Obama's big EPA announcement tomorrow translates directly to higher electricity prices

Cumulative change in electricity bills as a result of proposed regulations. Source: US Chamber of commerce

The President thinks his plan will “boost the economy by $43 billion to $74 billion” – he’s living in a fantasy world.

From Bloomberg (apparently one of those “read in” to tomorrow’s announcement): President Barack Obama will propose cutting greenhouse-gas emissions from the nation’s power plants by an average of 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, according to people briefed on the plans.

The proposal, scheduled to be unveiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tomorrow morning, represents one of the boldest steps the U.S. has taken to fight global warming — and a political gamble.

Obama signaled both the importance of the rule to his legacy on environmental protection and the bruising fight ahead by joining a conference call today with congressional Democrats, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and White House counselor John Podesta to rally support.

Obama dismissed complaints that the rule will hurt the economy by driving up electricity prices, and told the Democrats listening: “Please go on offense” to promote the plan’s benefits, said two people who were on the call, including Representative Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat.

Connolly and another person on the call said the president suggested that rather than having an adverse effect on the economy — as critics say — his rule to limit carbon pollution will boost the economy by $43 billion to $74 billion.

More here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-01/obama-said-to-propose-30-cut-of-power-plant-greenhouse-gases.html


See the U.S Chamber of Commerce response here:


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 1, 2014 7:41 pm

Raising my power bill 30%, and my employer 30% will increase housing sales as many will be forced to sell and move into rentals.

June 1, 2014 7:42 pm

The poor will simply get a 30% subsidy with their welfare checks.

Billy Liar
June 1, 2014 7:42 pm

Does anyone know what the ‘plan’s benefits’ are?

June 1, 2014 7:43 pm

What is the carbon footprint of our military?

June 1, 2014 7:46 pm

30 percent of 2005 levels is back to 1950’s levels.

June 1, 2014 7:51 pm

When I hear a government flunky talk about Carbon Polution I remember Ralphie trying to guilt his parents with blindness caused by Soap Poisoning.

R. de Haan
June 1, 2014 7:53 pm
June 1, 2014 7:56 pm

Stupid is as stupid does.

June 1, 2014 7:59 pm

Self Destruction?

June 1, 2014 8:00 pm

if the key to boosting the economy is higher electricity prices, why didn’t he triple them after the GFC?

June 1, 2014 8:00 pm

I simply hate moves like this. No matter what anyone thinks of climate change, an all-out assault on CO2 makes no sense whatsoever. Solar? Wind? Are they crazy? And Obama thinks this move will strengthen the economy? Is he out of his mind? If I agreed with what he is doing, I’d at least be honest about the effects: more expensive electricity, possibly the rationing of electricity, and a drop in living standards. The poor will get eviscerated. There’s no good here, unless you’re delusional, which is what you’d have to be to try and pull this off without first telling us how many nuclear power plants (thorium please) you were going to build to make up for lost coal power.
I despair.

June 1, 2014 8:01 pm

the benefits will reside entirely in the hypothetical. First will be the increased lives and livelihoods due to less “particulates” and other over-hyped “pollutants” (CO, NOx, etc.) and then the supposed “benefits” of the forced economic activity and being at the cutting edge, which will supposedly benefit us when the rest of the world jumps off the same cliff and we can help teach them and supply them with rope to hang themselves.
The whole thing is a farce that only pinheaded bureaucrats and fantasy world policy winks can (and do) love.

June 1, 2014 8:03 pm

I for one like the finesse of your “Government idiocy” tag.

June 1, 2014 8:04 pm

New Zealand goes into election mode thus:
The Green Party wants to introduce a carbon tax to replace the troubled Emissions Trading Scheme. http://www.3news.co.nz/Greens-propose-carbon-tax-tax-cut-package/tabid/1607/articleID/346651/Default.aspx
I guess at least if everyone were poor there would be no gap between the rich and poor!

June 1, 2014 8:07 pm

Elections have consequences, and certain “conservatives” who sat out the last election should be looking in the mirror.

June 1, 2014 8:10 pm

Obama must be smoking something to think this will boost the economy. If he is that would increase CO2 oh dear.

June 1, 2014 8:11 pm

Higher energy prices and increased taxes….especially to heavy industry. It takes a lot of money to run a welfare state. Germany is trying to deal with the same consequences and it seems the people are staying silent in the face of the Green machine. I would bet the same thing won’t happen here. Americans….of every stripe….don’t like taxes.

June 1, 2014 8:17 pm

tz2026 says:
June 1, 2014 at 7:43 pm
What is the carbon footprint of our military?
What’s the carbon footprint of the Executive branch of our government? (All agencies and bureaus EXCEPT the military)

June 1, 2014 8:21 pm

He is desperate to shift attention from the disaster that is his term, and stupid enough to think this will help.

June 1, 2014 8:23 pm

Appreciate the multiplier effect since energy costs are suffered at each and every processing and delivery step of each product we buy.

June 1, 2014 8:26 pm

German citizens do not have the means or the avenues of resistance that the US has….they gave that up with gun control. They can be pushed farther and harder.

June 1, 2014 8:27 pm

Warrick says:
June 1, 2014 at 8:04 pm
New Zealand goes into election mode thus:
The Green Party wants to introduce a carbon tax to replace the troubled Emissions Trading Scheme.

The ETS isn’t “troubled”. It’s doing exactly what its planners wanted it to do. Keep us officially as being concerned about carbon dioxide, but actually not doing anything at all ruinous. Actually, barely doing anything at all.

Geology Joe
June 1, 2014 8:27 pm

Poor people burn dirty fuel. Rich people burn clean fuel. Do the math. I have a coal seam outcropping on my farm. If I have to, I will burn every last stinking BTU I can dig out of the ground before I let my wife and kids freeze.

Richard Sharpe
June 1, 2014 8:29 pm

The President thinks his plan will “boost the economy by $43 billion to $74 billion” – he’s living in a fantasy world.
It’s going to need a lot more than that to offset the fall in GDP that seems to be coming …

June 1, 2014 8:31 pm

Time to move up here to Canada? And not Ontario…

June 1, 2014 8:34 pm

god bless America because they will need all the help they can get

June 1, 2014 8:35 pm

Obama will be keeping his fingers crossed that electricity supplies from conventional sources do not falter before the end of his term. Another cold winter and I’d suggest there’s every likelihood, we’ll see rolling brownouts at the very least. The strategy then will to be blame excessive demand and inability of utilities to implement renewable energy technologies in an appropriate way.
I remember reading somewhere that utilities are mothballing many older power stations and not making them completely obsolete. What cost will there be to bring them back up to serviceable condition? The utilities will be rubbing their hands together if they have to bring them back online.

June 1, 2014 8:36 pm

This President misled America on his so-called health care reform. He was up front with us about wrecking our coal industry and costing us more money. But the rationales for both his health and energy/environment policies have been shown to be deceptive. And the results are far from the beneficial outcomes promised. There seems to be a pattern.

June 1, 2014 8:37 pm

A Norwegian newspaper hints that “think of the children” will be brought out into play as less coal means people with asthma will experience less problems. I thought EPA already had very strict SO2 and NOx emission standards in place?

June 1, 2014 8:38 pm

ffohnad: the Democrats are facing a huge loss at the mid-terms and they know it. They need every spare piece of cash to drum up votes that they can muster. This action appeals to the Greens who might open their wallets and it’s always good for a party to create a crisis from which to lead the people from.

June 1, 2014 8:48 pm

We were warned, and did nothing then.
Now what?

June 1, 2014 8:50 pm

Feb 12, 2014 – Barack Obama: “Under My Plan The Cost Of Electricity Will Necessarily … new clean coal rules will increase energy costs by 70 to 80 percent.” …

June 1, 2014 8:51 pm

ossqss … we must have been thinking the same 😉

Frederick Michael
June 1, 2014 8:54 pm

Having already destroyed any chance the Democrats might have had in the 2014 election, Obama is now turning his attention to 2016.
Obamacoal may be a bigger snafu than Obamacare. Remember, the whole global warming thing is steadily coming undone. Where will it be in a couple of years when the teeth of this “initiative” start to bite? He’s put some important eggs is a very weak basket.

June 1, 2014 9:13 pm

Just gotta wear him out, he’ll tire ?
The Belmont stakes require you to run a mile and a half.
The Triple Crown is in view, it is only 12 furlongs away 🙂

george e. smith
June 1, 2014 9:16 pm

“””””…..The proposal, scheduled to be unveiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tomorrow morning, represents one of the boldest steps the U.S. has taken to fight global warming — and a political gamble……”””””
What political gamble ? The chump is a lame duck. He told us all years ago, his plan was to make electricity prices skyrocket. Why would you think he cares at this point ?
This is just what American citizens want; they voted for him, and this twice. It’s another part of the “we have to pass it to see what’s in it.” modern political philosophy.
But it is par for the course. Just remember that some of the most deliberately destructive people in history, were freely voted into power, by people who believed, they were getting something that belonged to somebody else. No need to mention any names.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 1, 2014 9:20 pm

Pentagon wrestles with false climate predictions as military funds shifted to green agenda
By Rowan Scarborough – The Washington Times Sunday, June 1, 2014
Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios.
Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.
None of that has happened.
Yet the 2003 report, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” is credited with kick-starting the movement that, to this day and perhaps with more vigor than ever, links climate change to national security.
The report also became gospel to climate change doomsayers, who predicted pervasive and more intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts.

It is important to follow the President’s lead, as Climate Change is a National Security Issue. After all, as our first implicitly non-racist Commander in Chief, he would never go against the interests of our country, nor use military force against American citizens, especially on US soil.
He’s as trustworthy as a bristlecone pine hockey stick.

Tom J
June 1, 2014 9:22 pm

Does anyone know that the US President is scheduled to have a fleet of 21 aircraft available solely for his use? If we were to cut that back by slightly more than this jerk wants to cut back our electricity the upcoming president would still have 14 of the damn things. Why, oh why, oh why does a single, overly ambitious, self centered, numbskull possibly need even 14, let alone 21 aircraft?

Leon Brozyna
June 1, 2014 9:33 pm

Let’s see … the full impact doesn’t happen for 16 years … far enough in the future that any negative impact to voters won’t be tied to the Dems or any EPA bureaucrat … rising electric bills? … blame the utility … power blackouts & brownouts? … blame those greedy power companies.

Jimmy Haigh.
June 1, 2014 9:36 pm

He could probably reduce the US “carbon footprint” by slashing the 90% of the government that you don’t need.

June 1, 2014 9:38 pm

I just cannot come into grips with that fact that we are about 12000 years into the holocene, which quite possibly is a short interglacial, and people that should know better are trying to lower the temperature of the planet. The greens, which should be called the browns since that is the colour of the cold earth, are a death cult. Obama, the best president crony capitalism can buy.

June 1, 2014 9:38 pm

Yikes….this is starting to become ugly! As energy prices start sky rocketing…might be the final nail!
And all for what?

Scott S
June 1, 2014 9:40 pm

We went down this route in Australia, against the will of the people. Power prices have gone up a lot (not sure of the percentages but 10% was added on from the get go) and subsidies on PV Solar means that the wealthy are insulated and the poor living in rental accomodation pay the price. In my home state of South Australia we have the highest percentage of wind and solar and the highest power prices in the world . Our industries have become moribund.
We voted out the lying weasels that saddled us with this disaster but due to our 2 tiered parliament the left are still able to block rational changes. I despair.

June 1, 2014 9:40 pm

A modest prediction: The USA will meet the 30% reduction in CO2 emissions and probably easily exceed that figure ahead of schedule. How is that possible? Monetary collapse is unavoidable, has been for years. Soon the US Dollar will no longer be the world’s Reserve Currency. We will be living in “interesting times” like the Chinese proverb or curse. On the positive side, think how great it will be for the environment and the border will be secure. A once great nation brought to it’s knees economically, industrially, morally, militarily and so on. (Just kidding, that could never happen.)

george e. smith
June 1, 2014 9:44 pm

“””””…..davesix says:
June 1, 2014 at 8:07 pm
Elections have consequences, and certain “conservatives” who sat out the last election should be looking in the mirror……”””””
Not so dave.
Elections are won by the people who do vote; not the people who don’t vote.
So you need to put the blame where it belongs, on those people who did vote for this outcome believing the government was going to give them something (other people’s property) for nothing.
Besides there haven’t been any conservative candidates (on either side of the aisle) in the last two Presidential elections. But there were candidates who would have been much more competent than this loser.
You would have a hard time finding a conservative anywhere in silicon valley; they all have their hands out for the free stuff. Solyndra was just one of the more obvious scams; and it was an engineering scam long before it became a political corruption and a financial scam.
Only a total idiot, would make a solar PV cell, in the form of a cylinder that can never be uniformly illuminate over its entire surface under all sun conditions.
So not only do some parts of the cylinder, not get illuminated, and thus generate any power, but they also short circuit the parts of the cell, that are illuminated, and lose power already obtained; through current hogging.
And the Solyndra cell required six times the area of glass that is required for an ordinary flat cell; well actually 2pi times. Their cells were hygroscopic, so they needed two concentric tubes. Making glass is very energy intensive.
You could give Solyndra cells to the customer for free, and they would be total idiots to waste the space on their roof on them. Not to mention the weight of six times the glass. Well it only cost us a half a billion.

Alan Robertson
June 1, 2014 9:55 pm

POTUS has sent more CO2 into the atmosphere from his vacation trips than most people emit in a lifetime.
To me, he most interesting thing about the Bloomberg article (linked above) is the sassy nature of the comments. Not only are there pitifully few comments in support of the President’s proposal, but the crowd is surly and rude and downright disrespectful.
Maybe it’s just that Gina McCarthy reminds them of Nurse Ratched and their angst is misplaced.

June 1, 2014 9:58 pm

george e. smith says:
June 1, 2014 at 9:44 pm
(replying to) davesix
I could see it (Solyndra-type-PV-method) working, but ONLY if you put the cylindrical receiver INSIDE a much larger – much cheaper! – parabolic-shaped focusing tube AROUND the cylinder. The focusing tube is rolled continuously to track the sun, but the center receiver does not roll => no electrical moving connections. The center cylinder receiver has PV arrays around its entire pi*d circumference. The receiver is fixed. The rotating parabolic reflector is mirrored (shiny at least – if not a perfect mirror) so it reflects all sunlight coming in the mouth back towards the side and back of the receiver.
The “mouth” opening of the parabola would receive 4x the sunlight of the receiver fiamter.
Would that work? Would it be more effective than a flat panel being continuously tracked in bearing and azimuth?
Oh, and to cool the array and get hotter water back out (making the array more efficient) pass water pipes through the fixed receiver in the center.

June 1, 2014 10:00 pm

his rule to limit carbon pollution will boost the economy by $43 billion to $74 billion
only problem is, it will be the Chinese economy.
federal law prohibits political campaigns to accept or solicit donations from foreign countries and foreign nationals. But a study by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) finds that Obama’s reelection campaign likely is getting millions of dollars in foreign contributions, funneled through a prominent Democratic donor named Robert Roche.
Roche founded and sits on the board of Acorn International Inc, a media and branding direct sales company based in Shanghai, China. He lives in China, has deep connections to the Chinese Communist Party, and is a frequent visitor to the Obama White House.

Mike H.
June 1, 2014 10:03 pm

the_real_crab says:
June 1, 2014 at 9:38 pm
Yikes….this is starting to become ugly! As energy prices start sky rocketing…might be the final nail!
And all for what?
Because that’s what he says should happen to colonial powers.

June 1, 2014 10:18 pm


Frank from Germany
June 1, 2014 10:24 pm

I guess, our chancellor A. Merkel told Obama how to ruin a country. The only question is, whose economy is first down. What I read here lets me conclude that Obama tells the Americans the same lies that we hear in Germany every day in any newspaper and on any channel. This is all quite disgusting. Oh my goodness!

Mac the Knife
June 1, 2014 10:27 pm

Londo says:
June 1, 2014 at 9:38 pm
……Obama, the best president crony capitalism can buy.
Give credit where credit is due. Obama is a socialist who hates capitalism. As such, your statement should read: ……Obama, the best president crony capitalism socialism can buy.

June 1, 2014 10:38 pm

boost the economy by $43 billion to $74 billion
the same thing was tried in Canada by Trudeau billed as the “National Energy Program”. The value of the Canadian Dollar fell until 74 billion was worth 43 billion. What cost 43 billion previous now cost 74 billion because our money was worthless.
However, Jean Chretien, Minister of Finance told everyone what a good thing this was. Where is previous took only 43 billion to run the economy it now took 74 billion, meaning that 30 million Canadian’s somehow just made $1000 each.
Only never saw my $1000, and when I went of the line to yankee-land to buy stuff with my now worthless canuck funny money, it sure looked like I’d lost $1000 not made a $1000.
Yet the politicians assured me that I’d made $1000 somewhere along the way, only that somehow that $1000 ended up in someone Else’s pocket.

Mac the Knife
June 1, 2014 10:40 pm

You gotta stop drinking the koolaid….
Obama KNOWS this will hurt the economy. That’s his desired outcome.

Paul Westhaver
June 1, 2014 10:41 pm

This raw politics. Bloody raw to the bone. If you were an embattled, unpopular president, whose closest advisors are running for cover, while you were being attacked by everyone for everything you’d attempted, what would you do?
Slow roll and change the subject. enter subject change….
I am not too worried by any more of the fiat appointments and executive orders from BHO. They have no staying power. So this latest foray into “Necessarily skyrocketing” energy prices is a diversion to reign in some of his sycophant media hubs who were beginning to lose faith in him. It really has nothing to do with climate anymore.
He wants no more talk about the IRS, Bengazi, the VA, Obamacare, etc, so he does this so the obedient media will talk about that. He ain’t running for re-election. He doesn’t care about the impact in the house and senate. ” Apres moi, le deluge.”
Now Hillary has a lot to be concerned about.
So the announcement needs to be contextually criticized. The context is an insincere smoke and mirrors BJ to his left wing media so that they will turn down the heat on everything else. Climate is his last concern. Everything he does is motivated by SELF- interest.

Erik Christensen
June 1, 2014 10:45 pm

Shut down NSA, that would save the environment from a lot of CO2 and 1.7 million gallons of water a day

June 1, 2014 10:49 pm

As an Australian and an outsider to American politics I always felt sorry that you were all subjected to Bush, who was not the brightest light on the Christmas tree. But without doubt your current president has got to be biggest moron in the history of your great nation. My sincerest condolences.

Dr Burns
June 1, 2014 11:00 pm

It’s always about the money. You can be sure there’s people behind Obama pushing him and planning to make mega bucks out of this nonsense. No doubt GE has been doing lots of lobbying.

June 1, 2014 11:03 pm

Here’s what might be a motivation for Obama’s otherwise-irrational action: Greenies may have hinted to him, probably via his advisors, that if he didn’t take decisive action on CO2 mitigation, they would run Ralph Nader in 2016 as a Green candidate. He “spoiled” the election for Gore in 2000 even though he knew that would be his candidacy’s only effect, so Democrats know he’d be willing to do it again.
OTOH, this policy will start to really bite in 2016, and could therefor be a winning issue for the GOP. One slogan they could use then, or in 2014, is, “brought to you by the same folks behind the 55 mph speed limit.”

June 1, 2014 11:11 pm

as another Australian-totally agree

June 1, 2014 11:16 pm

Whereas, the legislative branch of our government seems to have been rendered obsolete in this age of rule by Executive Order, what’s to keep the next President (assuming sanity prevails in 2016) from rescinding O’s edicts as his/her first order of business?

June 1, 2014 11:18 pm

The current U.S. President in ’24’ at least knows he has dementia. What is Obama’s excuse?

June 1, 2014 11:23 pm

The GOP’s response to Obama’s claims of economic benefits from his action should tell viewers that:
The economic benefits he promised from his Voltswagen program and other clean energy initiatives have been non-existent. Instead, they’ve led to costly bankruptcies.
His so-called green jobs are mostly not new jobs but are bloated by including lots of peripheral employment that would exist anyway.
Countries in Europe that embarked on these programs many years ago are discovering that they’re an economic disaster—and have had little impacet on global CO2 emissions.

June 1, 2014 11:31 pm

Nice study on which states will be most affected by decarbonization:

Barry Sheridan
June 1, 2014 11:53 pm

If electricity generated from nuclear power were central to this idea then it is achievable. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen given the entrenched opposition of politicians, eco-fanatics, the fossil fuel industry and the inability of Americans in general to get behind the idea. The world needs leadership on this issue, part of which would see money ploughed into programmes to develop both the Small Modular Reactor and bring into being the potential inherent in the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, alas the United States under its current administration are Luddite in sentiment and seem unable to grasp the reality of anything. Sad, genuinely sad to see American ingenuity and get up and go depressed by the failure of its government.

June 1, 2014 11:55 pm

With the U.S. economy actually shrinking at an annualized rate of one per cent, efforts to reduce carbon consumption could not have come a worst time. The contraction of the economy was unexpected and is likely higher than stated because the Bureau of Economic Analysis is using a lower than actual inflation rate (1.28 versus 1.86 per cent). Making energy more expensive is going to drive up inflation and further reduce overall consumption. With disposable income already low (down 2.6 per cent from 2012), the impact on GDP will be severe. Unemployment is sure to rise and the economy could easily tip into recession. Ironically, this will likely be good news for Mexico and Canada where lower energy costs will entice U.S. manufacturers.

June 2, 2014 12:02 am

And Google is playing right into it
https://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&gl=au&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=global+warming&oq=global+warming&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j0j43i53.19333.23328.0.28160.…0.0…1ac.1.McDOYjB8l_I Lets hope they are held to account/blame when the s### hit the fan in 2 years.

June 2, 2014 12:04 am

“his rule to limit carbon pollution will boost the economy by $43 billion to $74 billion.”
And if that coal plant goes dark
Obama’s gonna buy you a new wind park
And if those wind turbines are just bird beaters
Obama’s gonna buy you some Smart meters

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 2, 2014 12:08 am

From Will Nitschke on June 1, 2014 at 10:49 pm:

As an Australian and an outsider to American politics I always felt sorry that you were all subjected to Bush, who was not the brightest light on the Christmas tree. (…)

People underestimate George W because they don’t understand his management style. He was a minor owner and the managing general partner of a baseball team, the Texas Rangers. He knew he didn’t have to throw fast balls or hit home runs, he just needed the people who could on the team. He knew how to delegate, finding those who could do a job better than him, for reasons of time constraints or otherwise.
And he knew how to trust his people, just sit back in the stands, and let the game play out. He wasn’t “taking command of the field” from a top-deck skybox. He earned their loyalty by trusting their judgment.
Too bad a certain academic who believes in centralized authority that has zero real-world managment experience can’t appreciate how that worked as well as it did.

June 2, 2014 12:24 am

Meanwhile the cretinos do not wanna see this
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png I think many people will die in the US from this policy if coming winters are similar or worse than last one if they do not have heating, Beware even middle classes may be affected!

June 2, 2014 12:27 am

Obama is jumping the gun, this regulation is by all reports under challenge. I think the rulemaking by the president, is possibly unconstitutional as there is a requirement to act for the good of the people, and it can be shown that reducing CO2 causes harm, particularly if you are too successful ie push CO2 below 170 PPM even locally. Low CO2 can be proved to be harmful, so the EPA must issue an endangerment ruling on low CO2 and cause increasing production to combat the world attempts to lower it. The one sided rule is unconstitutional. The endagerment ruling is fatally flawed because it doesn’t recognise low CO2 as a threat as it should. If CO2 had to be maintained in a band, as the result of a proper endagerment finding, then the EPA would need to define what that optimal band is, and they can’t. I think the EPA ruling is challengable in court on the basis that it doesn’t go far enough.
It’s a pity the Koch’s are too busy to mount a really serious constitutional challenge.
I might point out that the government taking measures to harm its own citizens by reducing food supply is posibly the type of thing that the right to rise up against ones own government was put into the US constitution for. Frankly the states should consider hauling washington into line, for example by taking the power from the president, by overriding the EPA in every state.
Finally, clearly this is an abuse of privilege by the prez. I don’t understand why the house doesn’t give him a directive on the intention of the act for motor vehicles in that it was never intended to be applied to fixed plant, and that the levels legislated are not for the president to screw about with! Frankly if I was in the reps, I’d be furious about this abuse of power, the house doesn’t make legislation for the president to ignore! . I think it should be in the houses power to direct the president to implement their legislation to the letter. As a political play I’d also be raising legislation to shut down or defund the EPA or maybe merge it with the department of energy (or whatever its called in the US).

Joe in Biloxi
June 2, 2014 12:29 am

None of this is about the climate or cleaning up the air. The insane spending, the continual rise in the national debt, the dismantling of the US manufacturing base: It’s another phase of the planned complete collapse of our economy. What has been allowed to occur is gut wrenching.

June 2, 2014 12:37 am

“As president and as a parent, I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that’s beyond fixing.”
and therefor he can again and again sidestep Congress. Sidestepping Congress is sidestepping We The People. I don’t know how you call that but I think you have a puppet dictator in the WH.

June 2, 2014 1:01 am

note the sting in the tale!
2 June: Guardian: Rowena Mason: Queen’s speech: infrastructure bill to let developers off zero-carbon pledge
Bill would exempt all small housing developments from new green standards and allow builders to pay their way out of full obligations
The coalition has effectively abandoned a pledge to make all new homes “zero-carbon” by 2016, as new legislation in the Queen’s speech would not apply to housing built in small developments and companies would be allowed to buy exemptions from new green standards.
Ministers have repeatedly watered down the goal of making sure all new housing does not create any carbon emissions and the new infrastructure bill would hand another gift to developers in an effort to encourage the construction of more homes…
Where the developer chooses not to go “zero-carbon”, they can build a home with emissions 44% lower than 2006 levels and make up for this by contributing to alternative green schemes at a rate of between £38 and £90 per tonne of carbon to be saved…
Liberal Democrat sources said the party was pushing for developers to have to pay at the highest end of this scale and claimed that the bill would not have happened at all without their influence…

June 2, 2014 1:22 am

This has lost the democrats the next election.

June 2, 2014 1:27 am

meanwhile, also in the UK eurosceptic/climate sceptics voters are worrying PM David Cameron –
2 June: Daily Mail: Jason Groves: David Cameron warns Britain will quit the EU if federalist gets the top(President of the European Commission) job
PM has voiced opposition publicly to appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker
But he reportedly told Angela Merkel in private it could force Britain out
David Cameron was accused of blackmail last night after warning Britain could quit the EU if an arch-federalist is appointed to head the European
The Prime Minister voiced his opposition last week to the prospect of Jean-Claude Juncker being appointed to the role, warning it would enrage Eurosceptic voters across Europe.
Yesterday it emerged that he had gone further in private, reportedly telling German Chancellor Angela Merkel it could lead to Britain’s departure from the EU.
Mr Juncker, a former prime minister of Luxembourg, is a veteran enthusiast for the creation of a ‘United States of Europe’…
The respected German magazine Der Spiegel said that in private talks with Mrs Merkel, the Prime Minister branded Mr Juncker a ‘face from the 1980s’ who ‘cannot solve the problems of the next five years’.
He is said to have warned that the selection of Mr Juncker ‘would destabilise his government to such an extent that the referendum would have to be brought forward and will be likely to lead to the British voting no to EU membership’…
30 May: New Statesman: Bob Ward: It’s time to challenge Ukip over its climate change denial
The party should face a far more rigorous examination of its unscientific beliefs.
While the party capitalised on concerns about immigration and the EU in order to gain MEPs and councillors in many parts of the country, its manifestos also outlined energy policies that reflect an outright denial of man-made climate change.
The Ukip European manifesto attacked EU targets for renewables and efforts to close the most polluting coal-fired power plants, on the grounds that they increase the “risk of blackouts”, but also promised to scrap the UK’s targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce fuel duty on petrol. The party’s manifesto for the English local elections offered fewer pledges on energy, but vowed to “end wasteful EU and UK subsidies to ‘renewable energy scams,’ such as wind turbines and solar farms.”…
Apart from its rejection of Europe-wide policies on principle, the other common theme running throughout the pamphlet is an avowed denial of the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. It claims that the rise in global average temperature so far is due to “natural” causes, and refuses to accept that carbon dioxide has anything but a beneficial effect because it is “essential to plant growth and life on earth”.
It is not surprising, then, that Ukip wants to repeal the 2008 Climate Change Act and to abandon its legally-binding targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. The architect of Ukip’s energy policy is Roger Helmer, who was re-elected this weekend as an MEP for the East Midlands. Helmer is also the party’s candidate for the Newark by-election next week, and has already publicly reiterated his hatred of wind turbines as a key part of his campaign…
Helmer is not the only Ukip MEP who actively promotes climate change denial. He is joined by Paul Nuttall, the party’s deputy leader, who represents North-West England in the European Parliament where he has been a member of Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. Last September, Nuttall made a speech against biofuels and described “so-called global warming due to man-made carbon emissions” as “increasingly discredited as a climate theory”. He cited the recent slowdown in the rate of rise in global average surface temperature as justification, along with a notorious article in the Mail on Sunday, which wrongly suggested that Arctic sea ice extent increased by 60 per cent between 2012 and 2013…
However, with Ukip now setting its sights on seats at Westminster, and Nigel Farage speculating openly about holding the balance of power in a hung parliament, its candidates should face a far more rigorous examination of their unscientific beliefs and the lack of robust analysis behind their energy policy.

June 2, 2014 1:31 am

Obama dismissed complaints that the rule will hurt the economy by driving up electricity prices, and told the Democrats listening: “Please go on offense” to promote the plan’s benefits, said two people who were on the call,…..

Obama is just trying to level the playing field with Europe. Just look at Germany. We can’t have lower US power prices (gas fracking). / SARC

The Economist – Jan 18th 2014
Germany’s energy transition | Sunny, windy, costly and dirty
Germany’s new “super minister” for energy and the economy has his work cut out
Daily Telegraph – 19 Sep 2013
Germany industry in revolt as green dream causes cost spiral
Germany’s top economic adviser has called for a radical rethink of the country’s energy policies, warning that the green dream is going badly wrong as costs spiral out of control.
The concerns were echoed by Germany’s powerful industry federation, the BDI, which said it can longer remain silent as green romanticism plays havoc with German power supply. ……
De Spiegel – 4 September, 2013
Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good
Germany’s agressive and reckless expansion of wind and solar power has come with a hefty pricetag for consumers, and the costs often fall disproportionately on the poor. Government advisors are calling for a completely new start.

June 2, 2014 1:49 am

High RE Costs Damage German Economy: Germany’s exports would have been 15 b euro higher in 2013, if its industry had not paid a premium for electricity compared with international competitors, according to an analysis published on Thursday. Germany’s manufacturing suffered 52 b euro in net export losses for the six-year period from 2008 to 2013, per the Financial Times of 27 February, 2014.

Lynn Clark
June 2, 2014 1:49 am

From Will Nitschke on June 1, 2014 at 10:49 pm:
As an Australian and an outsider to American politics I always felt sorry that you were all subjected to Bush, who was not the brightest light on the Christmas tree. (…)
Bill Whittle wrote on November 6, 2006 about people who say dumb things like that:
Scroll down to the essay “Seeing the Unseen part 1”, and then down to the section titled “War of the Bumper Stickers” and start reading about why GW Bush wasn’t quite as dumb as many people supposed. Heck, read the entire essay, it’s worth the time.
BTW, I agree totally with Will’s assessment of the current president.

June 2, 2014 2:09 am

george e. smith says:
June 1, 2014 at 9:44 pm

It is not just Solyndra. Elon Musk is in deep with batteries.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 2, 2014 2:21 am

phlogiston said June 2, 2014 at 1:22 am:

This has lost the democrats the next election.

Nah. That’s why they’re propping up Hillary. Just as the nation elected the current Occupant in Chief to prove it wasn’t racist, twice, we’ll be goaded to vote in Hillary to prove we’re not a nation of misogynist oppressive woman-beaters. That is, as long as your personal religion isn’t often represented by a crescent and requires ritual prayer five times daily, in which case it’s your religion, your choice, we have neither legal nor moral standing to object.
Hillary should be good for two terms, once Google finishes building that portable AI linked to their database and can join it with the animatronics for the inevitable replacement. Are you ready for the Stepford President?
The Democrats know the O ain’t popular, but they also think voters still blame Bush. So why not reach further back and vote in the echo of the times of a good economy, no wars, loose sex in the office with interns and cigars, and the lying to and deceiving of Congress being lighthearted and comical?
After that will come the first Hispanic President, even if their parents come from Brazil and consider themselves Portuguese. They will be voted in by those currently undocumented Democrats pouring over our southern border in anticipation of the coming amnesty. There will be a long string of Firsts. Of course they’ll soon pull out the First (openly) Gay President, which will be a good thing, as then with an official example they’ll stop the scurrilous whispers against James Buchanan, our first (and only) bachelor President and our first (and only) President from Pennsylvania, my home state.

June 2, 2014 2:27 am

FTA- Even if these politicians were blithering idiots, wouldn’t about half of their decisions be right, just from the laws of probability, or rather “dumb-luck”? The fact that most of the decisions made are destructive precludes the stupidity hypothesis by definition. The only logical explanation therefore is that these destructive decisions are willful; they are on purpose, they are by design.

June 2, 2014 2:37 am

Ryan Scott Welch says:
June 2, 2014 at 2:27 am

It is unwise to attribute to malice alone that which can be attributed to malice and stupidity.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 2, 2014 2:48 am

@ M Simon on June 2, 2014 at 2:37 am:
It is unwise to attribute to malice and stupidity that which can attributed to craven selfishness alone.
– kadaka

June 2, 2014 3:10 am

While we’re making up numbers about the “benefits,” are the School of Government types also going to at least attempt to make up a number how much temperature is to be reduced, by 2100?
There’s a benefit to this, other then some narcissist’s legacy, right?

June 2, 2014 3:31 am

(2 pages) 1 June: Forbes: Ken Silverstein: Industry’s Choice: Help Shape Or Be Shaped By Obama’s Carbon Plan
The president’s new method to be created by executive order is reported to give states the latitude that they will need to reduce their emissions — anything from burning cleaner fuels to installing modern technologies to trading credits. The northeastern United States will agree, having long complained that dirty air from southeastern and midwestern states are drifting its way.
But the coal-producing states will not concur, arguing that those kinds of policies ought to be left to Congress. Opponents, though, must now choose between all-out war or negotiations, which leave open the possibility of compromise…
A joint report issued by the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute says that pricing carbon is the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide releases that are tied to global warming. A $16 tax per ton would raise $1.1 trillion in the first 10 years…
Conservative legends such as George Shultz, former U.S. Secretary of State under President Reagan, support a carbon tax. His argument is that the producers don’t bear the environmental price; rather, it is the broader society. And a carbon tax would even the playing field.
Shultz adds that that British Columbia has such a carbon tax. In that case, the government there gradually increased the tax and then redistributed it to individuals, making it popular. He adds that the Republicans have historically been known as the party that issued policies to protect the environment, noting that it was under President Nixon that the 1970 Clean Air Act passed…
The utilities supporting the pact as a compliance framework are Calpine Corp., Consolidated Edison, Exelon Corp and National Grid…

June 2, 2014 3:32 am

The Left is skilled at using one true fact to proclaim a benefit. If one builds 15,000 windmills, someone will pay about 47 billion for them exclusive of transmission facilities. Toss in the fully running power plants needed to avoid power outages during calm periods and it will certainly boost the pockets of all except the consumer. They’ll likely include the subsidies as a “boost”.
I just completed a 7,000 mile loop around the western states and, of all the windmills perched on all those hills and ridges, only, at best, perhaps 10% were even turning. Those that were turning were turning were so slow they barely could overcome the friction of their shafts. Oh, and they’re simple hideous. Compared to the fracking well heads, no contest.
But, always keep in mind, its a political compaign. Don’t spend lots of time arguing their “fact”. Better to say, the “net impact” will be a reduction of GDP by 10%, reduction in jobs by another 6%, household budgets buying power by 35% and the reduction of the “engine” of America – the middle class, by another 15% as they slide into poverty. All to enrich the Left’s donor base.
If one questions these numbers, let them prove their numbers first, then I’ll prove mine.
If a political party wishes to spend billions on energy, then spend it on nuclear powered hydrocarbon manufacturing facilities. Not only is the technology proven but it will recycle all that carbon the Greens and the Left scream about.

June 2, 2014 3:40 am

elmer says:
June 1, 2014 at 7:46 pm
30 percent of 2005 levels is back to 1950′s levels.
They won’t stop there. They won’t be happy until we’re all living in thatch-and-mud huts cooking our gathered roots and nuts over dung fires while flies buzz around the faces of our bloated-belly babies, while they, of course, luxuriate in their Washington enclaves.
I don’t really care for pop culture, but the Hunger Games is prescient.

June 2, 2014 3:59 am

“The President thinks his plan will “boost the economy by $43 billion to $74 billion” – he’s living in a fantasy world.”
My American friends – I am deeply sorry for your misfortune.
No good can come when idiot politicians fool with energy policy.
Like atmospheric CO2, cheap abundant energy is essential for life.

Iggy Slanter
June 2, 2014 4:04 am

After suffering a long decline by a thousand cuts, this is a stake through America’s throat

Colorado Wellington
June 2, 2014 4:24 am

… his rule to limit carbon pollution will boost the economy by $43 billion to $74 billion.

This is wrong, Mr. President! Why so timid? I propose to cut power plant CO2 emissions by 60% to reap really bullish benefits to US economy, let’s say $500 billion.
Now, what was I saying? We must cut it 90%. That will give jack up electricity prices higher than anywhere in the world and get us $500 trillion boost.
Our children demand it.
They did the analysis.

June 2, 2014 4:36 am

Let the record show that this move by the president is purely a political move and is not required because of the environment. It will do more harm than any good that they propose and will force money to be spent that is not necessary. We have seen the energy mess that was created in Europe by similar moves there.
ANNUAL US temperatures have been declining at (-0.36 F/DECADE) since 1998.
Winter temperatures in United States have been declining now for 17 years at about 1.78F/ decade according to NCDC/NOAA, CLIMATE AT A GLANCE data. In United States, 8 out 12 months of the year are cooling.. One month is flat. Only March, June and July are still warming
Not only have winters been getting cooler since 1998 in Contiguous US [48 states] and Canada, but winters have been getting colder for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole and for the Globe as a whole. The winter temperatures in United States were colder in every region except the West and the long term trend since 1998 is that winters are getting colder. Overall, for United States the past winter was the 34th coldest since 1895. North America is experiencing a cold cycle currently like they had 1895-1920 and again 1955-1979 and hence I see this cooler pattern to continue for several decades.. These events have nothing to do with global warming or man’s influence.
During the past winter the North American power grid was on the verge of collapse. By forcing more power plants to close, there is a high probability, that nationwide brown outs will be the result in the midst of another cold or warm spell.. This Administration already caused great hardship for the public by only predicting global warming and a warm winter . This resulted in low natural gas and propane inventories during this past winter. Now they are also messing with the electricity supply.

Bill Illis
June 2, 2014 4:41 am

It costs money to reduce emissions. It does not boost the economy. It is a dead-weight inefficiency loss to the economy.
Last year, the world spent $358 billion on green energy and climate change. What did that do to emissions? Nothing. Emissions have been increasing at the same slightly exponential rate it has always increased at.
This is not going to grow the economy. It is the opposite. A dead-weight inefficiency economic loss. Just like most of Europe which went down this path, unemployment goes up, budget deficits expand, and emissions go up anyway.
A good strategy is to copy what others are doing that is successful – copy what is working.
It is insane to copy what isn’t working. It’s only been tried 50 times before and failed miserably every time. Why would any government try to sink their economy?

June 2, 2014 4:54 am

In the US, our system of checks & balances has been subverted & Congress has been made irrelevant — King O’bummer has thus decreed. Long live the king.

June 2, 2014 5:11 am

Time for the power producers to just say.. “sorry, we can’t afford to do this.”

June 2, 2014 5:13 am

phlogiston said June 2, 2014 at 1:22 am:
This has lost the democrats the next election.
Oh, you still think there will be a next election… how quaint !!

June 2, 2014 5:25 am

President Barack Obama will propose cutting greenhouse-gas emissions from the nation’s power plants by an average of 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030
The rest of the world is building coal plants faster than he can shut ours down……..

Alan Robertson
June 2, 2014 6:05 am

Bill Illis says:
June 2, 2014 at 4:41 am
Why would any government try to sink their economy?
The President brought with him into office, a whole cadre of Leftist idealogues, fervent adherents to the teachings of Marx, Alinsky and Ehrlich, believers one and all, that the end justifies the means. Workers of the world, unite.

June 2, 2014 6:14 am

Griss, it’s not always that I agree with you but on this I absolutely do. Power producers should tell Obama, it’s too expensive to retrofit, and shut down every coal plant in America until its repealed. Of course Obama will be overjoyed that no more evil carbon dioxide will be released and 1/10th of his countries population can freeze to death if next years winter is anything like this years. Frankly I said that for Oz too that every generating plant that is running at a loss ex of subsidies should be immediately shut down when the tax started back in 2011 but they were too gutless.

June 2, 2014 6:16 am

Shultz adds that that British Columbia has such a carbon tax. In that case, the government there gradually increased the tax and then redistributed it to individuals, making it popular.
This is far from accurate. BC has a carbon tax that put into place by Premier Gordon Campbell. Gordo as he was called was a great friend of Arnie in California. Whatever California proposed, Gordo enacted.
Gordo was forced to resign because he lied to the electorate over another tax, the GST, which the electorate rolled back via petition, in spite of millions in government advertising.
The Carbon Tax was originally enacted as cap and trade. Millions were taken out of the public sector as schools and hospitals paid into the program to be “carbon neutral”. These millions were then diverted via Pacific Carbon Trust, largely to build two private industry programs, that would have gone ahead regardless of the subsidy.
This corruption was documented by BC’s Auditor General in a scathing report on the carbon tax.. An advance copy of this report was somehow “leaked” to a number of insiders in the Carbon Trading Scam, who tried to discredit the Auditor General publicly even before the report was released.
In the end the Carbon Tax was quietly converted to general revenues and it is now what it really is. Just another tax on British Colombians. Enacted under the guise of “saving the planet” it simply raises costs. We still need to drive our cars to work and heat our houses 9 months of the year.

June 2, 2014 6:21 am

There’s a much larger point which may have been missed here. Look carefully at the Chamber of Commerce bar chart. The worst pricing effects happen in those areas which don’t vote Democrat. It is simply impossible to separate climate change policy from political tactics. Over time, the effect of the pricing will be to reduce the electricity cost advantage enjoyed by the South and Ercot. Which will in turn move some industrial and commercial activity back to the northeast and California.
For the past 20-30 years, there’s been a shift in economic activity in the US, out of the rust belt and California and into the South and into Texas. The pricing policy being put forward here has the net effect of attempting to reverse some of that trend.
This is at least in part about rewarding supporters and punishing opposition. This isn’t about de-industrializing the US; it’s about de-industrializing certain parts of the US.

June 2, 2014 6:29 am

The policy will clearly benefit –the Chinese. We will stop competing as strongly for coal, so their supply picture will improve to that extent. And they will continue to build low-cost coal-powered electric generating capacity, with which to power the factories where they make photovoltaic cells and windmills, which we will buy using money they lend us.

June 2, 2014 6:34 am

In line with the Carbon Tax, BC will soon be enacting a Poverty Tax. This tax will provide incentive for people to stop being poor, by taxing the poor harder than the rich. Initially set at $15 per thousand the poor are not making, the tax will gradually rise to $120 per thousand, encouraging the truly poor to become stinking rich.

June 2, 2014 6:47 am

Good luck to all the good folk in the USA.
You’re sure gonna need it.

June 2, 2014 7:06 am

Obama still believes that his “stimulus” package was a rousing success.

June 2, 2014 7:27 am

“What is the carbon footprint of our military?”
There will be no more need for guns. Obama’s name has become a killing word.

Steve Keohane
June 2, 2014 7:36 am

Rune says:June 1, 2014 at 8:37 pm
A Norwegian newspaper hints that “think of the children” will be brought out into play as less coal means people with asthma will experience less problems. I thought EPA already had very strict SO2 and NOx emission standards in place?

When I heard the news report BOs speech this am, they stated 4000 deaths annually would be prevented, but then went on that the emission increases from India and China would more than offset any reductions made by the US. Pure stupidity.

June 2, 2014 7:41 am

everyone does realize he has no intention of actually implementing this right ? the next President can easily reverse this Jan 2017. None of this will have actually taken effect by then … this is just a fundraising effort for 2014 and 2016 from the Greens …

Alan Robertson
June 2, 2014 8:02 am

Erik Christensen says:
June 1, 2014 at 10:45 pm
Shut down NSA, that would save the environment from a lot of CO2 and 1.7 million gallons of water a day
But the government needs the NSA now, more than ever. They have to keep track of all the disgruntled military veterans, who have now been classified by Homeland Security as potential domestic terrorists.

June 2, 2014 8:04 am

two more cold winters like the last one and the Dems will be finished in 2016. their carbon nonsense will be discredited and the people will be screaming for a change

Jim G
June 2, 2014 8:23 am

Bill Illis says:
June 2, 2014 at 4:41 am
“It is insane to copy what isn’t working. It’s only been tried 50 times before and failed miserably every time. Why would any government try to sink their economy?”
Obama is working for George Soros who has made billions sinking economies. Plus, old BHO has a chip the size of an aircraft carrier on his shoulder and hates the good old US of A as he has never felt that he has been accepted as a legitimate part of our country or our culture.

June 2, 2014 8:32 am

Maybe he is losing his mind. So during West Point speech he talks warning the possibility of war with ‘nuclear’ armed China and Russia related to South China Sea and Ukraine and then after that he hopes this convinces them to cut climate change emissions. There is no way to defend this crazy puppet anymore.
For now, this is only a proposal. The EPA will spend the next year gathering comments from electric utilities, environmentalists, and anyone who cares to weigh in. It will then issue a final regulation that takes effect in 2015. States will then have until 2016 to draw up plans to implement the rule.
How much will the power plant rules cut emissions?
As much as 17 percent between now and 2030.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the EPA is looking to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from the power sector up to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
But the baseline matters here. Emissions from power plants have already fallen roughly 15 percent between 2005 and 2012 — in part because cheap natural gas has edged out dirtier coal power in the past decade.
So this rule would effectively require another 17 percent cut in emissions from 2012 levels between now and 2030.
That’s considerably less than environmentalists wanted. The Natural Resources Defense Council outlined an approach to power-plant regulation that would cut emissions up to 31 percent below 2012 levels by 2020.
Congress has the ability to repeal the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Most Republicans would like to do so, but so far they’ve only attracted a few Democratic votes. You’d need 67 votes in the Senate — every Republican plus a hefty chunk of Democrats — to override an Obama veto and nix this program.
That seems implausible, although many Democrats in conservative red states are going to face heavy political pressure over these rules.
Alternatively, the regulations could get knocked down in court. Industry groups and conservative states are sure to challenge the power-plant rule as soon as humanly possible. Environmentalists, for their part, argue that an ambitious program like the NRDC’s is legally sound. Other legal experts think it’s a closer call. But it would all come down to whatever the DC Circuit Court or the Supreme Court decided.
If the EPA’s power-plant rule did get struck down in court, the agency would have to start all over again — and probably wouldn’t get to crafting a new rule until Obama was out of office.

June 2, 2014 8:37 am

Obama has every intention of shifting his power over to the UN after leaving office and continuing Agenda 21. He is looking for WORLD CONTROL.
We need blackouts NOW to wake this stupid country up.
IMPEACHMENT for failing to comply with his sworn oath to support and defend the US Constitution?

June 2, 2014 8:42 am

And one man – Harry Reid, Democrat and Senate Majority Leader, can stop Congress cold by refusing to bring any proposed legislation to a vote.

June 2, 2014 8:43 am

What’s worse, there no longer is reserve grains. Once upon a time, the US has a two year supply of grain. It is now essentially zero. If the power goes out, it gets cold, not enough diesel to run tractors, no food. Nada. It’s worse than we thought.

Doug Proctor
June 2, 2014 9:00 am

I was trying to figure out how increasing regulatory requirements overall, and shutting down coal plants and mines prematurely increases the economy. I struck me: through debt!
The new rules and need for new power plants will cause upfront capital costs that cannot be financed through cashflow. Companies will have to increase their borrowing. The borrowed money, however, shows up in GDP activity.
So making Corporate America more debt-ridden is how Obama increases the economy through imposing additional costs. It is a socialist concept of an economy totally self-involved with its own activities: as long as everyone accepts the scrip, the economy functions as money, i.e. activity, goes around in a big circle. Trouble is, America is not a closed economy, and interest payments are always greater than inflation, so more and more of one’s activities go to pay for yesterday’s activities.
What a lost cause.

June 2, 2014 10:36 am

Does MISO stand for Minnesota Iowa and South Okota?

Tom O
June 2, 2014 11:31 am

Americans don’t like taxes? Is that what I read? Please remembe rthat undereducated Americans BELIEVE what the press tells them. Did you see the poll on Obamacare? 61% of the population, we are told, like Obamacare. Where did that 61% come from? From 18% that thought it was okay and 43% that said it was okay as long as congress made changes in it. To me, that said 82% of the people think Obamacare should be repealed or repaired.
Do you think that the Americans that swallowed that poll. hook line and sinker, and I am sure many did, will realize ANYTHING that might be wrong with making the air safer and cleaner for “our children?” If you do, YOU have a rude awakening coming, and that is why the government is preparing for the revolution that they appear to be trying to start. The problem with that is that those that BELIEVE the media will stay home while the “patriots” fighting for everyone’s liberty are wiped out.
A dictatorship only works with undereducated citizens. the forefathers knew that as soon as the citizens of the nation ceased being educated, the government would be allowed to do whatever it wanted. The sheeple won’t rise up against the nanny state, and those that are educated enough and will rise up will be slaughtered by the “boys in body armor and armored vehicles.”
This won’t be a “revolution” where the government and the revolutionaries are equipted equally, as in the Revolutionary war, this will be a slaughterhouse operation of the type from the world of “John Connor” in the Terminator movies or worse. You are probably seeing what it will be like by watching the Ukraine, where ordinary people and ordinary arms and munitions are fighting against a military that is armed to the teeth with modern weapons. It probably is an excellent representation of what the odds will be in the second revolutionary war in the US if they pull the trigger, so to speak, unless the military or federal workers in their armor decide that they are with the people instead of with the government. And this EPA ruling and the subsequent rise in the cost of living just may be the trigger.
One last thing, those that are in housing that are way over their head will indeed end up renting housing and possibly can afford to. Those that are in housing that they actually could afford still might lose their homes, but if they couldn’t afford the house payments, they probably can’t afford rent either. There is no shortage of rentals, but I notice that there IS a shortage of rentals that are priced at a level that can reasonably be afforded.

June 2, 2014 11:39 am

So do I understand correctly that Obama just signed us up for something WORSE than the Kyoto treaty?

June 2, 2014 11:39 am

(unilaterally, and which the Senate said NO to.)

June 2, 2014 11:42 am

Just got this email from the White house:
here is the link to the graphic that was imbedded:
“Power plants currently churn out about 40 percent of the carbon pollution in the air we breathe, and contribute to hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks and thousands of heart attacks.
And even though we limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury, sulfur, and arsenic that power plants can put in our air and water, there are no national limits on the carbon pollution they can release.
As President Obama said in his weekly address on Saturday, “It’s not smart, it’s not safe, and it doesn’t make sense.”
That’s why today, at the President’s direction, the EPA is taking steps to change that with a proposal that will set the first-ever national carbon pollution limits for our country’s existing power plants.
These standards will cut down on the carbon pollution, smog, and soot in our air — and as a result, Americans will live longer and breathe easier.
In the first year the new standards are implemented, they’ll prevent up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks. And the numbers will only go up from there.
That means Americans will be taking fewer trips to the emergency room, spending less time away from school or from work, and enjoying longer, healthier lives.
With such clear benefits, it’s a no-brainer: Cutting the amount of carbon pollution from our power plants is the right thing to do.
Learn more about how the EPA’s proposed standards will make our communities healthier — then add your name to stay involved with President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.
John Podesta
Counselor to the President
The White House

Larry in Texas
June 2, 2014 11:55 am

george e. smith says:
June 1, 2014 at 9:16 pm
You hit the nail right on the head, sir. Or as the British would say, you are bang-on.

June 2, 2014 11:56 am

Obama knows this will wreck the economy. He hates America. Every single thing he has done has been to destroy the economy. His stimulus stimulates overseas economys. The Communist, and that is what the democratic party is even if the democrate votes don’t realize it, want to destroy the economy because that will garner them more votes. The USA has already reached the tipping point and “Normal people” are now out numbered. I have little hope for this country.

June 2, 2014 1:17 pm

Once you’ve accepted the premise that CO2 is a pollutant, the logical conclusion is to eliminate it from the atmosphere completely. Since the largest “polluters” (read China) will never play ball, the US must cut emissions basically to pre-industrial levels. Obama’s proposal, viewed in this context, is so trivial as to be meaningless.

Chris R.
June 2, 2014 1:42 pm

Well, the SCOTUS decision that the EPA can regulate CO2 as a pollutant gives
the EPA the power. I’ve been waiting for this. This president, whose power of
persuasion of the U.S. Congress appears to be nil, has decided that by use of
the vast regulatory expansion of the EPA, he will implement his will. Obama
can’t even persuade his fellow Democrats in Congress to fall in line.
The EPA’s budget peaked in FY 2010, at a level 37.8% over what it was in
FY 2008. Have to provide bonuses to all those regulation-writing bureaucrats,
I suppose…

Chris R.
June 2, 2014 1:45 pm

Interestingly, Brad‘s quoted post above makes use of
what John Brignell refers to as “the virtual body count”. The count is
given in this line:
“they’ll prevent up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks. ”
Now, how do they know these figures? They DON’T! These are simply
results of some computer modeling exercises. See John Brignell’s

June 2, 2014 2:01 pm

“In the first year the new standards are implemented, they’ll prevent up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks. And the numbers will only go up from there.”
If the prime intent of this plan is to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide in order to improve the health of the public, the plan is quite flawed.
Carbon dioxide is not not part of any AIR QUALITY INDEX for a good reason. It is not a pollutant as the medical profession well knows. So how can low level co2 cause asthma and heart attacks. This is pure nonsense. Deal with real pollutants like fine particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide,carbon monoxide,sulphur dioxide and total reduced sulphur compounds

R. de Haan
June 2, 2014 2:13 pm

Totally off topic of course but I’m just watching a documentary about illegal mining of gold in Mongolia. The people working in the mines lost all their horses and yaks during the last of three fierce winters leaving them with no other option.

R. de Haan
June 2, 2014 2:14 pm

The USA hasn’t seen any warming over the past 18 years.
Why accept all the crap?

June 2, 2014 2:59 pm

Titan28 says (June 1, 2014 at 8:00 pm) “I despair“. Words fail me, so I’ll just endorse yours.

June 2, 2014 5:34 pm

ObamaLibs believe that
Higher taxes on small business S-corp will create jobs.
Higher taxes on oil companies will lower the price of fuel.
Raising taxes while keeping loopholes will increase revenues.
Higher taxes on fuel will lower the cost of food.
Elimination of proof of identity will reduce voter fraud.
Reducing legal gun ownership will reduce the number of illegal guns.
Raising the cost of healthcare insurance will lower the cost for everyone.
Putting people into homes they cannot afford will grow the middle class.
Stimulus will create 3 million jobs.
Obamacare will create 4 million jobs and turn the economy around.
Monitoring your emails, bank and credit cards, twitters, GPS and phone calls will eliminate bad people.
They also believe that raising our electric will create jobs and boom the economy. What world are they from?

June 2, 2014 5:39 pm

Our rate per kilowatt was 6 in Texas, 8 in N. Virginia, 8 in WV.
After three years in Ohio the rate went from 6 to 17. We have now been notified it will triple. Given I live on the computer, one light, a tv, a fridge and internet connection, our bill is $130 a month. $60 for use and the rest for transmission fees from Canada and for people who can’t afford.
My work in enviro/disaster mgt died three yrs ago. This admin is anything except enviro and everything about lies.
The one person in the household who still has a job works in R+D high temperature high energy testing and development. We are expecting that job to go away also, probably to China.
Everything this admin does benefits his friends in the middle east and china very well.
Where is this big boom Obama is bragging about to cover his failure? I demand to see the numbers.

June 3, 2014 1:05 am

Jason says:
June 1, 2014 at 8:31 pm
Time to move up here to Canada? And not Ontario…
As another Canadian, don’t do it. Our “leadership” is echoing BO for possible change up here. I read this as nothing more as a cynical attempt to attract votes by BO to have an “issue” in the November mid-terms. The cost for those votes will be astronomical, in a country that already has almost insurmountable debt. This is the path that Eurozone took a number of years ago. Wind farms in particular proved to cost an inordinate amount with little return. We know where the eurozone has ended up, don’t you? Cost them a bomb!
Your president is selling you down a river, Canadians do not want to be passengers.
What a load on misinformed “crap”. And at enormous cost.

Bob Rogers
June 3, 2014 8:12 am

Assume for a moment that the next President is also a Democrat and that the Senate remains so.
Can the states just ignore the EPA here?

June 3, 2014 9:27 am

[snip – over the top -mod]

June 4, 2014 5:13 am

I sent the following note to an American friend a few weeks ago. Sadly, it now may be obsolete along with hope for real economic recovery – unless this latest EPA foolishness is reversed, and soon.
However, I have faith in the common sense of the American people. Dump these elitists and their nonsensical energy policies, use cheap natural gas to re-energize your manufacturing sector, and get Americans (and Canadians) back to work!
Best, Allan
Cheap natural gas energy from shale fracking, in my opinion, could be the salvation of the moribund US and Canadian economies ((It would also help if there was a better understanding of the importance of energy and energy security – I suggest that the interminable delay of the Keystone XL pipeline is a grave strategic error for US national security)).
“In the wake of the American shale gas boom and the resulting cheaper power, U.S. manufacturers have been moving their work back home from overseas, and now foreign manufacturers, especially from Europe, are moving their facilities to the U.S. While prices in the U.S. power market have fallen due to cheap natural gas, prices in Europe’s power market are much higher, lifted by subsidies for renewable wind and solar power projects. While a decade ago, American manufacturing jobs were flowing to China, this year, more than 50 percent of $1 billion-plus U.S. companies with operations in China are considering moving all or part of their production back home, according to Boston Consulting Group.”
–Meagan Clark, International Business Times, 10 May 2014
We predicted the current “green energy” debacle in our paper published in 2002, as follows:
[PEGG debate, reprinted at their request by several professional journals, the Globe and Mail and la Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae]
On green energy:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
On global warming:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
There are eight such unequivocal statements in the Rebuttal section of our 2002 paper, and I suggest that all eight are now demonstrably true in those venues such as the UK and Western Europe that have fully embraced global warming mania.
We knew with confidence in 2002, based on the evidence, that global warming alarmism was technically false, extremist and wasteful.
I also wrote in an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002, based in part on a phone conversation with Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson:
On global cooling:
“If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
Our global cooling prediction may be a few years off – we may actually have started global cooling by now. I hope to be wrong in the global cooling prediction because humanity does poorly during global cooling periods, but our predictive track record is to date is quite good.
Best regards, Allan

June 16, 2014 4:50 am

My American friends,
I wrote above 12 days ago on June 4, 2014, (and several times previously):
“It would also help if there was a better understanding of the importance of energy and energy security – I suggest that the interminable delay of the Keystone XL pipeline is a grave strategic error for US national security.”
More than two years ago in January 2012 I wrote:
“I remain perplexed by Obama’s Keystone decision, which appears to be very much against the national interests of the USA.
The pipeline is clearly in the USA’s strategic interest. Given the Iran situation, it should have been built yesterday. Furthermore, it will create some jobs and tax revenue at no cost to the taxpayer.
The alleged environmental dangers of the pipeline appear wildly overstated.
I think overconsumption of water from the Ogallala aquifer due to corn ethanol overproduction is a much greater environmental threat. Removal of corn ethanol subsidies will not solve the problem as long as the corn ethanol mandates in gasoline remain.”
I would rather be wrong on these matters … … I dislike being correct, given the realities…
I once again respectfully suggest to my American friends that it is long past time to lay the Keystone XL pipeline.
Best, regards, Allan
Iraq Chaos Is A Wake-Up Call For The World Over Its Oil Needs
What will happen to Iraq? And to Iran? And to the rest of the Middle East? The uncertainty is back with a vengeance, as the terrible massacres from this weekend remind us.
The West, which no longer wants to know about Iraq after its disastrous foreign policy failures of the past decade, has been forced to pay attention again – and what it sees fills it with horror. The Isis extremist group, which is so ruthless that it has now fallen out with al-Qaeda, has grabbed chunks of the country; Iran has intervened to help the Iraqi authorities and fight the Sunni Isis.
It’s a giant, terrible mess, intimately connected with the horrors of Syria; with Tehran involved, and a power vacuum across the region, all bets are now off. The US may intervene again, perhaps by bombing Isis terrorists in Iraq as well as Syria; whether that makes any difference remains to be seen.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the policies of the past three US presidents – Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama – all disastrously failed to contain extremism. Iraq is close to becoming a genuinely failed state, and the entire region is, once again, on the brink of catastrophe. No wonder the price of oil has risen four per cent; in the days prior to the extra US supply, the events of the past week would have had an even greater impact.
Among all of the chaos, one thing is certain: the case for allowing fracking in the UK and elsewhere has become even stronger. It may be the only way the IEA’s forecasts can possibly be met. Oil remains the world’s essential raw material; relying on Opec for our supplies is almost as short-sighted today as it was in the 1970s.

%d bloggers like this: