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
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
Commission.
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’…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645751/David-Cameron-accused-blackmail-warning-Britain-quit-EU-federalist-gets-job.html
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.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/05/its-time-challenge-ukip-over-its-climate-change-denial
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
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/338781/high-renewable-energy-costs-damage-germanys-economy
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.
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:
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/2006_11.html
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.
george e. smith says:
June 1, 2014 at 9:44 pm
It is not just Solyndra. Elon Musk is in deep with batteries.
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/05/an-auto-you-cant-refuse/
phlogiston said June 2, 2014 at 1:22 am:
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.
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.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/but_dont_rule_out_malice.html
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.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/11/malice-and-stupidity.html
@ur momisugly 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
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?
(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…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/06/01/industrys-choice-help-shape-or-be-shaped-by-obamas-carbon-plan/
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.
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.
“The President thinks his plan will “boost the economy by $43 billion to $74 billion” – he’s living in a fantasy world.”
– TRUE
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.
After suffering a long decline by a thousand cuts, this is a stake through America’s throat
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.
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.
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?
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.
Time for the power producers to just say.. “sorry, we can’t afford to do this.”
and SHUT DOWN… ON MONDAY !!
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 !!
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……..
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.
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.
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.