Boehner hits the nail on the head
President Obama’s soon-to-be-revealed second-term climate change proposal is “absolutely crazy,” Speaker John Boehner said Thursday.
The Ohio Republican was incredulous when asked to react to reports that the White House plans to regulate carbon emissions from power plants as part of its climate change strategy.
“I think this is absolutely crazy,” Boehner said at his weekly press conference. “Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when American people are asking, ‘Where are the jobs.’ “
From:The Hill’s E2-Wire
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just Steve says:
June 20, 2013 at 12:06 pm
“My question to jai and his fellow travellers; why is warming axiomatically bad? I may not be a scientist, but history strongly supports the thesis that man has flourished much better during warm periods as against cooler ones. ”
Good point!
When young, I always worked during the summer in various farms and I can assure you that just a couple more extra day of growing season before the first freeze occur were alway good thing for the owner of the business. When freeze was imminent, we were working days and night non stop to harvest the stuff we weren’t able to protect using sprinkler. Unharvested/unprotected field were simply total loss to the farmer.
It is very annoying to ear from people that probably never put their hand and feet in sh*t (read good old biological fertilizer) that warming is alway a negative thing.
What did the oil companies pay in income taxes the last few years?
Rather than assuming crass ignorance on your part, I am asking.
.
For a net negative?
(Let me spell it out for you: after taking stock of all the materials, the processing and machining, the windmill installation, the running of distribution and transmission lines (NOT CHEAP EITHER!), the required continued service by humans, and the limited life of the windmill’s blades, transmission, generator and freq/power conversion gear there is a NET LOSS in accrued energy from wind! You are better off with investing those original dollars in a ‘fixed’ coal or nat. gas plant!)
.
Snotrocket
(cute name)
with regard to thread hijacking. That was not my intention at all. What I wanted to share was the counter argument to the childish political position that a transformation/rebuilding of our domestic power generation and transportation infrastructure would create a net loss of jobs. This argument is false and indefensible.
Not to mention the fact that AGW is real and is rapidly producing the effects as have been projected over 48 years ago.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/co2.pdf
jai mitchell says:
“Green energy creates jobs, and lots of them.”
The question is not creating jobs, the question is creating productive jobs. When you replace existing PP&E with new (and here more expensive) PP&E for no good reason, the expenditures are very poorly directed. I do not know of any business plan that would try to do that that would not be shot down at the first review. It does not clear any ROI hurdle. I would refer folks to the Alverez report at the King Juan Carlos University in Spain. Spain created a lot of very low level grunt jobs with its windmill program that caused an exodus of more productive jobs from the country due to the higher cost of power. Last I noted, Spain was in some pretty severe financial straits at the moment. It would be more productive for society just to hand out checks to those people and make them watch reruns of Ren and Stimpy.
Alberta Slim says:
June 20, 2013 at 12:14 pm
The stock market is getting hammered.
Obama’s plan will not help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
GEE, according to Forbes Economically, Could Obama Be America’s Best President: With the stock market hitting new highs, some people have already forgotten about the Great Recession…. (They censor comments)
… as we deficit spend to achieve the ‘result’. Smart. No, I mean it. SMART.
A BOLD NEW ENERGY POLICY TO SAVE THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE!!!
We put millions of skilled workers on manufacturing jobs building 500 to 1,000 Nuclear power plant of a low cost standard design. This will provide all the energy to accomplish a full restoration of our industrial base. How will this happen you ask?
First we “MINE” the oceans for gold, silver, copper, uranium, methane, manganese and other valuable minerals and metals. It has been estimated that it will be profitable to mine gold from the seas at around $ 3,000 per ounce. Second we use cheap nuclear power to extract these metals which could make a profit to pay off the national debt. Third we use the byproduct “WATER” to farm the huge vacant dry south west feeding the entire planet with low cost food.
Finally we use the cheap nuclear power to build factories to manufacture everything the entire planet needs and we return to zero unemployment and can pay good wages because we have free energy that makes a profit in it’s creation.The money generated can payoff all debts, build nuclear reprocessing plants, research and develop a system to render nuclear waste harmless.
Just think, full employment, no energy crisis ever, gold to make money valuable, make the dollar the strongest currency on earth, end inflation, end government debt. Just imagine “AMERICA REBORN AND THE DREAM FULFILLED!!!
What I have discovered in “debating” with individuals like Jai is that facts don’t matter. 10,000 new jobs due to Wind Turbines and other “green” ideas? What are the actual facts about increased costs and lost jobs? Are Wind turbines actually “green”? What is required to construct them? How much power is actually supplied and at what cost? And what about the backup power that’s required when the wind doesn’t blow? How convenient that people like Jai don’t take ANY of that into account. Oil and Gas companies don’t need subsidies like most “Green” industries.. Oil and Gas companies get tax credits like any other business and individuals do. But why confuse things with facts when religious fervour is in the way?
Yup, Tesla makes a good looking sled. If you want one, by all means buy one. Just don’t try selling it as a solution to the internal combustion engine on a mass scale.
Battery technology is, for all intents and purposes, not much advanced over the last 50+ years. The problem with advancement is always the same, running up against the laws of chemistry. No matter the composition, lead acid, glass mat, what have you, increasing storage capability and charging time remains constrained. Rapid charging any battery results in a significant portion of the electricity used being lost as heat, not stored electricity. The idea of a 15 minute rapid charge of a battery bank is a dream until the current technology leaps many fold. How many drivers want a 60 minute stop to “fill up”? Not those of us who live in the real world.
Now, put that electric auto in a cold climate. Battery storage capacity shrinks with lower temperatures. A battery in North Dakota will not charge to 100% capacity during winter months, again a chemistry problem. And since you don’t have an internal combustion engine to create heat, you need an electric heat source, and there’s no less efficient way to create heat than using electricity. Now, how far have you reduced that advertised mileage range? What if you need to use wipers? Want to listen to the radio? Any electrical drain drops your available range, which is already too short for a large portion of the population.
Old’un says:
… Matt Ridley has an article in the Times today on Bio Mass burning for electricity generation….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps this? http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/britain's-mad-biomass-dash.aspx
Obama is living up to his promise to make energy prices skyrocket – you’ve got to give him that.
I’m afraid the onus for this catastrophe is on the idiots who voted for him. Obama told everyone what he intended to do – people just didn’t listen.
Jai is a ‘diehard to the bitter end’ part of the warming ‘team’. He is fully committed.
cwon14 says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:13 pm
For whatever the reasons, leading skeptics and you can include Anthony have steadfastly refused to be identified (directly) with the conservative mainstream meme that AGW was always politically left-wing in motivations….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is because we are NOT all conservatives (or liberals) and AGW is NOT all left-wing (or right-wing.) What CAGW is is a long con by those who want to revamp the world (Agenda 21) and by those who want to make lots of $$$$.
Jai seems to be firmly embedded in his delusional world view.
Jobs generated by renewable energy? We tried that and the results say he’ s wrong (see Spain and other places).
One of the great failings of the human race is the inability to accept the results of experiments. We’ve also seen the non bad effects of whatever minor climate change is occurring. That’s two fails right there, jai.
Another is the inability to figure out and focus on the task at hand. The task of energy generation is to generate energy, not jobs, jai. The fewer jobs the better as the energy will be cheaper leading to many other jobs elsewhere in the economy.
That’s three fails, jai.
Last, there’s “something for nothing”, which seems to be common in leftist and tree hugger economics as well as many other places.
I was still in my early and mid teens when I learned about “value for value” and TANSTAAFL. Thank you Mr Heinlein.
profitup10 says:
June 20, 2013 at 2:28 pm
A BOLD NEW ENERGY POLICY TO SAVE THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Love it! (Just make it thorium) Oh and I live what I preach. I can see a nuclear plant cooling tower from my window.
GE Reports: Thorium Lasers: The Thoroughly Plausible Idea for Nuclear Cars
Of course, everyone realizes those ‘equities’ were purchased (by trading firms) with Bernanke Bucks, which have to go somewhere after entering ‘the system’ via QE (Quantitative Easing) monetary policy where the Fed Reserve buys Treas notes back from the so-called “primary dealers”.
List of: http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/pridealers_current.html
Also note we are seeing ever-increasing costs in commodities, where those ‘bucks’ also end up by ‘traders’ and big financial trading institutions (usually paired with a primary dealer in some way). So while the Stock Market may be (was, ’til today) soaring, so are “commodity prices” (ranging from oil to oats) as the price we pay for anything we eat or put in or on our cars (priced tired lately?) soars out of sight too.
.
The words the market heard were: “The party’s over! … time to pay the tab.”
.
Obama is obviously under intense pressure to “do something” from the activists. If it does go ahead its unlikely to be much. Boehner would reject any amount of tax. Let’s not get alarmist. Although I do understand some may be afraid of the slippery slope principle and don’t want any mechanisms in place.
I think he’s about to approve Keystone I’d give the man a break.
Remember when Barry told the American people he would not raise taxes “1 Dime” one the middle class? He was telling the truth. He raised them 2% for starters!
Oh the good old days 😉
Most of us don’t realize all the knobs the President has to impact our life style and the cost of living we have enjoyed. Below is a reference to his recent edict to raise the “social cost of carbon” With the advisors he has there is no limit to how much damage can be inflicted on our economy without congressional approval. The Supreme court is our only hope and we cannot depend on them very much.
There is no science behind this costly regulation since Global warming has halted for over 15 years.
Did you know there is a social cost for Carbon to heat your home and drive your car?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/tougher-regulations-seen-from-obama-change-in-carbon-cost.html
“Buried in a little-noticed rule on microwave ovens is a change in the U.S. government’s accounting for carbon emissions that could have wide-ranging implications for everything from power plants to the Keystone XL pipeline.
“The increase of the so-called social cost of carbon, to $38 a metric ton in 2015 from $23.80, adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh costs and benefits of proposed regulations. The figure is meant to approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and diminished crops.”
For example, the administration’s vehicle fuel-efficiency standards would cost industry $350 billion over the next 40 years, while benefits in energy security, less congestion and lower pollution totaled $278 billion.
“For example, the administration’s vehicle fuel-efficiency standards would cost industry $350 billion over the next 40 years, while benefits in energy security, less congestion and lower pollution totaled $278 billion. ”
“With the change, government actions that lead to cuts in emissions — anything from new mileage standards to clean-energy loans — will appear more valuable in its cost-benefit analyses. On the flip side, approvals that could lead to more carbon pollution, such as TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone pipeline or coal-mining by companies such as Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) on public lands, may be viewed as more costly. ”
“As we learn that climate damage is worse and worse, there is no direction they could go but up,” Laurie Johnson, chief economist for climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview. Johnson says the administration should go further; she estimates the carbon cost could be as much as $266 a ton.
This pretty much sums up my feelings, politics aside.
Woe betide those of short memories.
Political leaders included.
My question to jai and his fellow travellers is why and how are you using electricity. TURN IT OFF
Have you seen this one from AceofSpades: Senator Brian Schatz’s (D-HI) filed an amendment for the immigration bill Wednesday that would allow stateless people in the U.S. to seek conditional lawful status if their nations have been made uninhabitable by climate change.
To Mike Borgelt:
Your comment about jai mitchell being “firmly embedded in his
delusional worldview” is not quite right. He, like many other believers in mammoth
government, is simply economically illiterate.
All he can see is “10,000 new green jobs in Texas”, and on that basis he goes on about:
“… What I wanted to share was the counter argument to the childish political position
that a transformation/rebuilding of our domestic power generation and transportation
infrastructure would create a net loss of jobs. This argument is false and indefensible.”
But, of course, what he glides over without mentioning is that the only reason these
green jobs exist is mammoth government subsidies. For example, the cost of
the CREZ program in Texas is $6,839,422,915! That’s over 5 years, so that
And that’s just one of a whole set of interlocking subsidies that make those “10,000
green jobs” possible. But jai mitchell states that the opposing
position, which considers ALL of the costs, is “…false and indefensible.” This is a
common leftist tactic; the political left often try to create the impression that anyone
who disagrees with their positions is not only wrong but is a venal scoundrel as well.
What’s truly frightening is how many of them believe their own B.S.