The EPA’s Political Futility

By Patrick J. Michaels

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency announced new rules for existing coal-fired power plants, a 30 percent reduction in allowable carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The only way this will be possible will be by upgrading almost all combustion units, and the ultimate cost of the upgrades will make coal noncompetitive with much-less-expensive natural gas–fired facilities. 

The EPA’s proposed new greenhouse-gas regulations are a campaign promise come true. In 2008, Senator Barack Obama announced that, if elected, his climate policies would “necessarily bankrupt” anyone who wanted to build a new coal-fired power plant.

Public comments on EPA’s proposal to do just that closed on May 9, and there is no chance that the president will renege — or that this policy will have any detectable effect on global temperature.

The EPA’s own model, ironically acronymed MAGICC, estimates that its new policies will prevent a grand total of 0.018ºC in warming by 2100. Obviously, that’s not enough to satisfy the steadily shrinking percentage of Americans who think global warming is a serious problem.

MAGICC tells us that the futility of whatever Obama proposes for existing plants will be statistically indistinguishable from making sure that there are no new coal-fired ones. In fact, dropping the carbon dioxide emissions from all sources of electrical generation to zero would reduce warming by a grand total of 0.04ºC by 2100.

This is hardly going to stop the crescendo of global-warming horror stories, perhaps best summarized by the government’s recently released “National Assessment” of the effects of climate change on our country.

For example, the assessment tells us that global warming will increase mental illness in our nation’s cities. The obvious implication is that people in Richmond are crazier than they are in Washington, 100 miles to the north. Or that people must really be loony in Miami.

But what about all the weird weather plaguing the country? What the alarmists don’t tell you is that not since records were kept in the 1860s have we have gone this long without a Category 3 hurricane’s crossing our shoreline. They omit that there’s no evidence of an increase in weather-related damages once you adjust for the fact that there are now more people with more expensive stuff to hit. Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so often cited to justify our futile policies, acknowledges that one.

The politics of scaring people to death over climate change are probably more dangerous than the weather. And research suggests that the more people read that some “scientists say” the world is about to end, the less they believe them.

Chalk it up to apocalypse fatigue. By my best guess, global warming is the eighth environmental Armageddon I have lived through. Who even remembers that, according to some of our most esteemed scientists, “acid rain” was going to cause an “ecological silent spring”? Like so many global catastrophes, it was a bit exaggerated.

You’d think the administration would see not just how futile these policies are in addressing climate change but also how costly they are politically. Some compelling analysis of polls shows that the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election because, under Democratic leadership, it passed cap-and-trade, which the Senate wisely stopped short of. In Australia, similar policies favoring cap-and-trade cost the Liberal party its leader in 2009 and subsequently sacked two Labour prime ministers, Keven Rudd and Julia Gillard.

Is this really the road the administration wants to go down in 2014? If history is any guide, a pretty steep price will be paid on Election Day — all for policies that will have no measurable effect on climate change.

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on May 30, 2014.

Patrick J. Michaels is director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute and a senior fellow in research and economic development at George Mason University.

About these ads
This entry was posted in EPA, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to The EPA’s Political Futility

  1. wws says:

    Begun, the Climate Wars have.

  2. R. de Haan says:

    Joe tell it like it is: http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-may-31-2014

    But how can you respect a President elect who screws his own electorate????????????

  3. ba says:

    Bastille Day is July 14.

  4. Sandi says:

    Who even remembers that, according to some of our most esteemed scientists, “acid rain” was going to cause an “ecological silent spring”? Like so many global catastrophes, it was a bit exaggerated.

    However not widely reported was that the subsequent DTT bad that led to the unnecessary deaths from Malaria, of millions of people in Africa and other third world nations.

  5. Neil says:

    It’s all about presidential legacy. Obama is doing to the economy what Clinton did to the middle-east peace process.

  6. MattN says:

    Well, it’s a good thing Duke Energy didn’t just spend $1.8B upgrading and modernizing the Cliffside Steam plant in my hometown. Oh…wait….

  7. Bryan A says:

    A fragile case< the Dark Side has

  8. elmer says:

    30% of 2005 CO2 levels brings back to before Reagen, hmmmm….

  9. Joseph Murphy says:

    Sandi says:
    June 2, 2014 at 12:21 pm
    —————————————–
    The last time I made a comment about DDT i got modded right out of here. Can we add second hand smoke, CFCs, population ExPOlSiOn etc. to list of pseudo science that plagues us? The list is very long but most psuedo science has very little impact. DDT is certainly an exception to this and global warming may follow it its footsteps. Sorry 3rd world, we had good intentions…

  10. peter says:

    I would wager that the vast percentage of people who think this is a good idea think the EPA is reducing particulate pollution. Smoke and Smog and just plane nasty chemicals. They have no idea that what is really being ordered reduced is a perfectly harmless gas that is actually beneficial to the earth. That was the beauty of declaring CO2 a pollutant. People hear that word and think disgusting sludge and Love Canal.

  11. Dave Wendt says:

    As I have suggested monotonously for almost a decade, the real threat we face from CAGW has almost nothing to do with whatever occurs in the planetary environs due to increasing atmospheric CO2, but everything to do with the incredibly damaging and wasteful that have been done and are proposed to be done in the future to avoid catastrophes whose likelihood is incredibly dubious and for which the multitude of nonsolutions have virtually nq prospect of making any difference which will even be within our range of detectability, now or in the future.

    I would caution against presuming a change of the party in power is eminent as well. The Republicans yearn for Death and have an almost infinite capacity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Even if they do win it will not be by a veto proof majority and Barry will just continue to shred the Constitution with his pen.

  12. albertalad says:

    Obama, the gift that keeps on giving. On the other hand, I would like to thank Obama from Alberta, Canada. We have 70% of the natural gas in Canada in my province. Good time to mention pipelines to my southern soon to be great customers? Oh, this is going to be fun.

  13. Joseph Murphy says:

    Dave Wendt says:
    June 2, 2014 at 12:38 pm
    ————————————————-
    Agreed, I would add to the first paragraph another great threat is us ignoring actual environmental and social problems and focusing on fake ones. To the second paragraph I will add that politicians say whatever you want to hear. Some people like to hear that we are saving the world, others like to hear that that is bullshit. The politicians pander to both. The only faith I have in government is that left to its own devices it will indefinetly expand in consumption of wealth and the erradication of freedom of the individual. I am happiest when I turn on the news and hear that congress is in deadlock. Good, no harm no foul.

  14. George Steiner says:

    The administration will not pay a steep price. In fact a Democrat president will be elected when Obama leaves office. This is because the Republicans have no stomach for real political combat on any issue and this is just one of them. They are just as venal as the Democrats but less skillful.

  15. J Martin says:

    The EPA and Obama / Holdren making pointless gestures, when global car ownership is predicted to double by 2035 and global population will continue to climb. The US is just pissing into the wind.

    http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/02/obama-plan-will-have-miniscule-global-impact-der-spiegel-co2-will-keep-rising-1-1-annually-for-next-20-years/

  16. Not that old DDT canard again.

    DDT was never banned internationally and continues to be used in several countries. You can buy it now from several manufacturers in India, for example. DDT is not exempt from the resistance problem – in fact, resistant mosquito strains exist. Had its use continued on the same scale as in the sixties, resistance would have spread more rapidly, and it would likely have long since been rendered totally ineffective.

    Note I’m not saying that the ban of DDT was necessary or, on balance, a good thing – I haven’t really looked into those questions enough. However, the wild estimates of malaria deaths due to the ban are based on several untenable assumptions.

  17. Steve Keohane says:

    For example, the assessment tells us that global warming will increase mental illness in our nation’s cities.
    It certainly has in the White House.

  18. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    I would assume that hidden somewhere in the Climate Change Initiative is a massive tax increase (disguised of course as something else). This is one of the reasons these monstrosities are so hard to get rid of, even if you toss out all the incumbents who passed it — by that time the new revenue is essential to keep disguising just how much all the previous grand initiatives are really costing.

  19. Tonyb says:

    This is great news for Europeans as it looks as though you are shooting yourselves in the foot as regards energy costs. Your power is far too cheap which has made the US far too competitive.

    Now, please play fair. European governments shot themselves in both feet a decade ago. So can you shoot yourselves in your other foot as well before Obama finishes his term in office?

    Tonyb

  20. Peter Miller says:

    An incredible lack of judgement is fast becoming Obama’s legacy, on the same day:

    1. A highly puffed announcement to cause incredible damage to the American economy in a futile attempt to ‘solve’ a non-problem, and

    2. A highly puffed announcement of swapping the release of an American army deserter for five Taliban terrorists.

  21. starzmom says:

    Most people who do remember acid rain also think that the emissions reductions achieved under Title IV actually reduced the acidity of rainfall. Not so for most areas. At Hubbard Brook, the acidity of rain has remained nearly constant since the mid 1970s, the first time it was routinely sampled. There has likewise been little to no change in the acidity of the waters in oligotrophic lakes in the Northeast US and eastern Canada.

  22. James Ard says:

    George Steiner says:
    June 2, 2014 at 1:08 pm

    If the Obama Economy turns into the Obama Recession next month, I see no way a Democrat gets elected in 2016. That said, the spineless Republicans will try hard to blow it. And when they win by default they won’t have a mandate to tackle any of the real problems.

  23. starzmom says:

    Steve Keohane says:
    June 2, 2014 at 1:18 pm
    For example, the assessment tells us that global warming will increase mental illness in our nation’s cities.
    It certainly has in the White House.

    Obama keeps the thermostat set at 78 degrees. Does that explain anything?

  24. Richard Sharpe says:

    DDT is not exempt from the resistance problem – in fact, resistant mosquito strains exist. Had its use continued on the same scale as in the sixties, resistance would have spread more rapidly, and it would likely have long since been rendered totally ineffective.

    You wouldn’t happen to have a simulation run of when it would have become totally ineffective by any chance?

    It’s good to have real numbers that we can critique and use to evaluate the results of the various policies.

    I wonder if the Indians realize they are manufacturing a useless chemical?

  25. The continuation of obama’s war on America.

  26. Dasein says:

    So is Obama’s “proposed legislation” actually binding, or is it at this point still just a proposal?

  27. Follow the Money says:

    “The only way this will be possible will be by upgrading almost all combustion units”

    So. Totally. Wrong.

    They will purchase carbon offsets. Cap and Trade. The National Review is an American right-wing rag. It is almost axiomatic that they cannot follow the money if it infringes in any part on their fantasies about how businesses operate in the real world,

  28. M Simon says:

    George Steiner says:
    June 2, 2014 at 1:08 pm

    The administration will not pay a steep price. In fact a Democrat president will be elected when Obama leaves office. This is because the Republicans have no stomach for real political combat on any issue and this is just one of them.

    It is worse than no stomach for combat. They don’t know how to do it even if they developed a stomach.

    http://classicalvalues.com/2014/06/rock-meet-hardplace/

  29. MikeUK says:

    Does anyone know precisely what this means for US power generation? The EPA documents are not exactly models of clarity, so no doubt plenty of money for lawyers. How much of the 30% reduction from 2005 has happened already via shale gas, and how much more would have come anyway from that fuel?

    Is this all just a political game with few actual consequences?

  30. Latitude says:

    …you would think….they would clean up our water first

  31. D.I. says:

    The power companies just Pull The Plug, NOW!

  32. Follow the Money says:

    “Does anyone know precisely what this means for US power generation?”

    Coal power will go up in costs, and there fore the nat gas and nuke people can raise their prices without losing market share to coal. The next big battle will be between coal and the banksters/traders. Big Coal will ask for free offset allotments from the govt, which would harm the profits of the cap and traders.

  33. KevIn O'Brien says:

    A Little off topic. The IPCC paperwork showed a chart with the likelyhood of adverse events, many of which it didn’t see much reason to worry about. Can anyone please give me the reference. Stupidity has broken out here in NZ with the greens wanting to introduce a carbon tax. I need ammo.

  34. Dasein says:

    Mike UK,
    According to the article I’ll link to below, the 50 states have quite variable reduction targets to hit, and they have until 2017 or 2018 to even submit a plan in the first place. Also, the article states that 13% of the 30% target has already been attained, so we’re already about halfway there. The plan may not survive legal challenges or changes in Washington’s political landscape.

    http://centurylink.net/news/read/article/the_associated_press-epa_seeks_to_cut_power_plant_carbon_by_30_percent-ap

  35. David, UK says:

    Neil said:
    It’s all about presidential legacy. Obama is doing to the economy what Clinton did to the middle-east peace process.
    I was sure that sentence was going to end with “…what Clinton did to Monica Lewinsky.”

  36. Greg White says:

    “The EPA’s own model, ironically acronymed MAGICC, estimates that its new policies will prevent a grand total of 0.018ºC in warming by 2100″
    Does anyone have a reference / link for this statement. If accurate should be all that is needed to stop this.

  37. GaryW says:

    “DDT is not exempt from the resistance problem – in fact, resistant mosquito strains exist. Had its use continued on the same scale as in the sixties, resistance would have spread more rapidly, and it would likely have long since been rendered totally ineffective.”

    Hmmm… how is that worse than not using it at all. Are we saving it for just rich folks in developed countries? Or maybe you expect that the resistant critters will mutate into something horrible? I thought the problem with DDT was supposed to be that it is persistent in the environment so will build up and kill all the insects (Silent Spring!) Now your are saying that the insects will evolve to not be effected by it?

  38. Jake J says:

    What’s especially important, in my opinion, is for opponents to juxtapose two elements — first, the degree to which electricity rates would rise because of this initiative, and second, the degree to which temperatures would be affected, even according to the U.N. climate modeling.

    No need to even take on the Church of Climatology. Have this fight next to the collection box in the vestibule.

  39. H.R. says:

    Shut ‘em all down tomorrow June 3rd, 2014. I hear it’s going to be warm in DC. Let’s see how the EPA likes sweating out their own rules in their own cubicles and offices.

    Oh wait! You say there’s an exception for all coal generated electricity that goes to DC? (Wouldn’t surprise me if it were true.)

  40. My dear co-commenters,

    This is just government doing what governments do. They are a gang of thieves writ large. Follow the money and you will see that this is about looting the people and not about “saving the planet”.

    Once upon a time a political philosophy called “Liberalism” dominated the West and led to the industrial revolution and the greatest expansion of wealth and innovation in the history of mankind. Those Classical Liberals (have to add “classical” now) believed in private property rights, a laissez-faire market economy, the rule of law, limited government, and international peace based on free trade. This is the opposite of what we call “liberals” in the US in modern times.

    Let historian Ralf Raico tell you about it in his post: “What Is Classical Liberalism?” http://mises.org/daily/4596

    The problem is that if you cede power to the State and allow it to be strong enough to give you what you want from its looting of the people it is thereby strong enough to take all you have. The war against CAGW is really a war against the growing police state and the destruction of individual freedom and liberty in the US and most of the rest of the Western World. Make no mistake about that.

  41. Magoo says:

    The Democrats are going to lose the next election anyway so why not pass a poisoned chalice in the form of a hobbled economy onto the Republicans. When the Republicans get in they need to clean out the alarmists with their snouts in the trough of public funds, both at a personal and at an institutional level. The EPA needs to be gutted with those who blatantly lied about CO2 fired.

    Looking on the positive side, Obama’s govt. will be gone soon, and the US can follow in the footsteps of Australia & toss this nonsense out.

  42. I don’t know if the coal fired plants have an organization, but I would go on strike for at least 1 day to show what happens when 40% of US energy shuts down for 1 day. (or even 10% depending on how many would participate).

  43. John in Oz says:

    Close a power plant NOW, possibly whichever one supplies Washington DC then see the rhetoric and back-flipping rationale to re-open it.

  44. more soylent green! says:

    Dave Wendt says:
    June 2, 2014 at 12:38 pm
    As I have suggested monotonously for almost a decade, the real threat we face from CAGW has almost nothing to do with whatever occurs in the planetary environs due to increasing atmospheric CO2, but everything to do with the incredibly damaging and wasteful that have been done and are proposed to be done in the future to avoid catastrophes whose likelihood is incredibly dubious and for which the multitude of nonsolutions have virtually nq prospect of making any difference which will even be within our range of detectability, now or in the future.

    I would caution against presuming a change of the party in power is eminent as well. The Republicans yearn for Death and have an almost infinite capacity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Even if they do win it will not be by a veto proof majority and Barry will just continue to shred the Constitution with his pen.

    The real threat is from the proposed solutions to this non-problem.

  45. Gaylon says:

    Michael Palmer / Richard Sharpe / GaryW

    In the interest of putting this to bed: the reference by Joseph Murphy is valid,

    ‘The same year of the ban, 1972, the ALJ appointed by the EPA Edmund Sweeney conclude after seven months of hearings in his report of that review:

    “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man … DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.”
    (Sweeney , MS. 1972. “Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner EPA, and findings concerning DDT hearings,” April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages)
    However, the EPA administrator, William Ruckelshaus, dismissed the judge’s opinion and banned virtually all uses of DDT to consider it a “potential carcinogen for humans.”

    The controversy seemed revived, perhaps under a pressure campaign that May 24 of 2006 was denounced by scientists at the EPA in a letter made ​​public after an association of environmental officials, PEER .

    The September 15, 2006 the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that the insecticide will be part of its program to eradicate malaria spraying inside homes and thus kill the mosquitoes that transmit malaria. Scientific studies 1 show that the use of DDT for indoor associated with mosquito itself is effective in preventing malaria and presents no hazards to wildlife and the ineffectiveness medium term indiscriminate use as a biocide itself has on crops, etc.

    More to the topic of this thread is: it’s worse than we thought. They (Obama et al) are going to execute their plan in spite of the facts, and inevitable consequences. I hope we are all writing our congressmen!

  46. Robert of Ottawa says:

    The purpose isn’t to reduce temperatures, which the Warmistas know is a lie. The goal is centralized state control of society.

  47. Gaylon says:

    Robert of Ottawa says:
    June 2, 2014 at 3:09 pm

    What he said…

  48. James the Elder says:

    For example, the assessment tells us that global warming will increase mental illness in our nation’s cities. The obvious implication is that people in Richmond are crazier than they are in Washington, 100 miles to the north. Or that people must really be loony in Miami.
    =========================================================================

    180 out on that one.

  49. MarkW says:

    Back in 1975 John Holdren wrote a paper in which he declared that the greatest danger the US faced was from too much and too cheap energy.

  50. Berényi Péter says:

    there is no chance that the president will renege

    Is it not somewhat annoying, that government of the people, by the people, for the people have perished from the earth?

  51. James the Elder says:

    Follow the Money says:
    June 2, 2014 at 1:46 pm
    “The only way this will be possible will be by upgrading almost all combustion units”

    So. Totally. Wrong.

    They will purchase carbon offsets. Cap and Trade. The National Review is an American right-wing rag. It is almost axiomatic that they cannot follow the money if it infringes in any part on their fantasies about how businesses operate in the real world
    =============================================================================
    So tell us how it operates in the “real world”. “They will purchase carbon offsets.” Who the hell do you think will pay for that bovine scat? When you start freezing in the dark, don’t whine, it’s for the children.

  52. ” … When you start freezing in the dark, don’t whine, it’s for the children.”

    I once read that “green” policies in England have led to many people unable to pay heating bills and that many freeze each winter due to the liars “saving the planet”. I suspect we will see that here also.

  53. Steve Oregon says:

    Hopefully, Texas or some other state will refuse to follow orders and the climate war may indeed break out.
    However, I feel as though the November election may deliver a bloodbath for Democrats resulting in a veto proof, fed up majority in Congress sufficiently agitated to stop the insanity sooner rather than later. I can’t think of a better outcome for the last two years of the Obama administration.
    Make sure ya’ll vote.

  54. Rob says:

    Well said!

  55. Gary Hladik says:

    Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says (June 2, 2014 at 2:36 pm): ‘This is just government doing what governments do. They are a gang of thieves writ large. Follow the money and you will see that this is about looting the people and not about “saving the planet”.’

    Well said. The real problem isn’t who’s in charge; it’s that anyone other than us is in charge of spending our money.

  56. herkimer says:

    NBC news reported that this proposed 30% reduction in carbon dioxide will save the country$ 93 billion dollars in health costs . This looks like another grossly exaggerated estimate by the Administration. I have yet to hear of anyone getting sick or dying from breathing low level carbon dioxide. They can get sick from breathing the pollutants that are monitored by the air quality index . Clearly carbon dioxide is not in that index because it is not a pollutant nor does it make people sick . So who is kidding who here?

  57. Gaylon says:

    Gary Hladik says:
    ‘…The real problem isn’t who’s in charge; it’s that anyone other than us is in charge of spending our money.’

    Agreed, heck if we were able to spend all our money I would venture to guess that the monthly spending of our wives would add more jobs, and stimulate the economy more than Obozo has done his entire time in office!

  58. Any coal fired power plants that see that they will have to shut down should shut down now. Watch how they will be begged to continue operation…

  59. Carbon Soot Pollution:

    Since the President keeps referring to carbon pollution, where can I find a graph showing the reduction/increase of carbon SOOT pollution since about the 1950 or before?
    Can’t find it on the EPA.
    Specifically, how has carbon soot pollution decreased/increased at coal fired power plants if possible.
    When I Google “carbon soot pollution EPA” I get references to Carbon Dioxide “pollution” nothing specifically about USA Carbon Soot Pollution.
    (I think the President is confused, to be polite)

  60. pat says:

    pat michaels: it’s “kevin” not “keven” rudd. also, the leader of the rightwing liberal party in australia, malcolm “minister for goldman sachs” turnbull lost his leadership position after supporting rudd on the ETS.

    btw, is this a travesty of justice?

    2 June: KFGO: Obama’s new emissions rules likely to face a friendly court
    By Lawrence Hurley
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The fate of President Barack Obama’s new regulations for curbing greenhouse gas emissions from existing U.S. power plants likely lies in the hands of a Washington, D.C., appeals court he largely reshaped through a series of key appointments.
    The appeals court has 11 active judges, of whom seven were appointed by Democratic presidents and four by Republicans. Four of the Democratic appointments were made by Obama over the past 13 months…
    And although losing parties can appeal to the Supreme Court, the high court’s nine justices rarely review the D.C. Circuit’s findings…
    The D.C. Circuit has long been a political football with senators holding up nominations by presidents of the opposing party…
    The EPA has a winning record before the appeals court of late. In this calendar year it has won 8 and lost 2 Clean Air Act cases, some brought by environmental groups and some by industry. The vote breakdown varies, with both Republican and Democratic appointees backing the agency in the bulk of cases…

    http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2014/jun/02/obamas-new-emissions-rules-likely-to-face-a-friendly-court/

  61. Felix Jury says:

    I have a question , how long do you think the price of natural gas will stay as low as it is ?
    Would this decision by the WH provide the republicans control of the senate and if this is the case they can take back control and eliminate the power of the EPA .

  62. Sean says:

    Obama’s war on America continues.

    Impeach this bum.

  63. Eliza says:

    Google news is really playing the AGW hand. Just type in “Global warming” and see results compared to global warming hoax, scam etc all OLD stories.It seems the USA is becoming a dictartorship.. exactly what Eisenhower predicted if the industrial military scientist complextook over….It has….

  64. jakee308 says:

    And yet the one sure way to reduce coal usage (nuclear reactors) isn’t even considered.

    The main stumbling block for Nukes is storage of radioactive waste. Which is a political problem and is being held up by . . . Democrat Harry Reid and the rest of the usual suspects.

    Other countries have few problems and lots more nukes yet the US, the initiator of the technology, still relies on coal plants.

    It really is pitiful how anti science and anti progress, so called progressives are.

    They should really be called regressives as that seems to be a favorite goal of liberals; DEATH of the Human Race. Either through economic strangulation or outright murder, leftist regimes have killed more human beings than any other tyrant or disease or religion.

    And they’re setting up to increase that number.

  65. pat says:

    saw bbc’s David Shukman last nite with enabling female bbc host who began with something like ‘we’ve all seen the climate changing recently’ before letting Shukman say anything he liked, except answer her question about what would Obama’s plan do for the climate FIGURES.

    here’s Shukman with his own piece of work!

    VIDEO: 2 June: BBC: David Shukman reports: US unveils sweeping initiative to cut power plant pollution
    But many in the coal industry accuse him of waging a war on coal and say they will fight the regulations…

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27670404

    APPROX 2 MINS IN: quotes from Tom Burke, Former Government Climate Adviser:

    what a busy Burke he is!

    E3G: Tom Burke
    Tom Burke is the Chairman of E3G, Third Generation Environmentalism, and an Environmental Policy Adviser (part time) to Rio Tinto plc. He is a Visiting Professor at both Imperial and University Colleges, London. He is a member of the External Review Committee of Shell and the Sustainable Sourcing Advisory Board of Unilever and a Trustee of the Black-E Community Arts Project, Liverpool.
    He was a Senior Advisor to the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative on Climate Change from 2006-12. He was appointed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to chair an Independent Review of Environmental Governance in Northern Ireland from 2006-7. He was a member of the Council of English Nature, the statutory advisor to the British Government on biodiversity from 1999-2005. During 2002 he served as an advisor to the Central Policy Group in the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office. He was Special Adviser to three Secretaries of State for the Environment from 1991-97 after serving as Director of the Green Alliance from 1982-1991.
    He was an environmental advisor (part time) to BP plc from 1999-2001. He was a member of the OECD’s High Level Panel on the Environment 1996-98…
    He was formerly Executive Director of Friends of the Earth and a member of the Executive Committee of the European Environmental Bureau 1988-91. He was the Secretary-General of the Bergen 1990 Environment NGO Conference 1988-90. He was a member of the Board of the World Energy Council’s Commission ‘Energy for Tomorrow’s World’ 1990-93. He currently serves on the Advisory Board for Conservation International’s Centre for Environmental Leadership in Business in the US. In 2007 he was elected a Fellow of the Energy Institute. In 2010 he was elected an Honorary Fellow of the Society for the Environment. He also serves on the European Advisory Council of the Carbon Disclosure Project. He is a Patron of the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association.
    In 1993 he was appointed to United Nations Environment Programme’s ‘Global 500′ roll of honour. In 1997, he was appointed CBE for services to the environment. He was awarded Royal Humane Society testimonials on Vellum (1968) and Parchment (1970).

    http://www.e3g.org/people/tom-burke

  66. empiresentry says:

    I have three acres of mature trees that I will gladly donate in carbon credits….but I may have to cut down a few for fuel…never mind my chimney doesn’t have a scrubber.

  67. pat says:

    Connie, Christiana & another of Shukman’s E3G group get to speak!

    3 June: Bloomberg: Reed Landberg: EU Calls on Deeper U.S. Emissions Cuts to Protect Climate
    The European Union said the U.S. must do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than the proposal President Barack Obama’s government released today if it’s to keep talks on limiting global warming on track…
    “All countries including the United States must do even more than what this reduction trajectory indicates,” EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said in a statement from her office in Brussels today…
    Envoys to those talks organized by the United Nationsintend to make an agreement next year that would apply to all nations instead of just the rich industrial ones…
    “While a step forward, this rule simply doesn’t go far enough to put us on the right path,” Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. “The science onclimate change has become clearer and more dire, requiring more aggressive action from the president.” …
    Even if Obama’s policy is implemented, the U.S. will burn far too much coal to curb global warming, according to forecasts by the International Energy Organization…
    Action by the U.S. is necessary to bring countries including China and India with the quickest-growing pollution levels into a global agreement…
    “I fully expect action by the United States to spur others in taking concrete action,” Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said in a statement…
    Australia, while welcoming Obama’s program, said countries will follow their own paths. The Liberal-National government in Australia, which has the largest per-capita fossil-fuel emissions among rich nations, aims to kill off the world’s highest emission tariffs brought in by the prior Labor administration.
    “We welcome constructive action to cut emissions,” the office of Environment Minister Greg Hunt said in an e-mailed statement. “Each country can play its role but no single model will suit every country. The U.S. is taking its own approach and we respect that.” …
    “This announcement will put other global leaders on notice that the U.S. will do everything necessary to get a global climate agreement in Paris,” said Nick Mabey, chief executive officer of ***E3G, a British non-profit group advocating sustainable development. “ Obama cannot deliver limits on coal power at home unless he can show China is committed to reducing emissions as well.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-02/eu-calls-on-deeper-u-s-emissions-cuts-to-protect-climate.html

  68. Gaylon says:
    June 2, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    Michael Palmer / Richard Sharpe / GaryW

    In the interest of putting this to bed: the reference by Joseph Murphy is valid…

    I don’t see any reference quoted by Joseph Murphy, so I’m not quite sure what you are referring to. Moreover, as far as I can see, you haven’t addressed any important question except carcinogenesis (more on that later). It is well known that DDT continues to be used in malaria prevention. The case has been made—quite plausibly, I think—that the discontinuation of DDT use in agriculture has slowed the emergence of resistance in mosquitoes and thus extended its useful life in its more targeted application against malaria.

    As to the carcinogenic effect of DDT, several studies listed on PubMed—of more recent vintage than 1972—suggest that it is indeed a carcinogen, although not a particularly strong one. Genotoxic effects in cell culture are unequivocal, and that almost certainly implies some risk of tumor induction or promotion. Direct animal studies on tumor induction find such effects only at fairly high dosages, though. Blood levels in people exposed to DDT as part of malaria prevention programs are increased relative to background but still orders of magnitude lower than those in experimental animals. Therefore, the use in direct malaria prevention seems quite reasonable.

  69. george e. smith says:

    Well not to worry folks; this is not quite as (coal) black as it appears.

    Many years ago, I devised a simple test for ANY proposed “alternative” energy source, which got published in the Harvard Business Revue.

    It goes about like this:

    You tell me what your favorite alternative energy source is; how about coal fired electricity.

    Tell me how many megaWatts peak power output you want.

    Tell me how long you want to run your plant.

    I will GIVE you, free and clear, that plant of your choice; and I will give you all the fuel you need; (mountain of coal in this case).

    So quit carping about economics; you have NO economic problems, because I just solved that for you.

    So now you can sell the electricity from your plant for whatever market price you can get. Knock yourself out, and make your fortune.

    Now I’m not nearly as stupid, as this sounds; I do expect something from you in return.

    Before you start raking in the riches, I would like you to build me, a duplicate copy of the plant I gave you.; and I would like you to replace my fuel (mountain of coal).

    ALL you have to work with, is the electrical output from your free power plant; plus of course, any and ALL materials that are required; which you will find out there in the universe; of course in their natural state.

    Everybody, and everything is busy, so you will also have to supply yourself with all infrastructure needed for the task. Make your own bulldozers, concrete, trucks/trains. Everything needed to duplicate what you got for nothing.

    Then, when you are done duplicating your free plant, you can sell all the electricity that you have left over.

    Don’t forget, you need people to work on this, and they need schools, and houses and cars, so you have to provide those too from your free energy.

    Now we know for sure, that there are existing alternative energy sources that successfully passed this test.

    How the hell else, do you suppose, we were able to stop gathering figs up in fig trees, and get down on the ground, and take over this planet.

    It was all done with alternative energies, that we were able to exploit, using already existing ordinary sources of energy; like figs, and monkeys, and wildebeestes (grass). Fire was the big quantum leap forward.

    Everything we have, we got from sources that passed my test.

    Today, most so-called “alternative energies” will never pass this test.

  70. pat says:

    2 June: Bloomberg: Obama’s Step Forward on Carbon Undone by China’s Steps Back
    By Mark Drajem and Jim Efstathiou Jr.
    (Corrects unit to billions in ninth paragraph of story published May 31.)
    Trimming carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by 25 percent in coming decades, as Obama is said to be proposing, would be more than overwhelmed by increases in China and India where coal-fired power plants are springing up and new cars are rolling out of showrooms.
    “It’s not a magic bullet,” Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an interview…
    *** Persuading developing countries to forgo the benefits of cheap coal power and economic growth won’t be easy…
    Burning fossil fuels in the U.S. released 5.3 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2012. China emitted 9.0 billion tons and by 2020 is forecast by the U.S. Energy Department to reach 11.5 billion metric tons, while the U.S. stays flat. India, Indonesia and other developing nations are expected to grow, as well.
    Were U.S. emissions cut to zero, “global emissions would continue to increase,” Robert Stavins, director of Harvard University’s Environmental Economics Program, said in an e-mail…
    According to the World Resources Institute in Washington, 1,200 coal-fired plants are proposed globally, with more than three-quarters of those planned for India and China alone. If all are built, which WRI says is ***unlikely, that would add more than 80 percent to existing capacity…
    And the effects on the U.S. are likely to be among the least extreme globally, as poor nations with coastlines such as Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Nigeria face the greatest threats from stronger storms and sea rise associated with global warming, according to a report this week from Standard & Poor’s.
    “The poorest countries in the world are those most impacted by climate change,” said Michael Wilkins, managing director of the credit ratings agency.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-31/obama-step-forward-on-carbon-undone-by-china-s-steps-back.html

    how compassionate Standard & Poor’s are!

  71. Jeff L says:

    A quick review of MSM coverage of HHFA new EPA regs : what is striking is the reference to “carbon pollution ” & “climate change”; no reference to “carbon dioxide” & “global warming”. Aldo multiple references to respiratory diseases. The debate is being completely re-cast in a way that can’t be argued. I mean , really , how do you argue that ??? Completely illogical ! Seriously, if CO2 caused respiratory disease, we would all be dead from out own respiration

  72. pat says:

    3 June: Bloomberg: Obama Climate Proposal Will Shift Industry Foundations
    By Mark Chediak and Jim Polson
    Coal-dependent power companies from American Electric Power Co. (AEP) to Duke Energy Corp. (DUK) face billions of dollars in added costs from the Obama administration’s proposed climate rules. Renewable-energy backers and nuclear generators like Exelon Corp. (EXC) stand to gain from the effort to shift the foundations of the U.S. energy industry…
    “The rule is going to speed the transition away from coal into natural gas and renewables and potentially increase the role nuclear electricity plays in the U.S.,” said Christopher Knittel, director of the Center for Energy & Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology…
    Nuclear plants, which emit no CO2 to generate power, may see a boost from the regulations. Exelon and Entergy Corp., the two largest nuclear plant owners, could enjoy “material earning gains,” as the price of power rises on competitors’ needs to purchase emissions permits, the Bernstein analysts wrote…
    Exelon, based in Chicago, has long supported federal rules to limit carbon emissions, at one point leaving the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobbying group, because of a disagreement over global warming policies. The company said it was pleased the draft rule recognizes the importance of nuclear power.
    With 23 nuclear reactors and 44 wind-power projects, it has much to gain from carbon regulations. Exelon may see a $1.3 billion gain in its generation gross margin, adding about 97 cents of earnings per share, according to Bernstein…
    “Exelon is clearly the biggest beneficiary here,” said Dumoulin-Smith, who rates the company a hold and doesn’t own the shares. “This is all about keeping the nukes around.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-02/climate-rules-threaten-to-rewrite-u-s-energy-map.html

  73. pat says:

    3 June: KTVN: AP: Jonathan Fahey: Obama carbon rule: Surprise winners, losers
    The biggest U.S. natural gas producer, Exxon Mobil, will likely see higher demand for its fuel, which emits half the carbon dioxide as coal. The biggest nuclear power generator, Exelon, and biggest wind farm operator, Next Era Energy, may fetch higher prices for their carbon-free power. Companies that sell wind turbines, solar panels, or energy efficiency technology – such as General Electric, Siemens, First Solar and SunPower – may also come out winners.
    Coal stands to be a big loser…
    WINNERS
    – Nuclear Generators. If carbon-free power becomes more valuable to the marketplace, no one will benefit more than nuclear power producers such as Exelon, Entergy, Public Service Enterprise Group and First Energy…

    http://www.ktvn.com/story/25671412/obama-carbon-rule-surprise-winners-losers

    (3 pages) 2012: NYT: Eric Lipton: Ties to Obama Aided in Access for Big Utility
    Early in the Obama administration, a lobbyist for the Illinois-based energy producer Exelon Corporation proudly called it “the president’s utility.” ***…
    Exelon’s top executives were early and frequent supporters of Mr. Obama as he rose from the Illinois State Senate to the White House. John W. Rogers Jr., a friend of the president’s and one of his top fund-raisers, is an Exelon board member. David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s longtime political strategist, once worked as an Exelon consultant, and Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago mayor and Mr. Obama’s former chief of staff, helped create the company through a corporate merger in 2000 while working as an investment banker…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/us/politics/ties-to-obama-aided-in-access-for-exelon-corporation.html?_r=0

    ***funny how critics & fans of Obama never noticed!

  74. Jeff Alberts says:

    Now I’m not nearly as stupid, as this sounds; I do expect something from you in return.

    Judging from your inherent abuse of commas, I’m not so sure.

  75. Bill Illis says:

    Basically, Obama just passed it off to the States to come up with a plan by 2017 or 2018 to cut emissions.

    Obama takes all the credit and makes the States the bad guy.

    Secondly, US power plant emissions are already down by 13% from 2005 levels. I imagine they were already going to reach the target by 2030 with the way more efficient dual-cycle natural gas plants were replacing coal.

    From Obama’s own news release.

    Take all the credit (for something that was happening already), satisfy the green political money, make the States the bad guys, and bypass the Congress. Very Slimy.

  76. David Schuster says:

    A 30% reduction in emmisions from US coal reduces global atmospheric C02 by a woppin 0.04% according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations.

  77. I wonder if someone just across the border in Mexico is smiling …

  78. Steve Oregon says:

    This isn’t a political forum but it is highly germane. Especially this November when it may be possible to foil Obama’s plans with a overwhelming removal of Obama supporters from congress.
    Many rank and file folk of every political persuasion are discovering how extreme and partisan Obama and the Democrat hierarchy is.

    Consider this. All of the worsening ObamaCare mess is the result of the sweeping ACA legislation which passed without a single Republican vote. Not one.
    It doesn’t get any more extreme.

    Obama and company will engage in the same dereliction of duty approach to energy and our economy is they are not stopped.

    I have no affection for any of the party politics but these are serious times requiring the removal of the worse extremism this county has ever seen.

  79. SIGINT EX says:

    Here is an interesting link:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-war-on-coal-is-already-over-mr-president-2014-06-02

    The coal-to-electricity industry has already changed and changes in the coming decade trump any ‘Executive Order’ of Obama. Ah ! ‘Executive Order': short shelf life (< 2 yrs), if at all. And ! States Rights ! I.e. State EPAs can argue the "rule change" until the current "President" is out of office, 22 January 2017 (actually on the moment that the next President is Officially sworn in !).

    22 January 2017 is going to be a 'Break Neck' Legislative Day in the history of this 'Union.'

    'Obama – EPA Big Save The Planet Day Initiative' is moot before birth. Again !

    All is well. Sleep well.
    :-)

  80. sumdood says:

    the utilities are going to mothball coal plants until the Republicans take power in 2016. Once people lose electricity in the winter and freeze in their own houses the Dems will be dead meat

  81. SAMURAI says:

    EPA’s illegal war on CO2 has little to do with “saving the planet”, but has a great deal to do with saving Democrat seats in the House and Senate during the upcoming 2014 mid-term elections.

    Liberal billionaire Tom Steyer has pledged to give $100 million to the Democratic Party in exchange for implementing concrete action on US CO2 emission cuts….

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/tom-steyer-campaign-donor-103617.html

    The hilarious late-night Global Warming Talkathon held on the floor of the Senate in March of this year, was a feeble effort to extort Steyers’ $100 million, but Steyer wasn’t going to fork over $100 million for this absurd and meaningless dog and pony show… He wanted more (much more) if he was going toss $100 million to the Democrats.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/11/democrats-hold-all-night-talkathon-on-climate-change-on-senate-floor/

    Enter the new EPA war on CO2,,, Now THIS is the magic (or should I say MAGICC) that Tom Steyer was looking for as true penance for the $billions he made off the fossil fuel industry…

    Oh, the irony… Because Steyer made $billions off the fossil fuel industry, American’s have to pay $trillions in CO2 rules/regulations compliance costs and higher energy bills, so Steyer can get a warm and fuzzy feeling…

    All this Kabuki theater, all this unemployment, all this loss of GDP, all this loss of industrial productivity, all the higher energy costs, all this economic hardship to “prevent” a grand total of 0.018ºC of projected global warming by 2100 and to ease little Tommy’s conscience….

    I’m going to go puke, now….

    And so it goes….until freedom and sanity are restored….

  82. pat says:

    as believable as everything else on ABC and in WaPo, who have produced this joint poll with Langer Research Associates of New York!

    2 June: ABC America: Gary Langer: Broad Concern about Global Warming Boosts Support for New EPA Regulations
    Seven in 10 Americans see global warming as a serious problem facing the country, enough to fuel broad support for federal efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions – even if it raises their own energy costs, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds.
    The poll, conducted in advance of the Obama administration’s announcement today of planned regulations to cut such pollution, finds 70 percent support for limiting emissions from existing power plants, and, more generally, for requiring states to cut the production of greenhouse gases within their borders.
    See PDF with full results, charts and tables here…
    Sixty-nine percent of Americans in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, see global warming as a serious problem; among them, eight in 10 favor new regulations, and three-quarters are willing to pay higher energy bills if it means significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions…
    Further, among those who do see global warming – also known as climate change – as a serious problem, the vast majority, 83 percent, say it’s “very” serious…
    PARTISANSHIP AND IDEOLOGY – Despite strong political and ideological components to views on global warming, majorities across the political spectrum support new regulations, albeit to varying degrees…
    There’s also a sharp difference by age, with higher costs acceptable to 74 percent of young adults, age 18 to 29, but dropping to 52 percent among those 65 and older. Seniors are more apt to be on fixed incomes, but there’s another factor as well – they’re also 14 percentage points less likely than young adults to see global warming as a serious problem in the first place, 60 vs. 74 percent…
    METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone May 29-June 1, 2014, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,002 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including design effect. Partisan divisions are 33-24-35 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.
    The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/broad-concern-about-global-warming-boosts-support-for-new-epa-regulations/

    2 June: WaPo: A huge majority of Americans support regulating carbon from power plants. And they’re even willing to pay for it.
    By Scott Clement and Peyton M. Craighill

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/02/a-huge-majority-of-americans-support-regulating-carbon-from-power-plants-and-theyre-even-willing-to-pay-for-it/?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394

  83. pat says:

    re ABC/WaPo/Langer poll:

    how extraordinarily coincidental that CAGW gatekeeper, Hannam, at Fairfax Media, informed Australians recently that they were also happy to spend whatever is necessary to fix CAGW, according to a highly suspect Lowy Institute Poll which is due out tomorrow Aussie time:

    24 May: Sydney Morning Herald: Peter Hannam: Australians more worried about climate change, poll finds
    A strong response to questions about global warming is among the standout results in this year’s Lowy Institute Poll, with the numbers demanding action ”even if this involves significant costs” building on a small rebound in last year’s survey…
    ”After five years of successive decline in Australians’ concern about climate change, last year’s poll showed the first upward trend in the number of Australians who see climate change as a ‘serious and pressing problem’,” the report’s author, Alex Oliver, said.
    ”This trend continues,” said Ms Oliver, declining to elaborate before the report’s release on June 4…

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/australians-more-worried-about-climate-change-poll-finds-20140523-38u81.html

    26 May: Guardian: Alex White: Could Australia really dismantle its carbon price?
    With repeated statements by serious scientific reports and organisations puts certainty that man-made carbon emissions are causing global warming at 95 percent — the same level of certainty for the connection between tobacco and lung cancer — Fairfax reported recently that the Lowy Institute poll, which has tracked attitudes toward climate change, is seeing an “upward trend in the number of Australians who see climate change as a ‘serious and pressing problem'”…
    COMMENT: By Paul Moulton:
    If you look at the actual report what you read above is, to say the least, misleading.

    http://www.lowyinstitute.org/2013pollinteractive/climatechange.php

    The data are reporting yearly from 2006 to 2013. The percentages of people that want drastic action is down (68% to 40%), the percentages of people that want low cost measures is up (24% to 40%) and the people that want nothing done is up as well (7% to 16%). Clearly the people that are warmists, the ones wanting drastic action, are far fewer in number than before.
    The reason that the article was able to state what it did and be technically correct is that in 2012 the number of people that wanted drastic action was 36% while in 2013 it was 40%. So yes, it is up as they said it was. Accurate? Yes. Misleading. You bet. Hypocritical? Of course, but to be expected…

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/may/26/carbon-price-abolish-tony-abbott-australia

  84. pat says:

    re Langers Research Assoc who allegedly did the ABC/WaPo Poll:

    LinkedIn: Langer Research Associates
    Langer Research Associates provides survey research design, management, analysis and consulting services for media, foundation, business, government, NGO and legal clients. We direct news polling for the ABC News television network, produce the weekly Consumer Comfort Index for Bloomberg L.P. and create in-depth national and international surveys on policy, social, economic and political attitudes…
    In addition to ABC News and Bloomberg, recent clients include Blue Shield of California Foundation, The Washington Post, The Center for the Next Generation, the BBC, ARD German Television, Yahoo! News, and with D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., the United Nations Development Programme, the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Counterpart International…
    Langer Research was founded by Gary Langer, former director of polling for ABC News. Staff includes Research Analysts Julie E. Phelan, Ph.D., and Gregory Holyk, Ph.D. Senior advisers include Prof. Jon Krosnick of Stanford University, Prof. Robert Y. Shapiro of Columbia University and Patrick Moynihan, assistant director of the Survey Research Program at Harvard University.

    http://www.linkedin.com/company/langer-research-associates

  85. pat says:

    Gary Langer (Langer Research) has a long history of attempting to manufacture consensus on CAGW; this 2006 poll was even referenced in Oreskes “Merchants of Doubt” – found it in the notes at Google Books:

    (4 pages) 2006: ABC America: Poll: Public Concern on Warming Gains Intensity
    Analysis by Gary Langer
    The intensity of public concern about global warming has spiked sharply over the last decade, along with a change in personal experience: Half of Americans say weather patterns have grown more unstable and temperatures have risen where they live, and 70 percent think weather patterns globally have become more unsettled in recent years.
    A vast majority, 85 percent, believes global warming probably is occurring, up slightly from 80 percent in a 1998 poll…
    Sampling, data collection and tabulation for this poll were done by TNS…
    Moreover, almost seven in 10 in this benchmark survey by ABC News, Time magazine and Stanford University say the government should do more to address global warming. And just under half — rising sharply among those who are most concerned — say it should do “much more.” But views on what should be done are fractured, with little support for measures such as higher gasoline or electricity taxes to discourage consumption…
    A key element in attitudes on global warming is the extent to which doubters continue to influence public perceptions…

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=1750492

  86. Espen says:

    What is this “carbon pollution” they’re talking about? Are diamonds pollutants now?

  87. Leigh says:

    Cap and trade, carbon offsets.
    Gore has struck it rich…….again, from catostropheric anthropological global warming.
    Seriously, are the American people really as stupid as Australia to let their leaders,for want of a better word.
    Sign over more of their collective wealth to a small band of global warming fraudsters in the United Nations and their hanger oners?
    In Australia I think we’re talking 7 or 8 billion dollars a year we hand over.
    Thats with a population of about 23 million.
    How much do you think America is going to hand over per annum?
    Once these fraudsters actually introduce their fraud as a tax, the difficulty in removing it becomes so much harder.
    Look at Australia as an example.
    Abbott and the coalition went to the election on a platform of removing the incumbent governments CO/2 tax and subsequently won a landslide victory.
    Nine months into the new government we are no closer to removing this cancerous fraud of a tax.
    Be warned America, if you don’t act now to prevent what Obama has just dumped on you, you to will be in the same financially sinking boat that Gillard and Rudd put us in.
    You really do need politicians in opposition and media to stand up and call these fraudsters out as the lies pass their lips.
    Blogs like this do a great job with their minimal resources.
    But reality says we need to turn the mainstream media around.
    Difficult I know but as long as the fraudsters have them the fraud will continue.
    When Obama gets his nobel peace prize for his contribution to the prevention of global warming, will the cost have been worth it?

  88. stan stendera says:

    Anthony, you need to update your heading. It now says “Commentary on puzzling things in life, ect.” You left out LUNACY.

  89. philjourdan says:

    Admittedly people in Richmond are crazy (they throw away nothing, instead deciding to memorialize it). But crazier than DC? Not by a long shot! DC is a world unto itself where insanity is the norm.,

  90. M Simon says:

    As to the carcinogenic effect of DDT, several studies listed on PubMed—of more recent vintage than 1972—suggest that it is indeed a carcinogen, although not a particularly strong one.

    Now that we have a cure for cancer this is much less important. Look up “Dennis Hill biochemist cancer” .and “Dr. Christina Sanchez molecular biologist cancer”. They both explain how the cure works.

  91. brock2118 says:

    EPA turned upo at our local NPR station yesterday claiming we were wasting for in southwest Missouri, that it was going to the dump and turning into methane which causes Climate Change. Their imagination seems to know no boundaries.

  92. ba says:

    albertalad says:
    Obama, the gift that keeps on giving.

    should read:
    “Obama, the gifter that keeps on grifting”. Fixed that for everybody.

Comments are closed.