today there are less than 65,000…. According to USDA statistics, we now have a total of less than one percent of the entire population engaged in agriculture.

    Instead, we have increased our imports in produce to a phenomenal 68% in fruits and vegetables. Less than 1% of these are inspected by the agencies charged with “keeping” our food safe….

    When less than 1% of the population is engaged in feeding the entire population and those being fed don’t actively, and positively support the one percent, then the 99% should be happy when they are left to feed themselves…. When we are faced with rampant hunger because of the regulatory, financial, trade and foreign policies of the past 100 or so years, those of us who have been crying from the roof tops for people to take an interest in what really sustains them may be very well justified in saying, “Let them eat grass.” Remember, No Farmers, No Food.

    So as farmers in the USA wake up to national officialdom brandishing that most vicious of anti-entrepreneurial weapons: ‘sanitary and hygiene regulations’… These are the hidden weapons of mass destruction of farmers and the main tool for achieving the …aim of ridding the countryside of small- and medium-sized family farms and replacing them with monocultural money-making agribusiness. The skyrocketing food costs and possible famine will be blamed on CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!

    Hey it worked for the Grauniad Food, famine & climate change: India’s scorched earth: Suicide is the latest epidemic among farming communities as climate change parches the heart of India, destroying agriculture and plunging the poorest families into crippling debt

    The other version of the tale is written by Dr. Vandana Shiva

    …1997 witnessed the first emergence of farm suicides in India. A rapid increase in indebtedness, was at the root of farmers taking their lives. Debt is a reflection of a negative economy, a loosing economy. Two factors have transformed the positive economy of agriculture into a negative economy for peasants – the rising costs of production and the falling prices of farm commodities. Both these factors are rooted in the policies of trade liberalization and corporate globalisation.

    In 1998, the World Bank’s structural adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto, and Syngenta. The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds which needed fertilizers and pesticides and could not be saved.

    As seed saving is prevented by patents as well as by the engineering of seeds with non-renewable traits, seed has to be bought for every planting season by poor peasants. A free resource available on farms became a commodity which farmers were forced to buy every year. This increases poverty and leads to indebtedness.

    As debts increase and become unpayable, farmers are compelled to sell kidneys or even commit suicide. More than 25,000 peasants in India have taken their lives since 1997 when the practice of seed saving was transformed under globalisation pressures and multinational seed corporations started to take control of the seed supply. Seed saving gives farmers life. Seed monopolies rob farmers of life.

    The shift from farm saved seed to corporate monopolies of the seed supply is also a shift from biodiversity to monocultures in agriculture. …

    Now it is our turn here in the USA as the Food Safety Act regulations kick in and farmers decide to “Get Out” or are forced out.

    (You KNEW I just couldn’t keep my mouth shut didn’t you? ) snicker

  162. Unbelievable. I wish I knew of some South Pacific island I could run to. This country is rapidly deteriorating into Idiotville.

  163. “lowering their gas and utility bills” ??? That’s a funny way to spell “necessarily skyrocket”.
    “fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles to save families money at the pump”?? Sure, I’ll just pack my family in the old 18 wheeler and head for McDonald’s.
    The only hope here is that he has been completely incompetent at carrying out anything good or bad and he will be just as incompetent at carrying out this,

  164. jkanders,

    Then what do you call what you do: expelling 40,000 PPM of CO2 on an average of three times a minute if you’re healthy (but more if not)?

  165. Notice how “THE PRESIDENT’S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN” contains no references for his opinions.

    If you tried to make a skeptical comment on “The Guardian” with no link or reference, the alarmists would trash you.

  166. @Gail Combs June 26 at 4:46 am
    (You KNEW I just couldn’t keep my mouth shut didn’t you? ) snicker

    I for one eagerly anticipated it and wondered what kept you? You didn’t disappoint.

  167. From 2001 through 2010 (last year CDC data available) US industry SO2, NOx, and PM2.5 emissions DECREASED by 53%, 57%, and 48%, respectively (EPA data) while the asthma incidence rate INCREASED by 15% from 7.3% to 8.4% (CDC data). The SO2 and NOx emissions reductions are primarily attributable to $40+ billion spent by the power industry retrofitting SCR NOx emission control equipment and SO2 scrubbers as a result of the Bush Administration’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) promulgated in March 2005.

    Power industry SO2 and NOx have continued to decline with power industry SO2 and NOx in 2012 being 70% and 66%, respectively, below 2001 emission levels.

    According to the EPA, in 2004 US coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) were responsible for 4% of mercury deposition in the US. Since then, mercury emissions by EGUs has probably gone done by 30+% as a collateral benefit of retrofitting SCR NOx controls and SO2 scrubbers.
    The following site shows the highest mercury deposition rates are generally in the West where there are fiew coal-fired EGUs.

  168. In Australia we know that more green jobs = more public servants.

    Incidentally, worldwide asthma incidence (not attacks) is negatively correlated to air pollution levels. So if asthma is increasing in the US it probably means the air is getting cleaner. Asthma was used in the UK as far back the 1990s to get more funding, but unfortunately all the extra monitoring showed was that air quality is improving as motor vehicle regulation bit. Meanwhile something real is going on that we don’t fully understand. Presumably because the funding was diverted elsewhere.

    To equate the toxic substances mercury and arsenic with carbon dioxide takes a truly perverse mindset.

  169. Whoever is next to serve in the Oval Office, should immediately pull the plug on it and put all funds straight into education. Comparing toxicity to arsenic and mercury? Oh my god my head hurts. If Obama knew how high CO2 levels are in submarines they’d be the first to go in DOD budget cuts, he’d probably claim that they warm the oceans.

    I’d post my disapproving opinions on twitter and facebook but i’m now paranoid that i’ll be anally fisted by customs and the INS as soon as I step off a flight to the CONUS.

  170. Somehow my link to the site that shows the highest mercury deposition rates are generally in the West where there are few coal-fired electric generating units got lost from my previous post..

  171. Please like and share the FB page and or post(s), follow us via Twitter and add us to your Circles via Google+
    We need your support

    Global warming stopped 16 years ago Report reveals

    http://www.timefortruth.eu/global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-report-reveals

    No Need to Panic About Global Warming

    http://www.timefortruth.eu/no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming

    Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: Blaming Turbulent Weather On Global Warming Is Extreme Nonsense

    http://www.timefortruth.eu/meteorologist-joe-bastardi-blaming-turbulent-weather-on-global-warming-is-extreme-nonsense

    Geoengineering underway but the majority of scientists are skeptical of man made global warming

    http://www.timefortruth.eu/geoengineering-underway-but-the-majority-of-scientists-are-skeptical-of-man-made-global-warming

    Climate slowdown means extreme rates of warming ‘not as likely’

    http://www.timefortruth.eu/climate-slowdown-means-extreme-rates-of-warming-not-as-likely/

    Main Site (Visit Us)

    http://www.timefortruth.eu

    Facebook (Like Us)

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Time-For-Truth/432917103446559

    Google+ (Add Us)

    https://plus.google.com/115122791478908310160/posts

    Twitter (Follow Us)

    http://twitter.com/time4truthnews

    Help spread the word, it’s Time For Truth

Comments are closed.