Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
From an interview with Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute, a man of whom Bill Clinton said “We should all heed his advice”:
You’ve talked before about the civilizational challenge that climate change poses, how confident are you that the human race is up to meeting that challenge?
We don’t know and there is no guarantee that we will. But we do know that change can come very quickly. Look how quickly the US restructured its whole economy in 1942. At beginning of 1942, the automobile companies were producing automobiles. By the middle of 1942 they were all producing tanks and planes. It didn’t take decades or years, just a few months and they totally converted. If they could do that then, certainly we can restructure the world energy economy today. What Roosevelt did was ban the sale of cars. He didn’t say they couldn’t produce cars. He just banned the sale of cars.
Would you like to see President Obama do that?
I’d like to see him ban the sale of coal and oil.
Dear heavens, the Imperial President should “ban the sale of coal and oil”? Oh, yeah, that’s the ticket. Some 40% of US electricity, lots of our industrial energy, and ~ 100% of our transportation fuel comes from coal and oil, so I’m sure that other than the small matter of impoverishment, suffering, death, and economic ruin, banning them wouldn’t cause any disruption at all … while I want to ask “is this Imperious Idiot for real?”, the sad truth is that Lester Brown is totally serious.
But even more frightening than the horrendous economic disruption and human suffering from such a suicidal course of action is that Lester Brown is advocating tyranny, and given his history, our Imperial President Obama would likely be more than happy to accommodate him.
As a candidate, Obama spoke out strongly against expanded executive power, saying in October of 2007:
These last few years we’ve seen an unacceptable abuse of power at home. We’ve paid a heavy price for having a president whose priority is expanding his own power.
and
I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.
After watching George Bush, Obama’s position on limiting executive power was one of the reasons I voted for him in 2008 … back before I realized that if Obama’s lips were moving, there were non-zero odds that he was lying, as in this case. Which is one of the reasons why I voted against him in 2012.
Now that he’s in power, and particularly now that he’s in his second term, he’s decided that he gets the last say on everything under the sun, and has presided over a huge increase in executive power, viz:
Whenever this Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, I’ve got an obligation as president to do what we can without them.
Despite being a “constitutional scholar”, he seems to misunderstand the separation of powers. He has no such obligation. It’s not his job to decide what “hurts the economy and puts the people at risk”, and more importantly, he has no such power. If the Congress decides not to pass a law, that’s their choice. The President’s job is to be the “Chief Executive”, and as such, the Constitution says he is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Nowhere is he given the power to make or interpret the laws. That is the job of Congress on the one hand and the Courts on the other … and if Congress won’t act, well, tough. If you don’t like the Congress, vote them out of office.
However, obviously, neither President Obama nor Lester Brown see it that way. As we just saw with the new regulations involving coal plants, President Obama is more than happy to make new “environmental” laws by presidential edict. And I’m sure that both the Imperial President and the Imperious Idiot firmly believe that Obama has the power to ban the sale gas and oil.
The Founding Fathers were very concerned that the President should NOT have this kind of imperial powers, and for good reason. They’d seen the damage that strong-men had done in a variety of monarchies and tyrannies. So they devised a system of “separation of powers”—Congress makes the laws, the President enforces the laws, and the Supreme Court interprets the laws.
Sadly, we have fallen very far from that, and President Obama has done immense damage to that system by “solving” every problem, from glitches with Obamacare to interim appointments to immigration reform to destroying coal plants, by imperial proclamation. At this point, all I can do is fervently hope he doesn’t listen to Lester Brown …
Gotta say … 2016 can’t come fast enough for me.
w.
End Note: Please do not use this as a springboard for general political attacks on either side. There are lots of web pages for doing that. The issue here is the Imperious Idiot’s asinine proposal to ban the sale of coal and oil, and the Imperial President’s claim that he has the executive power to do just about anything, presumably including Lester’s proposed ban.
The Usual: If you disagree with something that I or anyone has said, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH. This avoids many misunderstandings.
The Interview: The full interview is here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Whenever this Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, I’ve got an obligation as president to do what we can without them.
===========
err excuse me, when congress refuses to act in a way that HURTS our economy?
so
if they try and stop hurt hes going to step in, over ride and CAUSE harm?
call me pedantic but he said exactly what hes doing right out n openly..
why isnt someone starting proceedings?
No US President current or future, is going to ban the sale of Coal and Oil. It doesn’t matter what Lester says, it won’t happen.
Obarmy has far worse than this dope closer to him in the White House :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3Eo2YTQUr8
OR :Webster Tarpley : The Elite’s Plan for Global Extermination
A 55 min. deconstruction of the deadly Dr. John Holdren, science czar to the insane.
Holdren was screaming global doom & the swift need for vast depopulation, from global COOLING, back in the 70s, along with the venomous Ehrlich,now it’s global warming, but the depopulation agenda is constant.
Ted Turner, multi billionaire owner of CNN, propaganda factory for the 1%s, & one of the most powerful men on this planet, has openly espoused a 95% population reduction.
There’s no shortage of these Eugenicist barstewards, look at Bill Gates with his deadly vaccines.
Google up the Billionaire Good Club.
Reminds me of an Ecologist booklet I read as a 19 year old student, in 1972 :
A Blueprint For Survival.
A Club of Rome scare special, oil was going to run out by the year 2000, Sometime between
1980 & 1990 the demand for arable land would exceed supply.
No less than 34 “distinguished scientists”, most with 3 or 4 bunches of letters after their names,
signed a “Statement of Support” for this worthy piece of dumb doom mongering.
Prominent among them was Sir Julian Huxley, UN Eugenicist in Chief.
The issue never was climate.
It’s all about depopulation & control.
The CO2 producers they’re after, that’s us.
Insanity commands, idiocy advises, the 1% rule.
Classic strawman. 1) America managed to change its industry very quickly in response to war. 2) America now needs to change its industry because I want it to do so. Sentence 1 and 2 are not linked in anyway whatsoever. However the idiot is trying to say that they are. Is America under attack? Is America going to be overheat from climate change in the next few months? Does America need to do something today to change the future? None of these questions can be answered in the positive, therefore the imperious idiot is at fault.
I wonder if Lester Brown would ever be heard answering this question in the same way:
Would you like to see President Xi Jinping of China do that?
“I’d like to see him ban the sale of coal and oil.”
Ironically, Xi is probably a President more capable of carrying out such a policy – but he’s not stupid enough to do so. On the other hand, Obama……
When governments oppose science, they look not only foolish but sometimes bizarre.
Consider what a Canadian government produced (skip to the CO@ur momisugly generation):
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
about how to increase CO2 inside greenhouses up to 1,000 ppm for optimal plant growth. Nearly all literature on greenhouses clearly state that CO2 must be replaced quickly because plants are just ravenous to “eat” CO2.
This has got to be grade school stuff. You build a greenhouse. Plants are put in. Temperatures increase yet CO2 “goes missing”. Temperatures rise and the greenhouse has to be cooled (by venting) which brings in more CO2. If you add lots of CO2 into the greenhouse, the temperatures are raised minimally.
It’s inescapable, either the political leaders are really as dumb as polls suggest or CO2 it’s just a means to an end. Most readers here can make the logic leap to the end game.
I have commented about it on some other post.
The EU and the USA use “climate change” to drive energy policy. I call it Informal Imperialism.
It is hard for the bottom billion.
They need electricity and clean water, and it can only be done with proper use of coal.
Ask the people in SS Africa.
“Congress makes the laws, the President enforces the laws, and the Supreme Court interprets the laws.”
One would hope that if the president violates this rule, which no doubt the constitution makes very clear, it would open the way to his impeachment?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
DavidS says: “No US President current or future, is going to ban the sale of Coal and Oil. It doesn’t matter what Lester says, it won’t happen.”
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” Obama told the Chronicle . “Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
Since congress didn’t pass cap-and-trade, the alternate choice was using the EPA to bypass congress. Don’t have to ban sales when these products can be over-regulated. Over-regulation is even better than passing laws, because people that create unnecessary and unpopular laws can be voted out, but people in the EPA were never voted in. At this point in time, the EPA would appear to have more power than congress in creating and enforcing laws and regulations.
willis you are a true man..admitting one’s errors is difficult, if not impossible, for many.
What do only coal & oil have to do with it? If CO2 is the problem than any and all CO2 producing fuels are at fault: fossilized sources of natural gas & ethanol, contemporary sources of methane & ethanol, wood, et. al. Let’s simply return mankind to the days before fire.
“Any kid can work out a program of more ice cream and less school and free movies and him telling other people what to do instead of people always telling him.”
James Gould Cozzens, The Just and the Unjust. 1942
Oh, & BTW. The US utility industry does not use oil to make electricity so alternatives like wind, photovoltaics, improved appliance efficiency, CFLs, nuclear, etc. make zero difference in the amount of oil the US uses or imports or converts to CO2.
What transportation fuel derives from coal???
“…loyal willingness to say black is white when party discipline demands this. It also means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know black is white, and forget that one has ever believed the contrary.”
1984
cn
Bring back the gas bag car!
http://gekgasifier.com/forums/index.php?/topic/620-want-to-store-woodgas-the-gas-bag-vehicle/
Excellent Willis.
He says he has a responsibility to act but he’s wrong.
He has a responsibility to not act as he swore in his oath of office.
The duty of He and the other two branches is to protect the US Constitution.
cn
“A nation that can’t control its energy sources can’t control its future.” ― Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
The reality is that “A nation that lacks affordable energy and misuses its sources can’t control its future.”
The damage already done will result in future blackouts and economic instability. And history teaches that those who seek power are often strengthened by crisis.
And when we do have shortages and blackouts … they’ll be even more intense pressure to centralize control and “manage” scarce resources.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. Robert A. Heinlein
Why not go to your search engine and Google: “Fall of the Republic HQ” and then watch the video that comes up. (That video has been on line for quite a few years now but it is still valid today)
1 June 2014: Washington Times: Rowan Scarborough: Pentagon wrestles with bogus climate warnings as funds shifted to green agenda
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…
The report also became gospel to climate change doomsayers, who predicted pervasive and more intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts…Doug Randall, who co-authored the Pentagon report, said, “Even I’m surprised at how often it’s referred to…
Asked about his scenarios for the 2003-2010 period, Mr. Randall said in an interview: “The report was really looking at worst-case. And when you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent.”…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/1/pentagon-wrestles-with-false-climate-predictions-a/?page=all
This Pentagon climate report speaks to the heart of false climate science alarmism that is rampant to day .These alarmist climate science reports are meant to exaggerate and scare people. They do not highlight that these are worst case projections in the opening paragraph. These qualifications never make the headlines or press releases .The rational world does not plan for the future based on worst case scenarios. We might as well all quit living if this was the case . No nation can afford to spend money to mitigate worst case scenarios, nor should they. The problem is that some politicians take these worst case situations and make public policies and actions as if they were true. They then fabricate entirely new falsehoods like carbon dioxide is a pollutant on top of these worst case scenarios and you now have a firm government action thrust on the general public that is all pure fabrication of a worst case scenario that will never come about. Yet it comes from the highest administrative offices in the land
Now does it make any sense to ban oil or gas in order to comply with worst case projections that will never come about. ? Common sense seems to have left Washington.
We just have to find a way to keep those damn dead people from voting.
Would Obama have won the last election if he told people about how was going to placate the greens by banning new coal plants, wasting $billions on alternative energy, trying to bring in Carbon taxes, requiring US states to cut emissions in their state by 30%, and stalling new pipelines.
He hardly talked about climate change at all. And no one asked him to explain what he was going to do about global warming. Everyone was quite happy to ignore the issue, the Republicans thinking they had won the debate and it was too risky to bring up climate change at all.
If governments are going to bring in Carbon taxes, they should be forced to reveal that when they are going to the polls.
Another one of these iluminados wants to ban ambulances because, according to him, they pollute a great deal and only “fascist” need them anyway.
The hydrogen content of typical coals ranges from 5% to 10%, carbon content from 40% to 80%, balance contains ash, sulfur, water. Wide variation in composition. Methane, CH4, is 25% hydrogen, 75% carbon. Methane combustion produces about half as much CO2/E6Btu as coal (H2 is hot stuff!) and about twice the water vapor. Since the energy contained in the water vapor is not recovered (like in my condensing furnace) it must be counted as an energy loss up the stack. Tradition insists that coal uses HHV, higher heating value, and must count this water vapor energy loss up the stack. Natural gas fired CCPPs use LHV, lower heating value, and do not count this loss up the HRSG stack (PTC 4.4). If both were compared on HHV the CCPP stack loss would increase 11 percent (not percentage!), i.e. HHV/LHV.
As I understand it the EPA regulation is 1,000 pounds CO2/MWh. My back of the envelope has CCPPs at around 600 lb/MWh, simple cycle around 1,000 lb/MWh, and coal at about 2,200 lb/MWh. It also seems to me that under equal protection of the law any and all sources of CO2 must meet that same limit, your NG/oil fired space and water heater, your gasoline and diesel powered cars and trucks (horsepower, Btu equivalent of 1,000 lb CO2/MWh). i.e. 1,000 lb CO2/.003412 Btu. (I haven’t looked yet, but suspect there’s a physics conundrum here.)
All that converting coal generation to natural gas generation accomplishes is to create a much more competitive & unstable marketplace for natural gas and kick the CO2 can further down the road.
Buggy whip futures are UP!