Today, the Environmental Protection Agency announced new rules for existing coal-fired power plants, a 30 percent reduction in allowable carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The only way this will be possible will be by upgrading almost all combustion units, and the ultimate cost of the upgrades will make coal noncompetitive with much-less-expensive natural gas–fired facilities.
The EPA’s proposed new greenhouse-gas regulations are a campaign promise come true. In 2008, Senator Barack Obama announced that, if elected, his climate policies would “necessarily bankrupt” anyone who wanted to build a new coal-fired power plant.
Public comments on EPA’s proposal to do just that closed on May 9, and there is no chance that the president will renege — or that this policy will have any detectable effect on global temperature.
The EPA’s own model, ironically acronymed MAGICC, estimates that its new policies will prevent a grand total of 0.018ºC in warming by 2100. Obviously, that’s not enough to satisfy the steadily shrinking percentage of Americans who think global warming is a serious problem.
MAGICC tells us that the futility of whatever Obama proposes for existing plants will be statistically indistinguishable from making sure that there are no new coal-fired ones. In fact, dropping the carbon dioxide emissions from all sources of electrical generation to zero would reduce warming by a grand total of 0.04ºC by 2100.
This is hardly going to stop the crescendo of global-warming horror stories, perhaps best summarized by the government’s recently released “National Assessment” of the effects of climate change on our country.
For example, the assessment tells us that global warming will increase mental illness in our nation’s cities. The obvious implication is that people in Richmond are crazier than they are in Washington, 100 miles to the north. Or that people must really be loony in Miami.
But what about all the weird weather plaguing the country? What the alarmists don’t tell you is that not since records were kept in the 1860s have we have gone this long without a Category 3 hurricane’s crossing our shoreline. They omit that there’s no evidence of an increase in weather-related damages once you adjust for the fact that there are now more people with more expensive stuff to hit. Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so often cited to justify our futile policies, acknowledges that one.
The politics of scaring people to death over climate change are probably more dangerous than the weather. And research suggests that the more people read that some “scientists say” the world is about to end, the less they believe them.
Chalk it up to apocalypse fatigue. By my best guess, global warming is the eighth environmental Armageddon I have lived through. Who even remembers that, according to some of our most esteemed scientists, “acid rain” was going to cause an “ecological silent spring”? Like so many global catastrophes, it was a bit exaggerated.
You’d think the administration would see not just how futile these policies are in addressing climate change but also how costly they are politically. Some compelling analysis of polls shows that the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election because, under Democratic leadership, it passed cap-and-trade, which the Senate wisely stopped short of. In Australia, similar policies favoring cap-and-trade cost the Liberal party its leader in 2009 and subsequently sacked two Labour prime ministers, Keven Rudd and Julia Gillard.
Is this really the road the administration wants to go down in 2014? If history is any guide, a pretty steep price will be paid on Election Day — all for policies that will have no measurable effect on climate change.
This article appeared on National Review (Online) on May 30, 2014.
Patrick J. Michaels is director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute and a senior fellow in research and economic development at George Mason University.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A 30% reduction in emmisions from US coal reduces global atmospheric C02 by a woppin 0.04% according to my back-of-the-envelope calculations.
I wonder if someone just across the border in Mexico is smiling …
This isn’t a political forum but it is highly germane. Especially this November when it may be possible to foil Obama’s plans with a overwhelming removal of Obama supporters from congress.
Many rank and file folk of every political persuasion are discovering how extreme and partisan Obama and the Democrat hierarchy is.
Consider this. All of the worsening ObamaCare mess is the result of the sweeping ACA legislation which passed without a single Republican vote. Not one.
It doesn’t get any more extreme.
Obama and company will engage in the same dereliction of duty approach to energy and our economy is they are not stopped.
I have no affection for any of the party politics but these are serious times requiring the removal of the worse extremism this county has ever seen.
Here is an interesting link:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-war-on-coal-is-already-over-mr-president-2014-06-02
The coal-to-electricity industry has already changed and changes in the coming decade trump any ‘Executive Order’ of Obama. Ah ! ‘Executive Order’: short shelf life (< 2 yrs), if at all. And ! States Rights ! I.e. State EPAs can argue the "rule change" until the current "President" is out of office, 22 January 2017 (actually on the moment that the next President is Officially sworn in !).
22 January 2017 is going to be a 'Break Neck' Legislative Day in the history of this 'Union.'
'Obama – EPA Big Save The Planet Day Initiative' is moot before birth. Again !
All is well. Sleep well.
🙂
the utilities are going to mothball coal plants until the Republicans take power in 2016. Once people lose electricity in the winter and freeze in their own houses the Dems will be dead meat
EPA’s illegal war on CO2 has little to do with “saving the planet”, but has a great deal to do with saving Democrat seats in the House and Senate during the upcoming 2014 mid-term elections.
Liberal billionaire Tom Steyer has pledged to give $100 million to the Democratic Party in exchange for implementing concrete action on US CO2 emission cuts….
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/tom-steyer-campaign-donor-103617.html
The hilarious late-night Global Warming Talkathon held on the floor of the Senate in March of this year, was a feeble effort to extort Steyers’ $100 million, but Steyer wasn’t going to fork over $100 million for this absurd and meaningless dog and pony show… He wanted more (much more) if he was going toss $100 million to the Democrats.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/11/democrats-hold-all-night-talkathon-on-climate-change-on-senate-floor/
Enter the new EPA war on CO2,,, Now THIS is the magic (or should I say MAGICC) that Tom Steyer was looking for as true penance for the $billions he made off the fossil fuel industry…
Oh, the irony… Because Steyer made $billions off the fossil fuel industry, American’s have to pay $trillions in CO2 rules/regulations compliance costs and higher energy bills, so Steyer can get a warm and fuzzy feeling…
All this Kabuki theater, all this unemployment, all this loss of GDP, all this loss of industrial productivity, all the higher energy costs, all this economic hardship to “prevent” a grand total of 0.018ºC of projected global warming by 2100 and to ease little Tommy’s conscience….
I’m going to go puke, now….
And so it goes….until freedom and sanity are restored….
as believable as everything else on ABC and in WaPo, who have produced this joint poll with Langer Research Associates of New York!
2 June: ABC America: Gary Langer: Broad Concern about Global Warming Boosts Support for New EPA Regulations
Seven in 10 Americans see global warming as a serious problem facing the country, enough to fuel broad support for federal efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions – even if it raises their own energy costs, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds.
The poll, conducted in advance of the Obama administration’s announcement today of planned regulations to cut such pollution, finds 70 percent support for limiting emissions from existing power plants, and, more generally, for requiring states to cut the production of greenhouse gases within their borders.
See PDF with full results, charts and tables here…
Sixty-nine percent of Americans in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, see global warming as a serious problem; among them, eight in 10 favor new regulations, and three-quarters are willing to pay higher energy bills if it means significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions…
Further, among those who do see global warming – also known as climate change – as a serious problem, the vast majority, 83 percent, say it’s “very” serious…
PARTISANSHIP AND IDEOLOGY – Despite strong political and ideological components to views on global warming, majorities across the political spectrum support new regulations, albeit to varying degrees…
There’s also a sharp difference by age, with higher costs acceptable to 74 percent of young adults, age 18 to 29, but dropping to 52 percent among those 65 and older. Seniors are more apt to be on fixed incomes, but there’s another factor as well – they’re also 14 percentage points less likely than young adults to see global warming as a serious problem in the first place, 60 vs. 74 percent…
METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone May 29-June 1, 2014, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,002 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including design effect. Partisan divisions are 33-24-35 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.
The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/broad-concern-about-global-warming-boosts-support-for-new-epa-regulations/
2 June: WaPo: A huge majority of Americans support regulating carbon from power plants. And they’re even willing to pay for it.
By Scott Clement and Peyton M. Craighill
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/02/a-huge-majority-of-americans-support-regulating-carbon-from-power-plants-and-theyre-even-willing-to-pay-for-it/?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394
re ABC/WaPo/Langer poll:
how extraordinarily coincidental that CAGW gatekeeper, Hannam, at Fairfax Media, informed Australians recently that they were also happy to spend whatever is necessary to fix CAGW, according to a highly suspect Lowy Institute Poll which is due out tomorrow Aussie time:
24 May: Sydney Morning Herald: Peter Hannam: Australians more worried about climate change, poll finds
A strong response to questions about global warming is among the standout results in this year’s Lowy Institute Poll, with the numbers demanding action ”even if this involves significant costs” building on a small rebound in last year’s survey…
”After five years of successive decline in Australians’ concern about climate change, last year’s poll showed the first upward trend in the number of Australians who see climate change as a ‘serious and pressing problem’,” the report’s author, Alex Oliver, said.
”This trend continues,” said Ms Oliver, declining to elaborate before the report’s release on June 4…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/australians-more-worried-about-climate-change-poll-finds-20140523-38u81.html
26 May: Guardian: Alex White: Could Australia really dismantle its carbon price?
With repeated statements by serious scientific reports and organisations puts certainty that man-made carbon emissions are causing global warming at 95 percent — the same level of certainty for the connection between tobacco and lung cancer — Fairfax reported recently that the Lowy Institute poll, which has tracked attitudes toward climate change, is seeing an “upward trend in the number of Australians who see climate change as a ‘serious and pressing problem'”…
COMMENT: By Paul Moulton:
If you look at the actual report what you read above is, to say the least, misleading.
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/2013pollinteractive/climatechange.php
The data are reporting yearly from 2006 to 2013. The percentages of people that want drastic action is down (68% to 40%), the percentages of people that want low cost measures is up (24% to 40%) and the people that want nothing done is up as well (7% to 16%). Clearly the people that are warmists, the ones wanting drastic action, are far fewer in number than before.
The reason that the article was able to state what it did and be technically correct is that in 2012 the number of people that wanted drastic action was 36% while in 2013 it was 40%. So yes, it is up as they said it was. Accurate? Yes. Misleading. You bet. Hypocritical? Of course, but to be expected…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/may/26/carbon-price-abolish-tony-abbott-australia
re Langers Research Assoc who allegedly did the ABC/WaPo Poll:
LinkedIn: Langer Research Associates
Langer Research Associates provides survey research design, management, analysis and consulting services for media, foundation, business, government, NGO and legal clients. We direct news polling for the ABC News television network, produce the weekly Consumer Comfort Index for Bloomberg L.P. and create in-depth national and international surveys on policy, social, economic and political attitudes…
In addition to ABC News and Bloomberg, recent clients include Blue Shield of California Foundation, The Washington Post, The Center for the Next Generation, the BBC, ARD German Television, Yahoo! News, and with D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., the United Nations Development Programme, the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Counterpart International…
Langer Research was founded by Gary Langer, former director of polling for ABC News. Staff includes Research Analysts Julie E. Phelan, Ph.D., and Gregory Holyk, Ph.D. Senior advisers include Prof. Jon Krosnick of Stanford University, Prof. Robert Y. Shapiro of Columbia University and Patrick Moynihan, assistant director of the Survey Research Program at Harvard University.
http://www.linkedin.com/company/langer-research-associates
Gary Langer (Langer Research) has a long history of attempting to manufacture consensus on CAGW; this 2006 poll was even referenced in Oreskes “Merchants of Doubt” – found it in the notes at Google Books:
(4 pages) 2006: ABC America: Poll: Public Concern on Warming Gains Intensity
Analysis by Gary Langer
The intensity of public concern about global warming has spiked sharply over the last decade, along with a change in personal experience: Half of Americans say weather patterns have grown more unstable and temperatures have risen where they live, and 70 percent think weather patterns globally have become more unsettled in recent years.
A vast majority, 85 percent, believes global warming probably is occurring, up slightly from 80 percent in a 1998 poll…
Sampling, data collection and tabulation for this poll were done by TNS…
Moreover, almost seven in 10 in this benchmark survey by ABC News, Time magazine and Stanford University say the government should do more to address global warming. And just under half — rising sharply among those who are most concerned — say it should do “much more.” But views on what should be done are fractured, with little support for measures such as higher gasoline or electricity taxes to discourage consumption…
A key element in attitudes on global warming is the extent to which doubters continue to influence public perceptions…
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=1750492
What is this “carbon pollution” they’re talking about? Are diamonds pollutants now?
Cap and trade, carbon offsets.
Gore has struck it rich…….again, from catostropheric anthropological global warming.
Seriously, are the American people really as stupid as Australia to let their leaders,for want of a better word.
Sign over more of their collective wealth to a small band of global warming fraudsters in the United Nations and their hanger oners?
In Australia I think we’re talking 7 or 8 billion dollars a year we hand over.
Thats with a population of about 23 million.
How much do you think America is going to hand over per annum?
Once these fraudsters actually introduce their fraud as a tax, the difficulty in removing it becomes so much harder.
Look at Australia as an example.
Abbott and the coalition went to the election on a platform of removing the incumbent governments CO/2 tax and subsequently won a landslide victory.
Nine months into the new government we are no closer to removing this cancerous fraud of a tax.
Be warned America, if you don’t act now to prevent what Obama has just dumped on you, you to will be in the same financially sinking boat that Gillard and Rudd put us in.
You really do need politicians in opposition and media to stand up and call these fraudsters out as the lies pass their lips.
Blogs like this do a great job with their minimal resources.
But reality says we need to turn the mainstream media around.
Difficult I know but as long as the fraudsters have them the fraud will continue.
When Obama gets his nobel peace prize for his contribution to the prevention of global warming, will the cost have been worth it?
Anthony, you need to update your heading. It now says “Commentary on puzzling things in life, ect.” You left out LUNACY.
Admittedly people in Richmond are crazy (they throw away nothing, instead deciding to memorialize it). But crazier than DC? Not by a long shot! DC is a world unto itself where insanity is the norm.,
America’s future:
http://www.weather.com/travel/ruins-rust-belt-abandoned-buildings-photos-seph-lawless-20140206
As to the carcinogenic effect of DDT, several studies listed on PubMed—of more recent vintage than 1972—suggest that it is indeed a carcinogen, although not a particularly strong one.
Now that we have a cure for cancer this is much less important. Look up “Dennis Hill biochemist cancer” .and “Dr. Christina Sanchez molecular biologist cancer”. They both explain how the cure works.
EPA turned upo at our local NPR station yesterday claiming we were wasting for in southwest Missouri, that it was going to the dump and turning into methane which causes Climate Change. Their imagination seems to know no boundaries.
albertalad says:
Obama, the gift that keeps on giving.
should read:
“Obama, the gifter that keeps on grifting”. Fixed that for everybody.