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

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

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

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

THE GOOD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BAD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Pie in the sky savings.

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

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

4. Outright lies. (from the fact sheet)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Giveaways.

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

9. Higher prices at the pump.

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

This will of course get passed on to consumers.

THE UGLY:

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

The phrase “carbon pollution” is mentioned 21 times.

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

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

3. Elevating a fake crisis.

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

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

Watts_et_al_2012 Figure20 CONUS Compliant-NonC-NOAA

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary:

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

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

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

Fact Sheet(PDF)

President’s Climate Action Plan (PDF)

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

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

Thanks, Anthony. Nice summary.

Ian W

It is essential to hit the ‘Carbon Pollution’ claim head on as it is the driver for all these insane policies. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is having any effect. Indeed the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is based on carbon dioxide causing temperatures to rise, and the rise increasing evaporation and the increased amount of water vapor driving warming. But relative humidity has NOT increased and there is no tropical tropospheric hotspot so the basis of the hypothesis is falsified.
It is this simple basic argument that needs to be put strongly and simply at every opportunity. Increasing percentages of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases crop growth but apart from that there are no measurable effects. Water cycle has stayed constant and the atmospheric temperatures have remained the same for more than 15 years despite carbon dioxide levels rising,
There is NO justification for the President’s direction to the EPA for damaging regulation.

The States and the People did NOT grant the federal government the power to regulate the climate ( or healthcare, or retirement, … ). More importantly, as bad an idea as Prohibition was, at least the fools of that era realized they lacked Constitutional authority and passed an Amendment ( let’s disregard the overall folly of it for now ).
The current fools residing in the District of Criminals have such utter disdain and contempt for the Constitution and the States and the People that they don’t even feel the need to cover their follies under the fig leaf of an Amendment. This is how far we have fallen in just a couple of generations so just imagine what five or ten more into the future will bring. There will only be a USSA that dwarfs the heyday of Communist China and the Soviet Empire, except it will carry the illusion on Constitutionality. This will be the worst of all possible forms of “government” ever witnessed because structural tyrannies can be easily toppled, but Socialism disguised as (D)emocracy cannot, and will lead to catastrophic civil war. Folks better wake up now because there will come a time when it is too late.
Our Congress should use Barry’s Climate power grab for an article of impeachment, then convict him in the Senate and remove this scrawny little girl from the office he should never have been allowed to enter in the first place. Then all the members of Congress should impeach themselves and shut down the place until the next election. aside from nuking it from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

John V. Wright

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

Bloke down the pub

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

me

A lot better than expected. Hopefully this is cover for getting Keystone in place.

Village Idiot

“9. Many of these things will take years to implement, and by then we might have some sanity in the White House. What can be done by executive order can be undone by executive order.”
So if climate scientists are only broadly right, we’re stuffed.

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

Rhoda R

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

DirkH

“THE UGLY:
1. Multiple citations of the crazy idea that carbon dioxide is “carbon pollution”, when it is essential to almost all life on Earth.
The phrase “carbon pollution” is mentioned 21 times.
2. Equating carbon dioxide to mercury and arsenic, which is just nuts.”
Yeah I lambasted David Appell for that a few dasys back as well. THe Left just loves perverting language.
They own the colleges so they can rewrite history. Expect Arrhenius to become a bigger genius each year; while the average temperature during his day continues to drop.

johnmarshall

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

CodeTech

Village Idiot, as a group, climate scientists are not even remotely broadly right.
In the event that a “projection” actually comes to pass, it is not because they understand enough about climate to make a “projection”, it’s the same reason someone wins the lottery – pure luck.
The problem is, if ignorant politicians continue to make knee-jerk decisions based on faulty science, or fabricated science to buy votes, we’re stuffed.

stan stendera

Barack Obama is a monster.

James Schrumpf

This at a time when US CO2 output has fallen to 1994 levels because of increased use of natural gas. Heck with the failed models, does the President even keep up with how much CO2 the US puts out in the first place?
The first thing to do is call for a petition for him to quit using Air Force One for travel — the carbon footprint on that thing is horrendous. I’m pretty sure the Brits travel on military aircraft — if it’s good enough for the Queen of England, it’s good enough for a community organizer.

Robert of Ottawa

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

EW3

“Developing Actionable Climate Science”
Think about the phrasing.
We need “Actionable Science”.
In other words, any science that does not produce “Actionable Science” will not get funded.
Any chance we can fund “Accurate Science” ???

Tom J

Why am I writing this at 5:30 in the morning CDT? Maybe it’s because my power just came on after almost 11 hours. And that gives me a very bad feeling just before the formal unveiling of ‘The President’s Climate Action Plan.’ Aw, what the heck, I’ve had bad feelings about everything else this guy’s unveiled, openly and transparently, over the last 5 years.
May I humbly recommend that the title of this should be changed from ‘The President’s Climate Action Plan’ to something more accurately descriptive. How about, ‘The President’s Climate Action Plan Scandal’? After all, besides just the EPA, which has its own scandal, the Climate Action Plan – oops, Climate Action Plan Scandal – will probably also involve the IRS, NSA, DOJ, ATF, State Department, Secret Service, Security Council, OSHA, FTC, and others, all of which, well you know…scandal.
There, now I don’t feel so bad about my power having been out for only 11 hours. Wait’ll it’s a scandal.

Luther Wu

Sickening…

It is interesting looking at Greg Carbin’s graph, showing most all time records set in the 90’s.
One wonders why the graph starts in 1950?
Analysis of 1218 USHCN stations, only two set all time records last year, with a further seven ties.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/noaas-all-time-records-claim-is-a-sham/

The village idiot should have stayed in Kenya.

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

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

The comparison with arsenic is curious. I wonder if a local could comment on why this might be chosen. It is not a poison threat that immediately comes to mind. And I am not sure the comparison is gonna work — I mean, we all learn in school the importance of CO2 to photosynthesis…but arsenic has only deadly associations.
Why would mercury and arsenic replace the old couple CFCs and DDT? Could it be that they wish to avoid the lack of consensus there also? Arsenic is also interesting in terms of enviro scares because the wonder of DDT in the 1950s was that as a pesticide it replace a dangerous known poison — arsenic.

u.k.(us)

I see this post has Anthony’s byline, our President (it appears) is going to refute science in his speech.
The unwashed masses are tired of the “unwashedness”, some will show up for the spectacle as if their jobs depend on it, but many (if they know it or not) should be learning a lesson.
The emperor has no clothes.
Never did.
(Here we go).

John from the EU

It is unbelievable how stupid the world has become, really…

GunnyGene

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

rogerknights

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

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

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

Ian H

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

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

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

rogerknights

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

I think the only company making “advanced” biofuels is Solayme (SZYM), which uses genetically modified algae in a vat. (It also makes and sells more practical products like myristic acid, the high-value component of palm oil.) Here’s a positive article on the firm, posted yesterday:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1518442

Mungman

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

Patrick

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

Patrick

“GunnyGene says:
June 25, 2013 at 4:10 am”
Since 1974 (Thanks Muldoon), in New Zealand there is a “duty” on petrol called Road User Charges (RUC). It’s included in the price of gas at the pump, you cannot not pay it. As fuel efficiency has improved in petrol engines since 1974, the duty has increased. Which brings me to diesel vehicles in NZ. You have to record you odometer mileage and then pay a duty based on that. Don’t pay on time, and you are “caught”, you receive a stiff fine, and still have to pay the RUC. Diesel is more fuel efficient. Either way, (Road/vehicle) users pay. Personally, I don’t have a problem with that *IF* the revenue raised goes into road maintenance and building projects. Never happens!
When I arrived in NZ in 1995, the UK’s road fund license that year for private light vehicles alone raised, based on the NZ$/GBP exchange rate then, NZ$75bil. At that time represented ~75% of the GDP of NZ. Only NZ$5bil was spend on roads, road maintenance and projects.
Money for jam!

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

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

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

Zek202

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

Ian W

Ian H says:
June 25, 2013 at 4:17 am
“Developing Actionable Climate Science”
The word “actionable” is most commonly used in a legal setting to denote something which is potentially open to legal action. So is Obama thinking about dragging some climate scientists into court?

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

I suppose it could be worse. One thing that caught my eye – … develop post-2018 fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles to further reduce fuel consumption …. The trucking industry is well aware of how much fuel costs, the truck manufacturers are well aware they could make money selling more efficient vehicles.
He does include an off-hand reference to efforts at developing a LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) fueling option on long-haul trucking routes:

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

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

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

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

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
Anthony has a brief summary of the latest efforts to push fantasy and misinformation. He points out the good, the bad, and the ugly.

cedarhill

The fact is Obama can do just about anything he wishes given the delegation of power Congress has granted the agencies. Almost limitless regarding groups like the EPA, for example. If that’s not enough, then the EO (Executive Order) will do the trick. If you’re not familar with EO’s and how they’re treated as “law”, do some research, you’ll be amazed.
All in all, energy costs are set to go up by around 20-40 percent. Could be even more depending on what regs are issued on fracking.

The Obama climate “plan” is simply an embroidered lie, that’s all you need to say. It is not an entertainment, like the movie “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly”; there is no good in it that can make up for the very, very bad science and politics–the total lack of honest and competent thinking–enshrined in it.
Organizers of one stripe or another–conservative, independent, libertarian, whoever still has a reasoning mind–should have worked to put a crowd of protestors against the follies of Obama in front of mainstream media cameras, as close to him as possible, when he dares to come out and speak on this. The opposition has to be large and obvious, to be widely seen and understood. The system is broken and he is the hatchet man intent upon doing as much damage as he can. (Steven Goddard used a cartoon image of Homer Simpson to represent James Hansen recently, and I have been playfully haranguing him to use that image in all of the pictures he presents on his blog–or failing that, to put an image of Obama holding an axe in all of them. That is the image the whole country needs to see, seriously.)

“rules to cut carbon pollution – just like we have for other toxins like mercury and arsenic –”
TOXINS !? WTF !
All the “carbon pollution ” crap is bad enough but toxin?
Sure, even waters toxic if you drink two gallons every ten minutes or stick you head a bucket, that does not mean we need to start getting rid of the stuff.

Ian W

Patrick says:
June 25, 2013 at 4:39 am
There are examples (A village in Africa) of low lying areas/valleys where people have died due to excess CO2 which, being heavier than air, displaces O2 suffocating all mammals in the affected area. The other two mentioned are toxins on the other hand, plenty of evidence to support the fact they are deadly. Still, these “scientists” and politicians are claiming that it’s just the ~50% airborne fraction of the ~3% human contribution to the ~400ppm/v CO2 concentration is DRIVING climate to change in a BAD way (I am ignoring CH4 at ~1800ppb/v). That’s the hypothesis. So far there is no evidence to support that.

It was Lake Nyos in Cameroon when a large amount of carbon dioxide volcanic was given off in the crater lake.
But using the same logic far more people die from exposure to too much DHMO so the EPA also should take action against it for the same reasons.

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

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

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

beng

***
A worthy goal to be sure, but, knowing that government doesn’t do anything well or efficiently, I seriously doubt we’ll see lower utility bills. I expect the opposite.
***
You can be sure of that. In fact, it’ll be far worse than we expect.

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

Anthony, you are too kind or too diplomatic. In short, the “plan” is more of the same old crap. With a bigger stick, and no carrots.

Bruce Cobb

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

jlurtz

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