This 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:
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]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/christy-number-state-high-low-temperatures-aug-20121.jpg?quality=83)
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]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/updated-june-at-max-temp111.png?quality=75)
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.)
President’s Climate Action Plan (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To go with the prospect of a 22-23% unemployment rate, spiraling energy costs and possibly being REQUIRED to replace major and costly appliances like refrigerators, stoves, washing machines, dish washers…
_Jim says:
June 25, 2013 at 7:03 am
….And Roger this is what an LNG ‘accident’ and it’s aftermath will look like on the highway….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A good reason to stick with diesel.
However that is not the propaganda now being put out by the natural gas companies say.
Excellent research (as always), Gail Combs.
Your point about the unemployment rate is the crux of the matter v. a v. the effect of Dope’s anti-CO2-CONTROL-the-people-agenda. Declaring by fiat CO2 to be an “actionable” [good point about the legal significance of that term, Ian W] “pollutant” makes possible the utter devastation of the U.S. economy. No economy can long bear the burden of such onerous taxing and choking regulation.
more soylent green! says:
June 25, 2013 at 7:34 am
This plan isn’t going to pass through the legislative process….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Obama already said he is not going to bother with trying to go through Congress. link
Ms. Combs, just to clarify, you are saying above only that natural gas-powered motor vehicles are “unsafe at any speed” [Nader about the Corvair a long time ago, LOL], correct?
I’ve found that natural gas for heating and for cooking and for powering an emergency electrical generator for the home is excellent.
albertalad says:
…. Has this site turned into Greenpeace lately? Might I ask who exactly is buying tar these days?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The same people who are stockpiling feathers.
_Jim says:
June 25, 2013 at 12:39 pm
The higher the volume the sooner new pipelines get built. If it works out, trucking LNG will be a blip in history.
Obviously there are explosions due to propane truck crashes or tank damage, however, I don’t know anyone who was directly impacted by one. One good thing about natural gas is at air temperature it’s buoyant, whereas propane sinks. Cold natural gas also sinks, as your Chinese videos (of one incident) show. BTW, I don’t think the US allows propane trucks in tunnels. A friend with a camper has to research routes carefully because he has a small propane tank on it. Risk vs. benefit. Oh, I said that already. I find the current risk acceptable, you don’t. That’s okay.
Oh get real. I could fill my grill’s propane tank with a little training, and that procedure is more complex than the LNG truck, even with the ground strap. Take hose, attach right adapter, screw onto tank, (after checking and cleaning mating surfaces), start pump, open tank valve, open hose valve. When filled by weight (or at another place where they fill until the overfill float trips), close hose, turn off pump, close tank, open vent, release more gas than that truck connector did, close vent, unscrew from tank, maybe take off adapter. Eye protection and gloves are probably mandatory by rule, but ignored in practice. Liquid propane at atmospheric pressure is -42°C, not good stuff to get on skin or in eyes.
A LNG truck traveling across the country likely won’t have the issues in the video about warm tanks or high gas pressure.
BTW, when I heated my past houses with fuel oil (basically diesel with a different dye) or propane, the truck driver did the transfer, in large part because he was there. Filling heating fuel oil tanks is essentially like filling a gasoline or diesel car, propane much like the 20 pound grill tank. Except you have to drag a heavy hose further.
You’ve beaten the handling issues into the ground. Once upon a time the public didn’t know how to control more than a few horsepower at a time. People figured it out. We still die at that too. Acceptable risk. I encouraged my parents to get seat belts when they were an after market option. More recently a pickup truck tested our air bags. Worked pretty well, I got bruised by both belt and bag.l
Let’s talk about energy density. Mind if I use some sciency units? Of course you do, because I’m using MJ/kg. Megajoules per kilogram. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion, their high-end estimates for popular fuels:
Hydrogen 141.8 (which is why the space shuttle main engines used it)
Methane 55.5 (that’s the main component of natural gas, some 90%)
Ethane 51.9 (most of the other 10%)
Propane 50.4
Gasoline 47.3
Diesel 44.8
Ethanol 28.8 (Wow. Drink it, don’t burn it!)
Methanol 19.9 (Don’t drink it!)
See, I knew you wouldn’t like sciency units. BTW, wait until hydrogen fueling stations come along. Hydrogen is explosive at a very wide range of fuel::air ratios. I’m not so sure about that risk, though the Hindenburg got a bit of a bum rap – it burned, it didn’t explode, and most of the injuries were from people jumping instead of staying on board. Let’s see how things work out with LNG or CNG first before embracing the hydrogen economy.
Why didn’t you read http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/03/cheap-natural-gas-but-wait-theres-more/ ? I gave you the URL. The big shortcoming with diesel and gasoline is that natural gas comes along for the ride. It’s basically a waste product, we might as well use it instead of flaring it off. What do you want people to do with it? I’m an engineer, not a lemming. I don’t like seeing resources wasted. I deal with risk vs benefit. Long distance trucking seems to me like a good place to gain experience with handling LNG.
Doug says:
“Yep, I voted for him. Sent money to his election efforts. That debt did not come from idiotic AWG programs, it came form launching two unnecessary wars while cutting taxes.
I don’t appreciate his scientific illiteracy anymore than you do, but we sure have had worse presidents overall.
================================
I’ll admit Bush was a complete disaster, too, with his prolonged war in Afghanistan (should have gone in, bombed the crap out of Al Queda, killed Osama and left it in shambles; a two-year process) and we shoukd have never invaded Iraq. DHS is awful, the Patriot Act shredded the Constitution, the un-funded Prescription Drug Bill was a budget buster, and the fiscal and monetary policies of Greenspan/Bernanke caused the 2008 sub-prime loan crisis.
Regardless, I think historians will rank BHO as one of the worst presidents in US history for: the fastest increase in spending/deficits in US history, the colossal train wreck of Obamacare, the massive increase in rules/regulation compliance costs, even worse fiscal and monetary policies, massive increase of entitlements, the insane $850 billion “stimulus” program that did nothing, numerous scandals (Fast & Furious-gate, IRS/Tea Party-gate, NSA-gate, Benghazi-gate), and the unfolding of worst economic collapse in human history, which already started in the bond market last week after Bernanke just hinted at tapering the QE $85 billion/month money printing fiasco.
You won’t believe what’s coming: collapsing US$, spiking bond yields, bank collapses, stock market crash, real estate implosion, 10%+ unemployment, bond defaults, 10%+ inflation, etc. it won’t be pretty.
And so it goes….until it doesn’t…..
The Climate Reference Network? Much to NCDC’s shock and dismay, it did what it was claimed it would do.Thereby discrediting all the rest of NCDC’s data and collection and analysis systems.
Paul Matthews says:
June 25, 2013 at 6:09 am
Surely the bit about asthma is ridiculous. Is there any evidence to support this?
Obama says: “Asthma rates have doubled in the past 30 years and our children will suffer more asthma attacks as air pollution gets worse.”
But if an increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration causes asthma – where increased resistance to air flow is the problem – then everyone should already have it! Because the inconvenient truth is that the concentration of CO2 in the lungs’ alveoli and airways is already at a healthy 40,000-56,000 ppm.
Likewise, Obama and his EPA
thugsZealots have not only not staid current on “mainstream” Climate Science’s abject prediction failure rate, including CO2’s record as a climate “pollutant”, they appear to be hard at work to subserve one of Ideological Liberalism’s main Commandments: “Thou shalt remain as far behind the curve as possible, but preferably not even on the graph.”Yet regardless of the fact that Obama makes himself out to be a scientific, mathematical, economic, and etc., illiterate, he also proves that he doesn’t even believe what he has just said: immediately following his climate change speech, he’s apparently setting out to set a “carbon footprint” record for any recent Head of State – at least since Saddam Hussein torched up the Kuwaiti oil fields in Gulf War I – by embarking upon a 60-$100 million “tour” of Africa.
No one else should believe him, either, a result which is rapidly becoming one of his major successes.
Here is what’s happening to 10-yr US bond markets:
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USGG10YR:IND/chart
a 1% percentage point (1.63% to 2.6%) spike in 10-yr bond yields in just under two months. Scary stuff, especially considering America’s $17 trillion national debt, which these bonds are supposed to finance…
When bond yields hit 5.8%, interest payments on our national debt will eventually reach $1 trillion/yr. Total 2012 US tax revenue was around $2.45 trillion/yr, while spending was $3.7 trillion. We could hit 5.8% bond yields over the next 18 months.
Yeah, let’s go ahead and pour more gas on the fire with more expensive energy, more CO2 regulation compliance costs and more wind/solar/bio-fuel subsidies, right when the huge costs of Obamacare start kicking in, in 2014…
That’ll work out great…..
. Ian W says:
June 25, 2013 at 6:55 am
jkanders says:
June 25, 2013 at 5:44 am
I think it is justifiable to call CO2 a pollutant. [SNIP]
You are using the term ‘pollutant’ in its normal English usage sense [SNIP]
Yes, I usually do, and I think it is fair that people who do not use the terms that way specify it.
And I think that it is justifiable to talk about C02 pollution in the same way as we talk about NOX pollution, particulate pollution and sewage pollution.These are all compounds that are harmless in some situations but undesirable in others.
The New South Wales State transit authority stopped buying LPG powered buses in the last contract.The old LPG buses had big banner signs explaining how they were using clean fuel.
The old buses were unreliable lacked power over heated and were often off the road. They have gone back to diesel.And yes there were fires.
If Obama wants to pick winners he could look no further than NSW, Australia.
Making all your trucks gas powered may be a step in the wrong direction.
Obama promotes the biggest source of waste which is the bloated Federal Government. If you want to create energy savings pull the plug on the NSA. Pull the plug on the Department of Energy which doesn’t create any energy. Pull the plug on the Department of Education which doesn’t educate anybody. End the Federal Reserve which creates the funding for oversized houses and cars. The Department of Defense could be chopped in half and the country would be safer. End “free trade” which is actually just the use of virtual slavery and massive coal burning in China. Delete the DEA, FDA, CIA, and all the other big brother innovations. Obama’s masters just want to force more people into poverty so the 1% can pretend nothing is wrong.
Janice Moore says:
June 25, 2013 at 7:34 pm
Ms. Combs, just to clarify, you are saying above only that natural gas-powered motor vehicles are “unsafe at any speed”….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, _Jim is saying that with photos and videos included. I just showed a ‘Commercial’ that says they are ‘Safer’ which, given _Jim’s information and graphic evidence doesn’t jive.
I found it when I went looking for a comparison of flammability for diesel, gasoline and compressed natural gas. I used to perform this test and this test routinely.
I am calling propaganda because it points out a property of ALL combustible liquids and gases and uses that to say it is ‘Safe’
FROM OSHA
From what was said in the above propaganda I cited:
I do not have a CRC handbook at home. However I did find part of the CRC online.
Natural gas is mostly methane CH4 link which has this link- The Combustion of Methane
From CRC: Flammability is 5% to 15% and ignition temperature is 537C for methane. (998.6F)
gasoline is a complicated mixture of hydrocarbons boiling between 120 and 400 degrees F, with chemical formulas between C6H14 and C12H26, but a good “average” compound is C8H18
From CRC:
Octane, C8H18 – Flammability is 1.0% to 6.5% and ignition temperature is 206C (403F) However gasoline (and diesel) being mixtures would have broader range for both.
I said I prefer diesel. Diesel is composed of about 75% saturated hydrocarbons (primarily paraffins including n, iso, and cycloparaffins), and 25% aromatic hydrocarbons (including naphthalenes and alkylbenzenes). The average chemical formula for common diesel fuel is C12H23, ranging from approx. C10H20 to C15H28… Petrol is more volatile than diesel, not only because of the base constituents, but because of the additives that are put into it…. When discussed in terms of motor fuel, diesel is said to be more fuel efficient, giving almost 1.5 times the fuel efficiency of petrol.
Gasoline is more flammable than diesel because of its higher volatility. It is the fumes, (vapor in the air) that makes it so flammable. Diesel will actually solidify in your tank at minus 30 F (-34C) BTDT
For diesel you have to go to link
That is the chemistry aspect.
The propaganda part is all of this is talking about AUTOIGNITION where the chemical spontaneously bursts into flames. This is NOT what happens in an accident. You have static electricity, metal parts scrapping on the ground (sparks), the electrical system of the vehicles and the idiot bystanders smoking cigarettes.
In this case it is not the autoignition temperature but the VOLATILITY that is the key factor.
Methane has a boiling point of −161 °C (−257.8 °F) at a pressure of one atmosphere. So it all become a gas at normal temperature ranges.
Since we just found out my farm is sitting on the Triassic Basin shale gas, I am shooting myself in the foot by posting this. However I put the safety of other people above my monetary gain and always have (Gotten fired for it too.)
Stephen Rasey says: @ur momisugly June 25, 2013 at 7:40 am
“And increasing floods, heat waves, and droughts have put farmers out of business, which is already raising food prices dramatically”
I cannot wait for Gail Comb to unleash a salvo on this target….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ROTFLMAO, I think I will just put up a couple of links and let Doreen speak for me this time.
The long and the short of it is farming is unprofitable if you are not vertically integrated like JB swift. The Big Boys use monopsony (one buyer who sets the price) to drive independent farmers out of business. However this didn’t work as well as was hoped because farmers just got a full time job to support the farm and kept on farming. So a new action plan, regulation requiring reams of paperwork, was put into action via the World Trade Organization (1995). In 2010 during the lameduck session the new regulation called the Food Safety Modernization act was passed.
My comment on who benefits
Analysis of the usual lies to get the pro-big business law passed by creating a food scare.
Analysis of the proposed bill by a lawyer
And a farmer’s reaction to the situation:
So as farmers in the USA wake up to national officialdom brandishing that most vicious of anti-entrepreneurial weapons: ‘sanitary and hygiene regulations’… These are the hidden weapons of mass destruction of farmers and the main tool for achieving the …aim of ridding the countryside of small- and medium-sized family farms and replacing them with monocultural money-making agribusiness. The skyrocketing food costs and possible famine will be blamed on CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!
Hey it worked for the Grauniad Food, famine & climate change: India’s scorched earth: Suicide is the latest epidemic among farming communities as climate change parches the heart of India, destroying agriculture and plunging the poorest families into crippling debt
The other version of the tale is written by Dr. Vandana Shiva
Now it is our turn here in the USA as the Food Safety Act regulations kick in and farmers decide to “Get Out” or are forced out.
(You KNEW I just couldn’t keep my mouth shut didn’t you? ) snicker
If he says it, it’s a lie.
Unbelievable. I wish I knew of some South Pacific island I could run to. This country is rapidly deteriorating into Idiotville.
“lowering their gas and utility bills” ??? That’s a funny way to spell “necessarily skyrocket”.
“fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles to save families money at the pump”?? Sure, I’ll just pack my family in the old 18 wheeler and head for McDonald’s.
The only hope here is that he has been completely incompetent at carrying out anything good or bad and he will be just as incompetent at carrying out this,
jkanders,
Then what do you call what you do: expelling 40,000 PPM of CO2 on an average of three times a minute if you’re healthy (but more if not)?
Notice how “THE PRESIDENT’S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN” contains no references for his opinions.
Notice how “THE PRESIDENT’S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN” contains no references for his opinions.
If you tried to make a skeptical comment on “The Guardian” with no link or reference, the alarmists would trash you.
@Gail Combs June 26 at 4:46 am
(You KNEW I just couldn’t keep my mouth shut didn’t you? ) snicker
I for one eagerly anticipated it and wondered what kept you? You didn’t disappoint.
From 2001 through 2010 (last year CDC data available) US industry SO2, NOx, and PM2.5 emissions DECREASED by 53%, 57%, and 48%, respectively (EPA data) while the asthma incidence rate INCREASED by 15% from 7.3% to 8.4% (CDC data). The SO2 and NOx emissions reductions are primarily attributable to $40+ billion spent by the power industry retrofitting SCR NOx emission control equipment and SO2 scrubbers as a result of the Bush Administration’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) promulgated in March 2005.
Power industry SO2 and NOx have continued to decline with power industry SO2 and NOx in 2012 being 70% and 66%, respectively, below 2001 emission levels.
According to the EPA, in 2004 US coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) were responsible for 4% of mercury deposition in the US. Since then, mercury emissions by EGUs has probably gone done by 30+% as a collateral benefit of retrofitting SCR NOx controls and SO2 scrubbers.
The following site shows the highest mercury deposition rates are generally in the West where there are fiew coal-fired EGUs.
In Australia we know that more green jobs = more public servants.
Incidentally, worldwide asthma incidence (not attacks) is negatively correlated to air pollution levels. So if asthma is increasing in the US it probably means the air is getting cleaner. Asthma was used in the UK as far back the 1990s to get more funding, but unfortunately all the extra monitoring showed was that air quality is improving as motor vehicle regulation bit. Meanwhile something real is going on that we don’t fully understand. Presumably because the funding was diverted elsewhere.
To equate the toxic substances mercury and arsenic with carbon dioxide takes a truly perverse mindset.