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.
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.
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.
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.
Good luck to all the good folk in the USA.
You’re sure gonna need it.
Obama still believes that his “stimulus” package was a rousing success.
“What is the carbon footprint of our military?”
There will be no more need for guns. Obama’s name has become a killing word.
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.
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 …
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
http://offnow.org/
___________________
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.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-domestic-terror-warning-angers-gop/
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
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.
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.
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/29/5755070/EPA-carbon-power-plants-climate-change
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.
A SUPERMAJORITY IN CONGRESS COULD OVERRIDE THESE RULES
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.
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?
A SUPERMAJORITY IN CONGRESS COULD OVERRIDE THESE RULES
And one man – Harry Reid, Democrat and Senate Majority Leader, can stop Congress cold by refusing to bring any proposed legislation to a vote.
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.
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.
Does MISO stand for Minnesota Iowa and South Okota?
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.
So do I understand correctly that Obama just signed us up for something WORSE than the Kyoto treaty?
(unilaterally, and which the Senate said NO to.)
Just got this email from the White house:
here is the link to the graphic that was imbedded:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/heres-how-modernizing-our-power-plants-will-make-our-communities-healthier?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=email338-graphic&utm_campaign=climate
“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.
Thanks,
John
John Podesta
Counselor to the President
The White House
@Podesta44″
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.
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.
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.
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…