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.
=============================================================
See the U.S Chamber of Commerce response here:
Assessing_the_Impact_of_Potential_New_Carbon_Regulations_in_the_United_States
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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!
Londo says:
June 1, 2014 at 9:38 pm
……Obama, the best president crony capitalism can buy.
Londo,
Give credit where credit is due. Obama is a socialist who hates capitalism. As such, your statement should read: ……Obama, the best president crony
capitalismsocialism can buy.Mac
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.
Folks,
You gotta stop drinking the koolaid….
Obama KNOWS this will hurt the economy. That’s his desired outcome.
Mac
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.
Shut down NSA, that would save the environment from a lot of CO2 and 1.7 million gallons of water a day
http://offnow.org/
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.
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.
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.”
Will,
as another Australian-totally agree
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?
The current U.S. President in ’24’ at least knows he has dementia. What is Obama’s excuse?
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.
Nice study on which states will be most affected by decarbonization:
http://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/10q4Snead_Jones.pdf
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.
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.
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..43j0j43i53.19333.23328.0.28160.14.3.0.11.11.0.477.1149.2-1j1j1.3.0…0.0…1ac.1.McDOYjB8l_I Lets hope they are held to account/blame when the s### hit the fan in 2 years.
“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
From Will Nitschke on June 1, 2014 at 10:49 pm:
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.
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!
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).
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.
“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.
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…
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/02/queens-speech-infrastructure-bill-zero-carbon
This has lost the democrats the next election.