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.
george e. smith writes:
“Tesla Motors, the darling of the green energy set, recently announced a profit. The only reason they made a profit, was because tax paying real workers paid a bundle for each of those 416 horsepower race cars, I heard the figure was $7500 for each Model S car sold. And they also made a profit selling ‘carbon credits’ to other companies. Just who the hell is manufacturing ‘carbon credits’, and what do they make them out of? Tesla Motors, certainly doesn’t make any carbon credits to sell to anybody.”
=========================================
Good questions. Maybe jai mitchell can explain why Tesla should receive free taxpayer dollars and carbon credit income, if they are supposedly ‘profitable’? And where did those carbon credits come from, anyway?
Recall that Nash, American Motors, Hudson, Fisher, and a dozen other car makers went out of business because they could not compete profitably. They did not get bailouts, and as a result of their bankruptcies the industry was left in a much stronger position.
But now we have Government Motors, in which Obama apparently has the right to arbitrarily fire half the elected Board of Directors, and the elected CEO of American car companies. He apparently also has the right to push bondholders to the back of the line — upsetting 200 years of corporate law in the process. But I guess that’s what we can expect when a criminal community organizer is made president. Thye laws on the books just don’t apply any more.
Huh. Somehow a line got dropped. I had written that the CREZ program costs
amounted to a cost to the taxpayers of Texas, of $136,788, per job, per year. ANd
that’s just one of the subsidies.
Quit possibly the most important post this year. Obama has vowed to “fight” climate change. There is none. Obviously, social change and control are the real deal.
More from Mark Townsend’s serial occupy a vacuum thought process.
100º – get used to it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/sep/11/ruralaffairs.climatechange
Autumn will set Britain ablaze
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jul/23/weather.theobserver
Gail Combs says June 20, 2013 at 2:25 pm
… GEE, according to Forbes Economically, Could Obama Be America’s Best President…
_________________________
_Jim says: @ur momisugly June 20, 2013 at 3:02 pm
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”….
________________________
On that we agree.
Also many of those corporations are now international and making $$$ because they manufacture in countries with cheap labor, no pollution or other regulations and cheaper energy and tax bills. As the Australian Financial Review article said the cost of employing skilled people (not just wages) is:
Australia – over $600/day
US – $400/day
third world – under $200/day
Multinational Corporations have no loyalty to any one country so they go where they can make the most profit. If you jack the cost of doing business up too high AND have no tariffs to jack up the cost of foreign imports it becomes financially rewarding to replace an older plant in the USA, EU Canada or Australia with one in India, Brazil or China and sell in the first world. This works as long as the first world economies are still limping along but will backfire if India, Brazil and China do not reach the point they are buying their own products before the first world economies finish collapsing. Of course if you are only in it for a fast buck who cares.
I remember reading an article that suggested China insists on technology transfer and when the contract is up will build a competing plant across the street and shut you down. Unfortunately I lost the link.
Anyway since the stock market mostly reflects how well international corporations are doing it does not necessarily reflect how good the economy is in the USA or Australia or Greece or Spain.
They couldnt care less what it does to our economy or standard of living.. Success is only measured by imposing the carbon tax.. The holy grail, the hail marry, the only way progressives believe they can step around the fact that multiculturalism = police state..
This is all about political identity.. Obama himself proclaimed that climate change is the issue that will define this generation, and he means it with all his might..
Otherwise terrorism (truth) will be left as the defining issue this generation.. With its obvious cause and effect negative reflection on liberalism itself..
They are running from a political wildfire that their own making.. They have to control the conversation.. They have to impose the mandate.. They are not so much willfully blind (no warming) as they are happily distracted..
Leaves me wondering if the 1984 police state and the reckless destruction of what few manufacturing jobs left in America (green energy) is more about protecting liberalism than the people..
Liberalism has earned a severe “dressing down” for its failed social experimentation.. They plan on failing even larger to hide this shameful miscalculation..
Make things so bad that their political beliefs have a chance of surviving..
While the science is surly a joke the politics is a absolute fact..
In the long past, leaders of small communities that sought to do unwell for the rest, were forcibly banished. This tradition became unattainable when such leaders, using trust of their community, slowly engendered more power and control, then favoured such on their own kind, enlarging their hold.
The entire system need a Nuremberg overhaul.
“Green” jobs created under the Obama administration: 2,298.
Total cost: $26 billion.
Average cost per job: $11.45 million.
We’re being swindled, big-time.
Oh, and guess what? Over a million jobs have been created by the private sector (free markets) in the (shudder) oil and gas industries these past few years.
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/09/green-energy-triumph-11-million-spent-per-job-created/
Jai,
You remind me of my Alcoholic Ex-wife – the last person to figure out ‘The Obvious’. I would pity you, if you weren’t enabling True Sociopaths.
Well this should have some interesting side effects. By making electricity more difficult to get at a higher price; oil fired furnaces, hot water heaters and other fun carbon making home based things that wont be regulated by the EPA will become more economically viable. This over a period of years would create the unintended consequence of increasing the amount of carbon released in the atmosphere than if we stayed the course with efficient coal powered plants.
David L. says:
June 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm
James Padgett says:
June 20, 2013 at 11:00 am
Obama is looking for his legacy.
That rarely turns out well.
________________________
I thought his legacy was Obamacare.
“Legacy” ? “Legacy”? . . is that a new term for steaming pile of misguided, politically expedient, monumentally ignorant and cynical excrement?
The real cure for climate change is to start burning witches at the stake again. It is witches that are causing all this changie stuff. 🙂
I know the political system needs an Nuremberg overhaul.This will happen when starving, cold people pull the government members from Congress and burn or decapitate them. Do we need to wait until things get that dire? Is killing the current members of government the only choice, though it seems fitting.
jai mitchell says:
June 20, 2013 at 11:18 am
“Green energy doesn’t kill jobs, just ask Texas. Green energy creates jobs, and lots of them. What green energy DOES do is help to prevent the loss of life that is detailed in this report.”
1) Tell us Jai, what part of Green Energy is actually green?
2) I, and I suspect a lot of others here, would be interested to know how green energy will “prevent the loss of life that is detailed in this report.” Would you be so kind as to expand on this? I am particularly interested to know how an intermittent energy source which nominally produces at about 10% rated output will have any effect on “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.”
3) Speaking about “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020 “, I, for one, found it fascinating to consider cities sunk beneath rising seas and Siberian climate in the same sentence. It strikes me as just a little bit odd that rising seas are associated with a Siberian climate. I thought rising seas were associated with a tropical climate weirding the poles. So the question here is did you bump your head?
4) Jai, are you truly concerned about climate change? I mean the catastrophic variety? If so then you really should go read http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/
5) If +45M amsl right at the end-Eemian doesn’t scare you out of your tree, then you will need to climb another 7 meters higher if Astrid Lysa et al’s measurements are correct http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf Given that 45+7=52, and that 52 meters converts to 170.6 feet, the question is will your treehouse up in NorCal be situated 170.6 feet above present mean sea level?
Because, you see, none of this really matters. The low-ball highstand that occurred during the second thermal pulse of the end-Eemian (right at its end) is +6M amsl, or an order of magnitude greater than IPCC’s 2007 AR4 worst case estimate of sea level rise by 2100. My, your, our worst case gold standard of science anthropogenic signal comes in at less than 10% of the lowest estimate of end extreme interglacial climate noise. If we compare the AR4 +0.59M CAGW worst case to Astrid Lysa et al’s +52M amsl estimate we shrink to 1.1% of the end extreme interglacial climate noise.
But it might very well be worse than you thought…….
There is a 12.5% chance (1 in 8) that the Holocene will be like MIS-11 and run tens of thousands of years more. Consequently, there is an 87.5% chance that it won’t. At exactly 11,716 years old, the Holocene is a few centuries over half the present precession cycle length. Seven of the last 8 interglacials have each lasted about half a precession cycle.
Welcome to the real world of climate science. It’s far far worse than you ever imagined.
6) Oh, and let us know about those Texas green energy jobs. I mean I have read all the reports on the green energy revolution in Europe, and the numbers didn’t look all that good. How does Texas do it?
@jai mitchell I recomend you read “economics in one lesson” by Henry Hazlitt. You think taking money from people and using it to do stuff the market didnt already do creates jobs, Why didnt anyone already do those things? What wont get done because money was forced into non profitable efforts?.
SnotRocket has it 100 % right. These trolls are only here to threadjack. The more you feed the trolls, the more they win.
Do. Not. Feed. The. Trolls.
Don’t use complete posts to argue with them. Make a comment or post a link that it is directed twards them, and complete your post on topic.
They will go away eventually.
TB
db stealey
you said,
But now we have Government Motors, in which Obama apparently has the right to arbitrarily fire half the elected Board of Directors, and the elected CEO of American car companies.
———-
According to this article only 20 hours old. . .
Will GM Be “Government Motors” Forever?
Updated Jun 19th 2013 11:25AM
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/19/will-gm-be-government-motors-forever/
Last month, the U.S. Treasury announced the launch of a trading plan to sell the rest of its stake in General Motors by early 2014. This followed a decision by GM last December to buy back 200 million shares from the Treasury Department for $5.5 billion. By the end of this month, the Treasury will own just 14% of GM stock, down from a whopping 61% in 2009.
—————
so yeah, anyways, I don’t see how this is in any way relevant to the conversation. . .(green energy)
X Anomaly says:
June 20, 2013 at 3:09 pm
” I’d give the man a break.”
X,
Our Dear Leader spends an inordinate amount of time playing golf, ‘shooting buckets’, and vacationing in Hawaii. Does he really need more ‘breaks’?
He says he went to bed and slept soundly the night Americans were being murdered by muslim terrorists in Benghaz on 9/11/2012. His Team refused to send available assets (special forces and air support) to assist the 2 marines that gave their lives trying to prevent the murder of our US Ambassador to Lybia. Mind you, Our Dear Leader didn’t refuse to send help, ’cause he was asleep…It must have been one of his as yet nameless minions that refused the 3 desperate calls from the consulate for help. Yeah, that’s the ticket. . The very next morning, his propaganda Team declared it was a ‘spontaneous mob attack’, stimulated by a video that was unkind to the muslim sensibilities, when it was readily apparent to anyone with an IQ above room temperature it was a terrorist attack specifically planned and executed against the US consulate on the anniversary of 9/11! What type of a ‘break’ does he deserve for this?
His administration targets his political opponents and any reporters that don’t support him with IRS audits and ‘special surveillance’. The ‘breaks’ go to his political allies.
His administration has doled out Billion$ of dollars to ‘green energy’ shell companies run by his campaign finance money bundlers. Many of these companies have declared bankruptcy, after the money was laundered and the election achieved. What ‘breaks’ are appropriate, for actions like these?
The minimum ‘break’ he has earned is removal from office, in abject disgrace.
His current pursuit of ‘Climate Change’ regulations and taxes serves 5 purposes.
First and most importantly, it draws attention away the real issues that can bring his corrupt administration tumbling down. Second and nearly as important, it will further weaken the economic and military strengths of the US. Third, it raises taxes, a fave of Barack Hussein Obama.. Fourth, it drives up energy costs to all Americans, something BO promised to do in a rare candidate moment! Fifth, it feeds his left wing socialist/environmental cadres.
That’s a game plan right out of Alynsky’s Rules For Radicals. That’s how Our Dear Leader ‘rolls’.
Earlier on this thread, I mentioned that those who think like Jai always come up with the “we must do something, whether the facts of global warming are bogus or not” mantra.
Well, well. From The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/climate-change
Ian W.
I like your thinking.
_Jim says:
June 20, 2013 at 3:05 pm
Wayne Delbeke says June 20, 2013 at 2:09 pm
Isn’t it wonderful how an unthinking comment from the US Fed …
The words the market heard were: “The party’s over! … time to pay the tab.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree with you, the US debt must be brought under control. But you don’t slam the brakes on a passenger train, you apply them slowly so you don’t have a train wreck. It seems to me these fellows don’t understand that. The market should have heard: “The economy is improving so there will be more jobs.” but instead they heard the rug is being pulled out from under your feet. And all those “computerized” traders had apoplexy. Like GCM’s. Like the stationary low pressure system currently in southern Alberta causing a pile of flooding like in 2005 will be called “unprecedented” and a result of Global Warming. No one thinks for themselves any more. People seem to think 100 or 200 year events are unprecedented. The result of our 80 year life spans and loss of oral history. It’s just weather but watch how the news people play it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/06/20/calgary-city-emergency-plan-ch.html
“You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
Obama’s poll numbers are dropping. Scandals and abuse of power are becoming more transparent. His “some of the time” is expiring. He’s just going back to before to distract and/or re-fool the fooled so those who share in his “dream” can continue the nightmare.
TYPO!
“going back to before” should be “going back to what worked before”
jai mitchell says:
“Last month, the U.S. Treasury announced the launch of a trading plan to sell the rest of its stake in General Motors by early 2014. This followed a decision by GM last December to buy back 200 million shares from the Treasury Department for $5.5 billion. By the end of this month, the Treasury will own just 14% of GM stock” &etc.
======================================
I think no one agrees with you is because you have no reading comprehension. My point was that the government had no authority to arbitrarily remove an elected CEO or elected Board member from office, without them being found guilty of breaking the law. What law did the break, mitchell? When was the trial …oh, that’s right. There was no trial. Obama arbitrarily acted as judge, jury and executioner.
I asked you “why Tesla should receive free taxpayer dollars and carbon credit income, if they are supposedly ‘profitable’? And where did those carbon credits come from, anyway?”
Answer the questions. Where did Tesla’s carbon credits originate? And how can you claim that Tesla is profitable, when they have such lucrative subsidies? Answer the questions — if you can.
No one agrees with what you say here because you are simply wrong. Government-created green jobs are jobs that have been fabricated out of the taxes of workers in the private sector, thus they are negative job creation. If you had read about Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy, you would understand that. But in your ignorance you prefer to quote the opinions of other climate alarmists, who wouldn’t know the scientific method if it bit ’em on the a …nkle.
You understand nothing of science. Everything you say is either logically inconsistent or flat wrong. To top it all off, you are a hypocrite for being a fossil fuel consumer, while taking the position that fossil fuel use is bad. Earth to jai: fossil fuels have saved millions of lives, while your proposed ‘remedies’ would kill people.
You are the one out of step here, jai mitchell, not everyone else. Your wacko views have been repeatedly discredited with scientific facts. Your raving about droughts, etc., merely conflates arbitrary and unrelated occurrences, which have nothing whatever to do with “carbon”.
The fact is that Planet Earth is debunking your nonsense; all of it. The climate is well within its long term parameters. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented occurring. If you believe otherwise, post what you believe are your verifiable facts right here, and we will deconstruct your globaloney nonsense — which is getting tedious, coming from a know-nothing.
William McClenney says:
June 20, 2013 at 5:20 pm
you said,
blah blah blah
————————-
1. The green part of green energy is the part that uses non-polluting, non co2 fuel sources to generate electricity–I am sure that is not your question. You want to say some nunsuch that “green” energy isn’t really green, that there are other pollutants associated with that. Well, of course there is pollution associated with every activity we do. However, the benefits of solar, wind and geothermal (and in some analyses-but not all, nuclear) sources shows significant economic and environmental benefits. ESPECIALLY when one compares that to a 1960s era coal-fired power plant.
2. with an aggressive transformation effort, we can reduce the emissions of CO2 to a point where we may, and I stress, MAY prevent the early loss of life and the collapse of our modern civilization by 2065.
–the May part is because it really depends on how these efforts produce market effects that will allow others (specifically india and china) to engage with better policies regarding CO2 emissions. China already has infinitely more high speed rail than the U.S. and it is rapidly expanding its wind power portfolio. http://berc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2013-gen.jpg
with regard to rising seas, It is highly likely that we are already at a place where future CO2 driven climate change will cause the collapse of the western Antarctic ice shelf and Greenland within the next 250 years– unless we remove the CO2 from the atmosphere.
–contrary to your belief, this is a reasonable course of action over the next 50 years.
3. I answered your question here above, –the reported issue of Siberian climate in U.K. is associated with the slowdown or halting of the AMOC. This has happened before during the younger dryas.
4. The Holocene has already ended, we just don’t know it yet. If humanity survives an additional 1000 years we will look back and say the Holocene ended in 1860.
I read your link, not a whole lot there actually. The Eemian is well understood, the theory that we will stay in a “goldilocks” interglacial through the next Milankovich cycle is not something I have seen before and it’s certainty is highly doubtful, given that they don’t really have a way describe the mechanism of comparison of the Holocene to MIS-11.
what I DO agree with is the conclusion where it says,
—————-
The possibility consequently exists that at perhaps precisely the right moment near the end-Holocene, the latest iteration of the genus Homo unwittingly stumbled on the correct atmospheric GHG recipe to perhaps ease or delay the transition into the next glacial.
We may have actually already “engineered” a “climate security blanket”
——————
and the “possibility” (actually the results of the ENTIRE body of scientific evidence) that, at the near end of the Holocene, the latest iteration of the genus Homo unwittingly produced enough GHG into the atmosphere to raise the global temperature significantly so that within the course of only several hundred years, that the CO2, Methane and the earth’s temperature and sea levels reached that of MIS-31.
5. You’re desire to compare the AR4 2100 sea level rise to prior interglacials shows your habit of minimalizing AGW. The AR4 shows only what the transitory level will be, not the equilibrium temperature, the true equilibrium temperature will not be reached for several hundred years. In addition, once the EES (equilibrium) is met–usually considered about 1.5 times the temperature of the CS (short term) the melting of the glaciers and the Land-based ice sheets will take an additional several hundred years to complete their melt. so, does 150 Meters sound bad? YES, will it look like that in 2100, no way. Will it look worse than 5 meters by 2100. Yes, I can pretty much guarantee it.
6. The societal cost of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere justifies a higher energy portfolio of renewable energy. Without these activities, future generations of humanity are being placed under hazard. The only thing you need to pay attention to right now is this:
http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg
Once the arctic begins to be ice free in June the average arctic temperature in the summer will climb by over 8C and your fantasy of a steady-state thermal system in the 400+ ppmv CO2 world will be proven as a complete delusion.