White House Releases Plan to Lower Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

The press release from the White House, Office of the Press Secretary is here.  It reads:

FACT SHEET: U.S. Reports its 2025 Emissions Target to the UNFCCC

State Department Submits President Obama’s Ambitious 2025 Target to Cut U.S. Climate Pollution by 26-28 Percent from 2005 Levels

To view the INDC submission, click HERE.

Building on the strong progress made under President Obama to curb the emissions that are driving climate change and lead on the international stage, today the United States submitted its target to cut net greenhouse gas emissions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The submission, referred to as an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), is a formal statement of the U.S. target, announced in China last year, to reduce our emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, and to make best efforts to reduce by 28%.

Last November, President Obama and President Xi – leaders of the largest economies and largest polluters – made the historic announcement of the respective post-2020 climate targets for the United States and China. For the first time, China committed to limit its greenhouse gas emissions, with a commitment to peak emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early, and to increase its share of non-fossil energy consumption to around 20 percent by 2030.  Following that historic announcement, the European Union put forward an ambitious and achievable INDC to cut their emissions 40% by 2030.  And just last week, Mexico announced that it would peak its overall net greenhouse gases by 2026, backed by strong unconditional policies and a new bilateral task force to drive climate policy harmonization with the United States.

With these actions, as well as strong INDCs submitted by Norway and Switzerland, countries representing over 50% of global CO2 emissions have either announced or formally reported their targets. Today’s action by the United States further demonstrates real momentum on the road to reaching a successful climate agreement this December in Paris and shows President Obama is committed to leading on the international stage.

The U.S. target will roughly double the pace of carbon pollution reduction in the United States from 1.2 percent per year on average during the 2005-2020 period to 2.3-2.8 percent per year on average between 2020 and 2025.  This ambitious target is grounded in intensive analysis of cost-effective carbon pollution reductions achievable under existing law and will keep the United States on the pathway to achieve deep economy-wide reductions of 80 percent or more by 2050. The Administration’s steady efforts to reduce emissions will deliver ever-larger carbon pollution reductions, public health improvements, and consumer savings over time and provide a firm foundation to meet the new U.S. target.

Building on Progress

Our leadership at the international level starts at home. In 2009, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were projected to continue increasing indefinitely. When entering office, President Obama set an ambitious goal to cut emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020.  Throughout the first term, the Administration took strong actions to cut carbon pollution, including investing more than $80 billion in clean energy technologies under the Recovery Act, establishing historic fuel economy and appliance energy efficiency standards, doubling solar and wind electricity, and implementing ambitious energy efficiency measures.

Early in his second term, President Obama launched an ambitious Climate Action Plan focused on cutting carbon pollution, preparing the nation for climate impacts, and leading on the international stage to bring nations large and small to the table to pledge to act on climate change.  In addition to bolstering first-term efforts to ramp up renewable energy and efficiency, the Plan is cutting carbon pollution through new measures, including:

Clean Power Plan: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed guidelines for existing power plants in June 2014 that would reduce power sector emissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 while delivering $55-93 billion in annual net benefits from reducing carbon pollution and other harmful pollutants.

Standards for Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles: In February 2014, President Obama directed EPA and the Department of Transportation to issue the next phase of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by March 2016. These will build on the first-ever standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (model years 2014 through 2018), proposed and finalized by this Administration.

Energy Efficiency Standards: The Department of Energy set a goal of reducing carbon pollution by 3 billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030 through energy conservation standards issued during this Administration. The Department of Energy has finalized multiple measures addressing buildings sector emissions including energy conservation standards for 29 categories of appliances and equipment as well as a building code determination for commercial buildings. These measures will also cut consumers’ annual electricity bills by billions of dollars.

Economy-Wide Measures to Reduce other Greenhouse Gases: EPA and other agencies are taking actions to cut methane emissions from landfills, coal mining, agriculture, and oil and gas systems through cost-effective voluntary actions and common-sense regulations and standards.  At the same time, the State Department is working to slash global emissions of potent industrial greenhouse gases, called HFCs, through an amendment to the Montreal Protocol; EPA is cutting domestic HFC emissions through its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program; and, the private sector has stepped up with commitments to cut global HFC emissions equivalent to 700 million metric tons through 2025.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 31, 2015 8:07 pm

“…carbon pollution…” Why do people believe this claptrap?

Reply to  markl
March 31, 2015 10:20 pm

What Left now calls “carbon pollution” is actually the “Precious Air Fertilizer” according the Scientific American (before they lowered their standards).

Reply to  markl
April 1, 2015 3:17 am

(Another LONG but wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 1, 2015 5:51 am

With ICHI it’s April 1st every day of the year.

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 1, 2015 6:06 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 1, 2015 6:52 am

Care to back up those claims with diagnostic documentation? Surely with 24,000 annual premature deaths and 2,800 annual lung cancer deaths from coal powered plants, you can find quite a number of diagnoses that say “coal” on them. Care to show how these “coal” deaths have increased or decreased with the ~70% decrease in priority pollutants over the past 40 years? The EPA rather neglects to do that.
What decrease in global temperature does EPA predict from the clean power plan?
And, why not make up a number for bird deaths, they would be just real as the human deaths?

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 1, 2015 6:56 am

“Release of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, causes climate change and global warming”
Icouldn’thelpit: Please tell us how the climate is changing that has you so alarmed?

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 1, 2015 8:33 am

My goodness but ICHI is an expert. And as he/she always asks – where is the documentation on this? And considering that there is no PROOF that CO2 causes climate and global warming (now they are 2 different things – which is it?) I guess the documentation is the same as that in that great scientific establishment – the IPCC. Keep it up ICHI – you make the alarmists look sooooo good.

Bob Lyman
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 1, 2015 9:00 am

24,000 people prematurely dead. Name one.

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 1, 2015 9:40 am

Icouldnthelpit, how do your numbers square against the number of people who survive into old age because of:
Warmth against cold weather
Air conditioning against hot weather
Sanitation from easily available hot water
Nutrition from refrigerated food
All of which are brought to the human population by electricity from coal fired generating plant.

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 1, 2015 11:01 am

How many “premature deaths” would have occurred without 24*7*365 coal power over the last century ?
100 million ? 1 billion ?
What determined idiocy .

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 1, 2015 2:13 pm

Here is a start on the numbers game wrt to bird deaths.
“Each year 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats are killed by wind turbines in the U.S., according to an independent study published earlier this year.”
BTW: As a chronic asthmatic since the age of one and now in my 60’s I am the healthiest, chest wise, I have ever been. I would therefore conclude that those numbers you quote are pure BS.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 1, 2015 4:07 pm

ICHI. I think you will find it difficult to find Co2 causing any of these deaths.
”Release of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, causes climate change and global warming, according to the IPCC and the EPA.”
Yep. That just about sums up the lunacy alright. It’s hard to say it without laughing.

Evan Jones
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 1, 2015 7:10 pm

Have you considered how much longevity has been increased overall by coal and other FF? Every time coal power is introduced to an areas that have none, life expectancy doubles.
For a cost-benefit analysis, one must, perforce, include the benefits as well as the cost.

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 2, 2015 2:11 am

“Each year 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats are killed by wind turbines in the U.S., according to an independent study published earlier this year.”
The total for coal is 7.9M birds, or 15X the number killed by wind turbines. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds

Reply to  Chris
April 2, 2015 7:59 am

Chris commented:. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds
Talk about pulling numbers out of where the sun don’t shine and this article wins the prize. “Uncertainties of the data used” and “estimates” make this even lower on the scale of science than models.

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 2, 2015 11:07 am

So let’s see, you don’t actually have studies to counter or refute the article I posted, you just know you don’t like it because of “uncertainties” which you don’t actually outline in detail.
Here is another paper from 2011, which concludes an even higher figure for fossil fueled plants: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421509001074

Snarling Dolphin
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 2, 2015 12:21 pm

Where’d you learn this stuff? Wikipedia? Well that’s a start. Feeble, but a start nonetheless.

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 3, 2015 8:52 pm

The US has cleaned up coal-fired power plant stack emissions enormously in the last 30 years. Your description might be applicable in the 1970s but not today, at all. The deaths and cancer number are attributions that are basically made up from thin air down at the CDC over coffee and donuts.

Reply to  markl
April 1, 2015 3:26 am

Because it is true.

Reply to  Drew Phillips
April 1, 2015 2:04 pm

Drew, what is “true”?

Evan Jones
Reply to  Drew Phillips
April 1, 2015 7:14 pm

There are indeed many thousands of premature deaths resulting from coal. There are also (at least) hundreds of millions of lives saved and extended as a direct result of coal. Both are true. So include both.

Reply to  markl
April 1, 2015 5:12 am

icouldnt says:
Coal-fired power plants cause nearly 24,000 premature deaths annually in the United States
I have no figures for bird deaths, sorry.
Oh, just make some numbers up out of thin air. Fabricate some bogus figures, just like your source did for coal.
If it were not for misinformation, what would you have to post?

Reply to  dbstealey
April 1, 2015 6:54 am

I was expecting a ‘FACT SHEET’ to include at least some facts.

Reply to  dbstealey
April 2, 2015 11:12 am

According to a detailed study carried out by MIT, the annual premature death figure for power generation facilities is 52,000: http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829

Snarling Dolphin
Reply to  dbstealey
April 2, 2015 12:51 pm

And yet according to another detailed study by the Clean Air Task Force (http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/), premature deaths resulting from coal combustion showed a steep decline from 2004 levels down to roughly 13,000 in 2010. Goodness! A conundrum! Who to believe? In my opinion neither; even though an error factor of 4 is pretty much in line with the statistical robustness normally required of global warming analyses and on that basis one could argue that these results are identical and unequivocal. If forced to choose I’d have to give the nod to CATF on the strength of their nifty interactive map feature. But in all honesty I find death attribution studies of this nature to be so much claptrapcrap.

March 31, 2015 8:11 pm

“Carbon pollution”? Do they know how stupid that makes them seem? Of course not.

Reply to  Steve
April 1, 2015 5:15 am

The mind of Drew Philips, like so many eco-zombies, has been colonized by the “CO2 pollution” narrative. Now he believes it, just as if it was actually true.

George A
March 31, 2015 8:17 pm

The White House releases plan to make the United States a Third World country.

Reply to  George A
March 31, 2015 8:31 pm
Old Goat
Reply to  Max Photon
April 1, 2015 2:41 am

Good book. Very informative, and scary, too. All should read it, then ponder upon the way things are going, and how to stop them.

Reply to  George A
March 31, 2015 8:50 pm

That’s Obama’s poverty plan. Put everyone into poverty.

Bryan A
Reply to  logos_wrench
March 31, 2015 9:45 pm

Shouldn’t that be “Make everyone financially equal”…….Well, same thing I guess

Gary Pearse
Reply to  logos_wrench
April 1, 2015 6:34 am

Which is to put everyone beholden to the left.

Reply to  logos_wrench
April 1, 2015 2:16 pm

Probably spent to many years in in Indonesia and now wants to level the playing field.

Evan Jones
Reply to  logos_wrench
April 1, 2015 7:18 pm

The greater the gap between rich and poor, the better (by far) for the poor. This may be a reflection on the sins of man, but it is also a demographic fact. Did the poor do better or worse during the Great Depression (when the “gap” narrowed)? Did the poor do better or worse during the information age (when the gap widened)?
There are three Great Lies in history:
3.) Torture is ineffective.
2.) Wars never solve anything.
1.) The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. (A terrible lie, and by far the most damaging of the lot.)

Rational Db8
Reply to  George A
March 31, 2015 9:55 pm

I’m thinking more and more that he really is trying to implement the the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
Cloward and Piven were two professors who wanted a socialist/communist government in the USA. I believe that one or both were professors at the same University Obama attended while he was there. And as is well known (even according to Obama’s own words in his book), these were the ONLY type of people that Obama respected, sought out, befriended, hung out with, etc. He’s a red-diaper baby for all practical purposes.
Anyhow, Cloward and Piven felt that physical rebellion wouldn’t occur to bring about a socialist/communist government, so they devised a strategy of using the system’s own rules against it to push it into economic collapse – at which point people would be so desperate they’d insist on a socialist/communist government to save them. So in other words, you load up the welfare rolls, encourage illegal immigration, increase the regulatory burden as fast as possible, refuse to reform social security and other entitlements to keep them viable – even increase entitlements as much as possible and immediately grant them to illegal aliens, even giving them back credit for years they didn’t pay taxes, all the wasted funds on “green/renewable/sustainable” crap, all the EPA overreach and “AGW” bullshyte, etc.,etc.
Sound anything like what we’re seeing going on the last few years??
When I posted this comment on an earlier article, “vutsrq” posted additional information folk might find useful:

In other words, overwhelm the system.
Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their “rights.” According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, “one person was on the welfare rolls… for every two working in the city’s private economy.”
The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO’s Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975.

Reply to  Rational Db8
April 1, 2015 5:12 am

Well I’m sure glad others are seeing the Cloward/Piven strategy being implemented!!
Well said sir!

Reply to  Rational Db8
April 2, 2015 5:22 am

The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO’s Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975.

No, it didn’t. The city couldn’t pay the principal and interest on its short-term municipal debt, and it was always borrowing to cover operating deficits. The teachers’ union saved NYC’s ass by investing $150 million of union pension funds at the last minute to stave off the bankruptcy that would have happened that day. Besides, welfare is run by the federal and state governments; it’s not a huge municipal cost.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Rational Db8
April 3, 2015 11:12 am

From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/05/nyregion/recalling-new-york-at-the-brink-of-bankruptcy.html

How close was New York City to bankruptcy in 1975?
So close that the city’s lawyers were in State Supreme Court filing a bankruptcy petition.
So close that police cars were mobilized to serve the papers on the banks.
So close that aides to Mayor Abraham D. Beame had written a statement announcing the default along with an emergency effort to save the city’s dwindling cash for vital services like police and fire protection. …

That they managed a deal with the unions to save the day doesn’t change the fact that they were bankrupt.
And from The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/article/173873/legacy-1970s-fiscal-crisis

Throughout the rest of the year, New York would flirt with default on its massive loans, scrambling to patch together one plan after another, each intended to save the city from declaring bankruptcy while cutting back on the social and municipal services it provided….
New York did provide more services than most other American cities…
During the Great Society years, the expenses of the city climbed, particularly those for Medicaid (for which it bore almost 25 percent of the cost, in accordance with state law) and welfare. At first, increases in federal and state aid helped fuel this expansion. But when the economy turned south in the early 1970s, New York turned to borrowing to make up the budget gaps. The tacit assumption of city leaders—rarely spelled out clearly—was that the borrowing was merely a temporary measure. Perhaps national healthcare would pass and the city would no longer have to foot a massive Medicaid bill. Once the economy recovered, the city would regain its fiscal footing….
Although there were many local causes of the fiscal crisis—the specific economic problems of New York, the high proportion of the Medicaid and welfare costs borne by the city, and a general willingness within the city government to employ deficit financing strategies—it quickly became seen as a metaphor for the larger breakdown of liberalism in the ’70s. Throughout the postwar years, as historian Joshua Freeman has argued, New York City embodied a particular style of social-democratic politics: one that embraced a strong welfare state, a culture of labor power and solidarity, and a belief in the necessity of using the government (even city government) to help the disadvantaged. It can be hard today to imagine what it was like to live in a city that provided such a rich range of social services, ones that made possible a uniquely democratic urban culture. The city had nineteen public hospitals in 1975, extensive mass transit and public housing, public daycare and decent schools. The municipal university system—the only one of its kind in the country—provided higher education to all, free of charge. Rent stabilization made it possible for a middle class to inhabit the city. For many, the fiscal crisis showed that it was no longer possible for New York to finance these kinds of services….

Reply to  George A
March 31, 2015 10:06 pm

By importing the third world, you cant maintain a first world economy.

Reply to  George A
April 1, 2015 3:22 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 1, 2015 8:19 am

Sarcasm noted. However, that isn’t the question. The question, which the eco-Left always ignores, is cost/benefit analysis.
What are the costs, compared with the benefits, of windmills vs coal power?

Gary M
Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 1, 2015 11:13 am

I wonder how many of these climate do-gooders realize that the renewables are built and maintained on the back of fossil fuels? Solar, wind even hydro can not crate the building blocks (stock) that crude does. In my book they are NOT sustainable, for that reason if not others.

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 2, 2015 5:25 am

Given that powerplants have a 60-80 year life of course we can make an orderly move.
At the largest percentage of US coal fired power plant capacity was built in the 1970’s we should be planning on being ‘off of coal’ somewhere around 2050.
This will give the GenIV nuclear folks plenty of time to complete their designs, prototypes and demonstration plants before ‘full scale’ rollout begins in the 2030-2040 time frame.
Every other plan is just ‘being seen’ to do something even though anyone with an engineering degree knows the plan is going to fail.
Blowing a lot of money on a half baked ‘interim solution’…is just that…blowing a lot of money on a half baked ‘interim solution’.

Reply to  icouldnthelpit
April 2, 2015 5:26 am

Name the energy source available today that can replace fossil fuels soon in an “orderly move.” Genuine question.

Bill H
March 31, 2015 8:27 pm

“Economy-Wide Measures to Reduce other Greenhouse Gases: EPA and other agencies are taking actions to cut methane emissions from landfills, coal mining, agriculture, and oil and gas systems through cost-effective voluntary actions and common-sense regulations and standards.”
Building on stupidity… or is it building on destroying the Wests economy in an effort to kill it?
I would customarily ask those suggesting the cessation of all CO2 emissions to lead by example.. But considering who said this, it would not go over well. Our management by crisis government under Obama is really laying on the stupid rather thick and fast in an effort to smother us, I wonder if the boot on our throats was not enough that they needed to use a rope around our necks too? Where is this co called crisis?
Who made the determination of “common-sense” and defined it? It doesn’t resemble any form of commonsense that I know of.
The stupidity and complacency of our politicians astounds me. The fact that very few are standing up to the enviro-socalist wackos is alarming.
/end rant…
And I dont feel any better, as I watch our liberal/socialist big government politicians on both sides of the fence destroy the US and its greatness… The original colonists started under socialism and were failing miserably, almost dead, until one brave soul allowed men to have property and be paid for and keep the fruits of their labors. Government got out of the way. The fire ignited the men and women who made America. Now we have fools who want to return to failed socialism and the death it brings every time.
Its way past time to tell these tyrants to go pound sand… IMHO

Steve R
Reply to  Bill H
March 31, 2015 9:08 pm

Dont worry. He will be gone soon enough and all this stupidity can be safely ignored.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Steve R
March 31, 2015 9:58 pm

Having him gone won’t be nearly enough. All of this would have to be undone, the directives and regulations repealed and the agencies told to take very different actions. That’s not easy to do at all. Once the bureaucratic machinery is rolling, it’s awfully hard to stop or scale back. And he’s got nearly two years to get the ball rolling and growing the entire time, getting it’s tendrils into everything.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Steve R
March 31, 2015 10:33 pm

To Steve R. Don’t be too sure about that. Look up information about the July 15-Sept 15 special forces in the Southwest. Soldiers out of uniform and posing as civilians, states declared as compliant (radical leftist such as pot land) and Texas and Utah declared as non-compliant, i.e. conservative. As the middle east is in free fall and Obama is helping Iran become a regional nuclear power, the military is running massive training exercises in the Southwest with its states classified essentially as friendly to the government and revolutionist opposing the government. I wonder why we need expensive and widespread Special Forces posing as civilians as they move into the Southwest for a three month exercise. Three months is a very long exercise and American soldier dressed as civilians and infiltrating large areas of the Southwest is unprecedented. I wonder how they plan to ferment conflict between disguised military and unwary civilians so they can justify such “military exercises”.

Reply to  Steve R
April 1, 2015 6:49 am

Wish that were true, Steve, but unless more of the Republicans stand up to the “climate change/CO2 pollution” concept, all this stupidity will simply proceed at a slightly slower pace.

March 31, 2015 8:28 pm

The national symbol of the United States should be a guy bending over and grabbing his ankles.

March 31, 2015 8:54 pm

“The national symbol of the United States should be a guy bending over and grabbing his ankles.”
No Max…..Mr. Washington had it right a couple of hundred years ago…the national symbol should have been the turkey, not the bald eagle. The bald eagle does not screw around. He was way ahead of his time.

Bill H
Reply to  Justthinkin
March 31, 2015 9:31 pm

51% of the population is fat and lazy looking for the next handout, obama phone, or welfare program and will vote into office anyone they think will keep the freebies coming and vote themselves the fruits of others labors. They are going to be really upset when either the host dies and all is cut off or the Host gets pi**ed off and removes them from their wallets and all the goodies stop.. IMHO the leaches need to be weened.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Bill H
March 31, 2015 10:00 pm

What I’ve said for decades now, even though we’ll never see something like this implemented, is that there ought to be an amendment such that no one currently on welfare can vote in major elections. As soon as they’re off welfare or with a few months waiting period at most, then they can vote again. And that goes for any form of welfare, e.g., food stamps, housing subsidies, aid for dependent children, etc. — but of course this does NOT include programs such as SS & Medicare where you pay into them your entire life, so they’re not welfare. That would immediately remove all incentive for politicians to pander to them, and remove the ability of people to simply vote for whoever promises the greatest handouts.
Plus, I’d sure go for a very simple straight forward test required in the polling booth before you can vote. If you pass it with no errors, you vote, if you don’t, sorry, come back and try next year. And I do mean VERY basic questions like “how many branches of government are there, and what are their names,” “who is the vice president,” “who is the speaker of the House,” “who is the Senate majority leader” – just a very few very basic questions like that that everyone has to answer to vote.
Of course we’ll never see provisions like that – heck, it’s been difficult just getting voter ID laws passed to help stop the disenfranchisement of voters and help protect the integrity of our entire system.
I gather Arizona just passed a law that requires all high school students to take and passthe citizenship test that all immigrants have to take to become citizens. That’s a good start at least, and hopefully every state will pass a similar law. But I won’t hold my breath.

Reply to  Bill H
April 1, 2015 12:40 am

Rational Db8,
No Amendment necessary. Voting is not a right.
The best thing any gov’t can do (assuming the R’s get the presidency & Congress) is to pass a strong law requiring that citizenship must be proven to vote. Purge all fed & state voter rolls every 2 – 3 years, to eliminate those who have died or moved out of state. A voter ID card required to demonstrate citizenship/eligibility, and to keep people from voting in multiple states. Etc.
If those basics were implemented, most problems would self-correct. America is basically a conservative country. We don’t really like welfare, even while not liking it when someone is really hard up; help the needy, not the greedy. Americans want a strong military — everyone benefits from that equally, and as we know, it is not a friendly world out there. We’re tired of nameless, faceless bureaucrats who make life hell for ordinary citizens. We are tired of open borders where illegals flood in taking jobs and benefits. And so on. With a strict voting policy and laws, ensuring that our vote is not diluted through the current rampant fraud, the country will fix itself.

Reply to  Bill H
April 1, 2015 5:04 am

Rational Db8 March 31, 2015 at 10:00 pm
What I’ve said for decades now, even though we’ll never see something like this implemented, is that there ought to be an amendment such that no one currently on welfare can vote in major elections. . .

I have proposed the same Amendment for years, so far to deaf ears:

No person or officer of any corporate entity receiving any funds, goods, or services from the Federal Government that are not in payment for goods and services sold to the Federal government shall have the right to vote in any Federal election.

We might have a chance of getting such an Amendment passed, along with others equally commonsensical and desirable, if we can get enough state legislatures to agree to hold an Article V Convention of States, as proposed by Mark Levin:
See Mark Levin, The Liberty Amendments:
/Mr Lynn

Reply to  Bill H
April 2, 2015 12:26 pm

Cicero wrote about this exact problem ~ 2000 years ago. Once the public decides it can vote themselves largess from the public purse, representative democracy is doomed. The politician promising to fund consumption today at the expense of the future, will always get the votes.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Justthinkin
March 31, 2015 11:03 pm
Reply to  Juan Slayton
April 1, 2015 12:58 am

Turkeys are not slaughtered by windmills like Bald Eagles.

Reply to  Juan Slayton
April 1, 2015 5:18 am

That’s why there are so many of them available at Thanksgiving.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Juan Slayton
April 1, 2015 7:28 pm

Yes, Franklin.

March 31, 2015 9:21 pm

I want to hear the president say that CO2 is pollution. He keeps saying carbon. That is like saying H20 is hydrogen or maybe oxygen…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 1, 2015 12:07 am

It’s not the president, but Gina uses CO2 and pollution in the same tweet: https://twitter.com/GinaEPA/status/578628204606410752

Reply to  4TimesAYear
April 1, 2015 12:19 am

Ooops – not quite both in the same tweet – she refers to CO2 in the tweet and carbon pollution in the article. When they say “carbon pollution” they are definitely referring to CO2…but I’m preaching to the choir here…

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 1, 2015 12:34 am

I am firmly of the opinion that these things grow out of laziness. It’s quicker (and lazy) for people to say ‘carbon’ without adding ‘dioxide’. Here in Britain, we are seeing this laziness creep into our very own language. People are shortening words, and also using ‘textspeak’ in everyday language. Many people here cook an Italian dish called spaghetti Bolognese. It’s now often called ‘spagbol’! ‘Electricity’ is sometimes called ‘leccy’. People are just too damn lazy to even speak and write properly.

Reply to  The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
April 1, 2015 7:33 am

I refer to Obama as “Bams” as a term of endearment.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 1, 2015 7:31 am

complete combustion of hydrocarbons yields CO2 and H20(g). As the atmosphere’s most important GHG, I’m waiting for the EPA to include water vapor into the Endangerment Finding.

March 31, 2015 9:22 pm

A real easy solution…
If Obama tries to circumvent Congress by weaponizing the EPA with draconian CO2 sequestion rules and regs, with the intent of slashing CO2 emissions by 28% by 2025, Congress should propose to slash both EPA’s personnel and budget by 28%.
Republicans control both the House & Senate and likely the Executive branch from 2017. It’s time to end this Glooobal Waaaarming silliness as it’s becoming painfully obvious actual ECS could well be 5~10 TIMES lower than the Glooobal Waaaarming hypothetical projections.

Rational Db8
Reply to  SAMURAI
March 31, 2015 10:02 pm

Get this – along those same lines, a bunch of potential Republican candidates were asked if the ethanol subsidies should be stopped or continued. Out of ALL of them, only Cruz said flat out that they ought to be stopped. All the rest were in favor of continuing them. With candidates like most of these, who needs enemies?
Ted Cruz stands alone after the King Corn summit

Reply to  SAMURAI
April 1, 2015 12:28 am

Good proposal. But if it were me, I would slash the EPA by 100.0%. And I wouldn’t wait, I would do it now, and unilaterally.
The Constitution was set up as the United States. The States can provide for their EPA’s, and most already do. There is no need for a redundant federal EPA. Or a fed EPA with hollow point bullets. — billions of them. What are they gonna do, shoot CO2 polluters?

Reply to  dbstealey
April 1, 2015 4:02 am

Dbstealey– if the Federal government followed The enumerated powers under Article 1, Section 8, 75% of all Federal agencies and departments should not exist…
The EPA is by far one of the most onerous, capricious, and anti-business departments in the US government exceeded only by the IRS.
BTW, there are now 27 states that have agreed to hold an Article 5 Constitutional Convention to add a number of amendments to address this Federal Leviathan.
If a total of 34 states agree to hold one, then it’ll be possible to hold one…
The Federal government has gotten completely out of control.

Reply to  dbstealey
April 1, 2015 5:22 am

We have what’s called a meeting of the minds. I agree with everything you wrote there.

Reply to  SAMURAI
April 1, 2015 1:49 am

Rational– You’re correct about most Republican’s corn subsidy support….
Many “Republicans” are strong supporters of Cronyism, which includes $BILLIONS of subsidies to Big AG and farmers to lock in the farm vote. All these stupid corporate welfare subsidies need to end.
I also think the Iowa Caucus being the first primary state plays a roll in maintaining these corn subsidies. If candidates don’t support corn subsidies, they feel they’ll have a poor start in their campaigns.

Reply to  SAMURAI
April 1, 2015 6:53 am

You are making the assumption that the Republicans will stand up against the “climate change” meme.
Other than “lip service”, I’ve not seen evidence that they would.

Reply to  JohnWho
April 3, 2015 6:09 pm

JohnWho– According to a recent Gallop poll, 87% of registered Republican voters don’t believe CAGW is a problem.
This overwhelming majority Is a strong political force to be reckoned with, especially when Obama’s destructive CO2 sequestration compliance costs are realized.
When CAGW support or indifference becomes a political liability, substantive legislative action against CAGW will become a political necessity.

March 31, 2015 9:40 pm

“For the first time, China committed to limit its greenhouse gas emissions, with a commitment to peak emissions around 2030…”
They always find a way to make the agreement with China sound better than it is. China only committed to “limit its greenhouse gas emissions” after 2030. They can emit as much as they want until then. Whatever peak they reach in 15 years will be their new limit. So they actually have an incentive to produce more emissions between now and 2030 to give them plenty of breathing room when limits kick in. What good is an agreement like that? If it’s so good, why not have the same terms for the U.S.?

Chris in Hervey Bay.
Reply to  Louis
March 31, 2015 10:52 pm

Because China’s ‘One Child Policy’ the population will plateau in 2030 then start to decline. With a declining population, emissions will also decline, so in effect, China won’t have to do anything, except have the last laugh !

Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay.
April 1, 2015 5:24 am

Yes, and they have all those millions of single young men with no hope of ever finding a wife. What’s the solution to that problem?
Hm-m-m. Let me think…

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay.
April 1, 2015 11:47 am

That is what we all should be truly afraid of! Witness China’s increasingly aggressive military actions, in support of expanding China’s influence world wide…..

Reply to  Louis
April 1, 2015 6:54 am

China’s “commitment” isn’t worth the rice paper it is printed on.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Louis
April 1, 2015 7:31 pm

Have you ever heard of the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement? There’s your analogy. Sounds great: Germany can build no more than 35% of tonnage as the Royal Navy. Result: UK must stop building and Germany gets to go ahead, full guns.

March 31, 2015 9:41 pm

By the year 2050, that is 35 years from now if I did the math correctly, the computer eco system should be highly advanced compared to today. To put 35 years of additional advancements into perspective, compare to 35 years ago or 1980, if I did the math correctly, and consider how far advanced the computer eco system has developed since then.
What I am talking about is how information is conveyed and presented using future home super-computers and who knows what kind of display technology available then. I expect long before 2050 people will be well informed that CO2 is not causing climate change or global warming but is instead making the world better for all living creatures, including humans.
Perhaps long before 2025 too.

Russ R.
March 31, 2015 9:59 pm

Step 1: Remove the engines from Air Force 1, and replace them with solar panels, driving electric motors, which drive propellers.
Complete waste of money, but it would save a ton of money.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Russ R.
March 31, 2015 10:06 pm

Reminds me of a great cartoon on the subject: Obama’s Wind Powered Energy Policy: http://www.investors.com/image/RAMclr-040811-hotairibd.jpg.cms

Bob Weber
March 31, 2015 10:02 pm

They will try to bind future administrations with this. They are offering nothing in return for everything, and who knows where this will lead if it is not stopped. The only possible way such massive reductions in energy use in the US could even be possible is through drastic enforcement measures, meaning the herding of people into cities or something, especially later on in their plans IF they are allowed to get that far.
What will happen to this country if this goes through? Where will Mexico export it’s population if our economy is shattered by restricted energy?
I foresee major problems with implementation. Michigan under Gov. Jennifer Granholm passed law intended to boost the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to 10% by 2015, and the next year she proposed to bump it to 45% by 2020.
According to http://www.eia.gov/renewable/state/michigan/pdf/michigan.pdf in 2010 Michigan obtained only 3.7% from renewables, then it went up in 2014 to 9% http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=MI#tabs-4
Lawmakers as late as Dec 2014 were attempting to reclassify the burning of hazardous industrial waste and tires as renewable energy, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/09/michigan-renewable-energy-bill-burning-tires_n_6296530.html.
The Union of Concerned Scientists here http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/renewable-energy-in-michigan.html directly say “we can triple renewable energy at virtually no extra cost”. Virtually no cost??? Sure.
Of course, after the trees they can mow down are cut and burned, and the tires from all the landfills are burnt up, what do we do up here then when we have mostly poor solar generation potential due to latitude and weather, and fickle winds?
I was once an advocate locally for wind power & our county passed a model wind turbine ordinance, yet… no turbines. Why? People don’t want them, and it’s not windy enough.
There’s not much more Michigan can do to attain a higher percentage from renewables other than shut down other power capacity, so apparently that is Obama’s intention.
What states are going to take the hit first so others can make the mark? Cap and trade policies and RPS plans will decimate state and regional economies across this country.
Since there is no global warming anymore, and the climate has always changed, Obama’s 25-28% by 2025 is a pipe dream. It’s insane, frankly.

Just an engineer
Reply to  Bob Weber
April 1, 2015 6:03 am

Here is one method of increasing the percentage supplied by “renewable”

Chris Hanley
March 31, 2015 10:29 pm

“… strong INDCs submitted by Norway and Switzerland …”
Bully for them, both countries rely heavily on hydro for electricity generation.
Too bad for you residents of flat arid countries out there, you’ll have to rely on the more expensive sources such as wind, solar or nuclear.
BTW Fossil fuels make up around 65% of Norway’s exports.

March 31, 2015 10:47 pm

In the last series of 24, the president of the USA had dementia. Life imitating art

March 31, 2015 10:52 pm

meanwhile, over in China – ???
30 March: Xinhua: Chinese scientists mull power station in space
The battle to dispel smog, cut greenhouse gases and solve the energy crisis is moving to space.
Chinese scientists are mulling the construction of a solar power station 36,000 kilometers above ground.
If realized, it will surpass the scale of the Apollo project and the International Space Station, and be the largest-ever space project.
The power station would be a super spacecraft on a geosynchronous orbit equipped with huge solar panels. The electricity generated would be converted to microwaves or lasers and transmitted to a collector on Earth.
In 1941, U.S. science fiction writer Isaac Asimov published the short story “Reason”, in which a space station transmits energy collected from the sun to various planets using microwave beams.
Wang Xiji, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and a member of the International Academy of Astronautics, says Asimov’s fiction has a scientific basis…
After devoting more than half a century to space technology research, Wang, 93, is an advocate for the station: “An economically viable space power station would be really huge, with the total area of the solar panels reaching 5 to 6 square kilometers.”
That’s equivalent to 12 of Beijing’s Tian’anmen Square, the largest public square in the world, or nearly two New York Central Parks.
“Maybe people on Earth could see it in the sky at night, like a star,” says Wang…
The world has recognized the need to replace fossil fuels with clean energies. However, the ground-based solar, wind, water and other renewable energy sources are too limited in volume and unstable.
“The world will panic when the fossil fuels can no longer sustain human development. We must acquire space solar power technology before then,” Wang says.
“Whoever obtains the technology first could occupy the future energy market. So it’s of great strategic significance,” Wang says…

Reply to  pat
March 31, 2015 10:57 pm

Pie in the sky

Reply to  pat
April 1, 2015 5:12 am

Land-based solar power stations with a central collector fry birds. What would a 5 sq km space solar power station fry? Planes? And if it got a wobble and missed its target?

Mac the Knife
Reply to  pat
April 1, 2015 11:52 am

Hmmmm – What could an increasingly aggressive China use space-based focused microwave beams and lasers for, other than ‘power generation’???

March 31, 2015 10:59 pm

The propaganda the left spouts is not for the informed, it is for the 30-45% of the population that they call useful idiots, because the useful idiots will believe the propaganda. The propagandists don’t give a fig about what we think, we don’t vote for them, but they are quite aware that the propaganda is very effective on a large portion of society..

March 31, 2015 11:42 pm

I can’t help but think how much lower CO2 emissions would be if they’d just “put a cork in it” instead of yammering about climate change all the time. I mean, really.

March 31, 2015 11:50 pm

How to destroy an economy and a countries wealth.
Milton Friedman will be turning in his grave.

George Lawson
April 1, 2015 12:34 am

Cannot the US President see that he has now put a shackle around the necks of many of the countries biggest industies: Power, Oil, Mining, Steel production, car production and many more industires,.at a time when those industries are essential to the wellbeing of the nations economy? These industries must be very concerned at the great difficulties they now face in achieving his almost impossible objective, and some may even have to close as a result. This is politicking in the extreme to gain credibility by a failing President, and does nothing to help the US ailing economy to get back to the sound economic growth it should be striving for. As a Brit., I am saddened by the futility of our Americam friends, when global warming has not happened for 19 years, and all the pointers are towards it not happening as a result of human activity.

Reply to  George Lawson
April 1, 2015 12:50 am

George Lawson says:
Cannot the US President see that he has now put a shackle around the necks of many of the country’s biggest industies…
Oh, he sees it. Very well. It is deliberate.
It’s exactly what a traitor in that office would do, no?

Reply to  dbstealey
April 1, 2015 6:42 am

I believe his term was “fundamentally change”.
In the words of that great American patriot GW Bush “Mission Accomplished”

Mac the Knife
Reply to  dbstealey
April 1, 2015 11:57 am

Don’t go there. It shows you fell for the false narrative the socialist media created. A “Mission Accomplished” banner was/is flown on many US naval vessels, as they return home from a long deployment. It is a simple statement to the ships crew that the deployment is over and their ship’s mission was accomplished. That’s all it means and all it was intended to mean.

April 1, 2015 12:53 am

Markl and Dave Burton above “carbon pollution”
It is worse than you thought (you read) the blurb actually calls it “Climate Pollution”
This is a new Americanism on me.
Gawd help us!
Or is just April fool’s?

Matthew R. Epp
April 1, 2015 1:31 am

@waterside4 – They are fools every day of the year.
@ George Lawson – Let us hope we elect conservative representatives who will really put the brakes on federal expansion of govt and reign in the EPA/ IRS/ ATF/ BLM/ etc. As we have seen, Boehner and company are RINO’s who aren’t/ won’t do anything.
Matthew R. Epp

April 1, 2015 2:09 am

Another set of ruinous laws, illegally created in secret by someone who isn’t authorized by the Constitution to write laws. And to top it off, these new laws harm the country to further a hoax.
One word sums of Obama’s legacy: malevolence.

Bill H
Reply to  LarryFine
April 1, 2015 9:40 pm

I would be more bold and pointed … TRAITOROUS…

April 1, 2015 2:40 am

Who would have thought that the only man in the world that caused untold damage to the USA was its president!

Just an engineer
Reply to  steverichards1984
April 1, 2015 6:10 am

Used to be a BHO was bad for your computer, now it’s bad for the country. (Google “BHO malware” )

Evan Jones
Reply to  steverichards1984
April 1, 2015 7:35 pm

Happens all the time. Rutherford Hayes? Andrew Jackson? James Buchanan? Woodrow Wilson?

April 1, 2015 2:41 am

UPDATE 1-Spain’s Banco Santander to sell Australian wind farm – source
SYDNEY, April 1 (Reuters) – Spain’s Banco Santander SA , Europe’s biggest bank, plans to sell its only Australian wind farm partly because of uncertainty about the country’s support for renewable energy, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters on Wednesday.
Santander is looking for a buyer for the 106.8-megawatt Taralga wind farm it is developing in New South Wales state, said the person, who was close to the sale but not authorised to comment publicly. Total funding of A$280 million ($214 million) was arranged for the project when Santander bought 90 percent of it two years ago through an Australian unit.
The person said Santander wants to sell for a number of reasons, one of which is political deadlock in Australia over how much of the country’s energy should be renewable by 2020. The person didn’t disclose other reasons for the pullout plan.

April 1, 2015 2:48 am

Transparency Needed in Publicly Funded News
The Maine Public Broadcasting Network (MPBN) provides some of the best and sometimes only coverage of statewide policy issues. That coverage often sets the agenda and shapes public opinion. Like Fox News, MSNBC and Maine’s newspapers, MPBN has biases which effects it’s news judgement, influencing what issues it covers or ignores and how.
The First Amendment protects the media from government meddling, but competition and credibility concerns have led most media outlets towards more transparency regarding their ideological bents and potential conflicts of interest. MPBN, as a pseudo “public” entity providing a public good while receiving a taxpayer subsidy has a higher responsibility in this area than private entities, and they have failed to meet this responsibility.
MPBN has resisted efforts to disclose their underwriting/sponsor relationships when an MPBN news story involves or quotes one of those underwriter/sponsors. The public has a right to know that MPBN’s news judgement and coverage might be impacted by their financial dependence on an underwriter/sponsor, and MPBN has a responsibility to disclose those relationships when they do a story involving their underwriters/sponsors.
Here are three examples of underwriters MPBN should be disclosing when they are covered and/or quoted in stories:…
Note: The three are renewable concerns and should have to be disclosed as underwriters.

April 1, 2015 2:58 am

Get ready folks, executive actions will drive the political landscape for the remaining 600+ days of this Preidency. Once in place, regulatory pronouncements set a framework for what ultimately becomes a wealth redistribution scheme.
My warning to this board: the Obama political machinery is grinding on with urgency while we read the articles here and comment from our comfortable chairs.
Be supportive of political and legal pushback in every way you can.

Reply to  Oatley
April 1, 2015 10:18 am

Yes, or be part of man-made policy distortion on a grand scale. We will have the world’s highest productivity because we cleaved off the majority to get there mathematically.

April 1, 2015 3:22 am

This is becoming an interesting experiment akin to the mythical frog in hot water. Of course the real frog always jumps out. Whether the real US voters will jump out is quite the open issue.
At least some of us can grow heriloom tomatos from out own seeds. Provided the next Mini or real Ice Age that’s approaching is much later.

April 1, 2015 3:38 am
Reply to  lgl
April 1, 2015 9:25 am

Even with the graph in hand the average activist and message manager still does not grasp the fundamentals of shale oil and hydrofracking. The shale is the source bed of the hydrocarbon that was previously used in the search process for conventional oil as one step in a chain of necessary conditions of geologic events leading to drill targets of migrated oil or gas. The new target is the source bed and now the juxtaposition in volume and risk implications could not be more different. So all of the OPEC, IEA and other armchair predictions about limited impact of shale oil are out the window. They are following the transport issues and evolutionary details instead of the big picture implications of the change in drilling risk and volume reward. Productivity will rule and talk will give way and be forced to adapt.

April 1, 2015 4:51 am

Does the US have a Finance minister or Treasury secretary any more or has Obama taken over that role as well . I ask because there seems to be a rather cavalier attitude to the ability of the US to service its debt . This debt stands at about 18 trillion USD and costs the US about 450 Billion USD each year to maintain .
So far the economy of the US has been regarded as a low risk debt , but Obama’s emasculation of its industries must surely increase that risk and send the interest rate up , to be paid ultimately by the possibly dwindling number of working Americans .
I wonder if this is why China last year reduced its 1.3Trillion exposure to US debt by 3%.
Some small , and not so small countries , Ireland, Brazil , Taiwan for example are quite exposed and may be getting nervous .

Reply to  mikewaite
April 1, 2015 5:19 am

A few decades ago, the Russians couldn’t understand the concepts of “profit” or “depreciation”.
Oh Bummer and other like-minded leftists do not understand “debt”.

Tom J
April 1, 2015 4:55 am

‘The U.S. target will roughly double the pace of carbon pollution reduction in the United States from 1.2 percent per year on average during the 2005-2020 period to 2.3-2.8 percent per year on average between 2020 and 2025.’
Piece of cake. Let’s see, 2005 was about 2 years ahead of the housing market crash and recession. So all we have to do is initiate another housing market crash and recession with about double the intensity. Simply double the foreclosure rate, and double the unemployment rate. Oh yes, on other points instead of doubling we’ll have to cut in half. Half of the current GDP. Half of the current labor participation rate. Anybody got a problem with that?

Alan McIntire
April 1, 2015 4:56 am

The white house has done nothing about an even greater threat, Oxygen pollution. They need to do everything possible to bring the earth back to the pristine condition it was in 2.3 billion years ago.

Reply to  Alan McIntire
April 1, 2015 7:00 am

They are aware of the problem.
When they talk about “carbon pollution” they don’t mean ‘pollution BY carbon’, they mean ‘pollution OF carbon’. You know, like “water pollution”.
They realize that oxygen is polluting our pure carbon and they are dedicated to the preservation of that noble element in its pristine state.

April 1, 2015 5:49 am

I’ve been waiting for some time for a report of just how many wind turbines and solar arrays it will take to power an average alumina refinery,
Still waiting.

April 1, 2015 5:56 am

F this whole thing. That’s why I’m supporting Ted Cruz for POTUS…

April 1, 2015 5:56 am

Obozo, thru the EPA, has already “implemented” carbon control, far worse than any cap-and-trade scheme. From the most recent weekly news post here at WUWT:

April 1, 2015 6:04 am

“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed guidelines for existing power plants in June 2014 that would reduce power sector emissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 while delivering $55-93 billion in annual net benefits from reducing carbon pollution and other harmful pollutants.”
This is nothing more than a 15-year plan a la Stalin at his “best”. Purely ephemeral claptrap. The benefits and cost have been invented of whole cloth.
As one example, the state of Mississippi already produces about 80% of it’s electricity from natural gas. Solar, hydro and wind will likely never be practical large-scale energy sources there. Yet they are required to cut 30% in a state with a socioeconomic profile which suggests that industrial growth is the primary opportunity for economic improvement within this time period. Obama is apparently of the opinion to “let them eat…. nothing”.

April 1, 2015 6:17 am

CO2, the life-giving gas, not “Carbon Pollution”. A Limerick – and explanation.
What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?
A sinister, evil collusion?
CO2, it is clean,
Makes for growth, makes it green,
A transfer of wealth, a solution.
The explanation: http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/

April 1, 2015 6:20 am

The White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25 percent by 2020.
You cannot accuse EPA to be lax;
It works very hard to propose a fart tax.
They are running on fumes:
Tax the bovine perfumes!
Throw all the bums out! Let us give them the axe.

April 1, 2015 6:26 am

People through the ages have always complained about two things. Life isn’t fair, and the weather. Obama has promised to fix both.
On the other hand:
China has rejected the scrutiny of efforts to limit carbon emissions, a key tool that the US says is necessary as more than 190 countries work to come up with a new deal to fight climate change. Chinese negotiators sought to delete provisions in a draft text that would have paved the way for other countries and non-governmental organizations to submit questions about its carbon-reduction plans, according to environmental groups that are official observers to the talks. –South China Morning Post, 8 December 2014
Obviously, China is not satisfied being only six times more powerful than the U.S. by the year 2030.
It cant be that bad. Check the CO2 statistics.China, the powerhouse of the world.

Reply to  lenbilen
April 1, 2015 7:06 am

The rain falleth upon both the just and the unjust fellah, but mainly upon the just, for the unjust hath stolen the just’s umbrella.

Reply to  mebbe
April 1, 2015 8:27 am

The original? version:
The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella;
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just’s umbrella.
– Lord Bowen
For those living in the North East:
The snow it snoweth on the just
and also on the unjust’s hovel
but chiefly on the just, because
the unjust steals the just’s snow shovel.
(apologies to Lord Bowen).

Reply to  mebbe
April 1, 2015 8:58 am

Nice modern version.
I usually try not to be small-minded but it seems our rhodos are blooming just a little brighter (and earlier) this year as I get reports from back east.

Ralph Kramden
April 1, 2015 8:51 am

Don’t make plans for carbon dioxide cuts after Jan. 20, 2017. That’s the US presidential inauguration date.

April 1, 2015 8:55 am

In about the year 2030 informed affluent Chinese will look on in wonder at the near total darkness in satellite pictures of the continental U.S. They will marvel at the effects of long-term policy mistakes on a previously wealthy and sophisticated nation. They will also make sarcastic comments among themselves at the few bright spots left on the satellite pictures around DC, Boston, NY, LA, and SF. They will marvel at the complete command and control of the peasants with political correctness and Potemkin villages of sustainability.
It will be the flip side of history when Americans shook their heads at the policy disaster known as the Cultural Revolution when professionals were sent off to hard labor camps or ridiculed in public simply for being educated and aware. And as before, the orchestrators of the policy disaster will go unpunished. The arrow of time will simply move around them as a dark era of determined demise as an exercise of power and control.

Reply to  Resourceguy
April 1, 2015 9:30 am
Reply to  Chris
April 1, 2015 9:55 am

Yes I saw that before. Surely you can grasp the differences between metro area policy vs national level grid planning?

Reply to  Chris
April 1, 2015 8:56 pm

Yes, I do understand the difference between cities and national policy. Let’s look at installed wind power by country: http://www.gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/5_global_installed_wind_power_capacity_MW-regional_distribution.jpg
China has almost 2X the installed wind capacity of the next largest country (the US). They installed 5X as much new wind power in 2014 as did the US.
For solar, China installed as much in 2013 as all of Europe did during the same year, and 2X what the US did.
They are also rolling out a nation wide carbon tax in 2016 (it is already deployed in some cities): http://www.afr.com/markets/commodities/energy/china-brings-forward-carbon-permits-plan-20140901-jdmov
Is China still building coal fired plants? Yes, some – which is not surprising given that they are trying to move 400M people from rural areas to urban ones. But the fact that total coal consumption in China declined last year – yes, declined – means that they are not building many new ones: http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-coal-consumption-and-output-fell-last-year-1424956878
China is still a huge emitter of CO2, but to imply that they are not doing anything to reduce CO2 emissions is not supported by the facts

Reply to  Chris
April 2, 2015 5:57 am

But the fact that total coal consumption in China declined last year – yes, declined – means that they are not building many new ones

Not necessarily. It also means they are building new USC (UltraSuperCritical) coal fired plants that produce more energy than nuclear plants, use far less coal, does not steam the water but recycles it, and produces, today, 15%to-17% less emissions than the 2020 Kyoto protocol requires.
They are getting rid of “obsolete low and medium pressure, small capacity thermal generating units and developing large capacity and high efficiency units,” like the ones described above.

April 1, 2015 9:26 am

I can’t believe the stupidity of people who say, look even the chinese are pledging to reduce their CO2 output. Don’t they read and think or just listen to the sound bites.

Reply to  Tim
April 1, 2015 10:07 am

I go back and forth on this one. Either this is a continuing clash of personality types with one liberal side shunning the weight of evidence and anything remotely associated with strategic evaluation of industries, data, and policy effects including the C-word for cost or they are simply masked to look that way by activist policy stance and short script messaging. I suppose it could be both in message managers manipulating a personality type with recurring tactics targeting their own first and the general public and public policy later.

Bob Lyman
April 1, 2015 10:13 am

The numbers don’t add up. The IPCC thesis is that, in order to have a good chance (not a guarantee) of avoiding catastrophic temperature increases, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide would have to peak below 400 to 450 parts per million (ppm) and stabilize in the long term at around 380 ppm. It states that, to achieve that, global carbon dioxide emissions would have to decline by about 60% by 2050. This assumes that emissions from industrialized countries can be reduced by over 80% by 2050.
The International Energy Agency 2013 World Energy Outlook and projections showed 2009 global emissions of 29,684 megatonnes, and a projection that those emissions would grow to 41,464 (almost 40%) by 2030. U.S. emissions would grow from 5418 megatonnes in 2009 to 5523 megatonnes by 2030 (2%). China’s emissions would grow from 7,347 megatonnes in 2009 to 14,028 by 2030 (91%).
The effects of the recent political statements (not treaty commitments) by various parties is to reduce U.S. and OECD Europe’s projected 2030 emissions by 3175 megatonnes to 38,289 megatonnes. This would still represent a 29% increase over the 2009 level, not a decrease as the IPCC claims is needed. Chinese emissions would by 2030 by more than three and half times U.S. emissions.
The IPCC’s illusory goal will not and cannot be attained. The U.S., however, can do long lasting damage to its economy.

Reply to  Bob Lyman
April 1, 2015 10:24 am

Unilateral and over reach are a bad combination to say the least.

Reply to  Bob Lyman
April 3, 2015 8:54 am

Bob Lyman commented:
“The IPCC’s illusory goal will not and cannot be attained. The U.S., however, can do long lasting damage to its economy.” You’re assuming the goal is about temperature. The UN has openly stated their goal is to ‘defeat’ Capitalism and replace it with a ‘one world’ Socialist economy.

Christopher Paino
April 1, 2015 10:45 am

dbstealey April 1, 2015 at 12:40 am
“Voting is not a right.”
Care to explain this interpretation?
Thanks very much!

Reply to  Christopher Paino
April 1, 2015 2:51 pm

Christopher Paino,
Sure. The right to vote isn’t in the Constitution. True, it says things like, “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” [15th Amendment], but what that is saying is that discrimination in voting cannot be abridged due to race, sex, etc. Other amendments specify a minimum voting age, or preclude a poll tax. But the right of everyone to vote is not explicitly stated. Otherwise, ex-felons and those confined to mental institutions would have the “right” to vote.
Real rights include free speech, free association, opinion, self-defense, religion, due process, etc. They are natural rights because they cannot be taken away by government fiat.
But voting is a privilege. Only landowners could vote when the Constitution was written. Women were not allowed to vote. And today the U.S. is one of only 11 nations out of 120 democracies that does not guarantee an explicit ‘right’ to vote in its Constitution. Even Iraq’s new constitution includes the right to vote.
The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” Non-citizens do not have a human right to vote. State legislatures wield the power to decide who is “qualified.” [Remember that prior to the 17th Amendment, we were still the United States.]
So voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of state governments. Like a lot of leftist pablum these days, the “right to vote” has crept into the discussion. But if voting was really a right, a medical doctor could not unilaterally and arbitrarily deny that ‘right’ when he confined someone to a mental institution.

Christopher Paino
Reply to  dbstealey
April 2, 2015 11:01 am

Thanks db!
Understand your interpretation, but disagree with it. The right to vote in the US may not be inalienable, but’s it’s still a right. Semantics?

April 1, 2015 1:07 pm

“Voting is not a right.” Do you mean like this?

Bill H
Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
April 1, 2015 9:50 pm

Left wit propaganda.. keeping only the citizenry voting is how we keep democrats from committing fraud and stealing elections.. Having the dead vote three or four times while busing in illegals to vote for the wealth of Americans taken by force from those who created it..
OR Democrat precincts where all votes for republicans were automatically shifted to democrats and even after they changed them back it changed them again on the electronic voting touch screens just before they hit completed..
OF course we dont hear about those investigations and they disappear just like giving guns to drug king pins in an effort to get gun control in the US.. Fast and Furious… Cant have rules that might stop democrats from stealing what they want..

Reply to  Bill H
April 2, 2015 6:09 am

“while busing in illegals?”
It’s all digital now, pal.

Reply to  uıʇɹɐɯ pɹɐʍpE
April 2, 2015 5:17 am

Except that fraud in voter id has been investigated multiple times and found to be a tiny percentage of votes cast – far less than .01%.
Let’s look at the new voter id laws, such as the one in Texas. I picked a random small town from the list of cities where you can get id. It is the only place you can get id in that area. It’s open exactly two (2) days per month, between 8 and 4 and Wednesdays, and closed during lunch from 12-130. So if you are unable to get time off from your job to go to that office on those 2 days per month, tough luck for you. You won’t be voting in the next Texas election.

Reply to  Chris
April 2, 2015 10:31 am

If you really believe that “far less than 0.01%” of votes cast are fraudulent, then you’re beyond hope. The WaPo has colonized your mind, and you’re just head-nodding along with them. Good boy, that’s what they want. ☹

Reply to  Chris
April 2, 2015 11:14 am

dbstealey, if you have evidence to refute the .01% figure based on voter id fraud, please provide it.

Reply to  Chris
April 2, 2015 12:37 pm

TrueTheVote came to different conclusions by comparing jury duty response cards to voting records. People that declined to participate in the jury pools due to being non-citizens, often voted … accounting for as much as 6% of the vote in some counties. WaPost is not exactly objective here…

Reply to  Chris
April 2, 2015 2:25 pm

How much evidence do you want? I have a folder labeled “Voter Fraud”. Here are just of few of the many links:
I have dozens more. But these should be more than enough to convince any reasonable person that the WaPo’s 0.01% number is a preposterous understatement of the problem. And if these links aren’t sufficient, then your mind is closed to the facts. For anyone: if you want more links like these, just ask and I’ll be happy to post them for you.
Voter fraud is a HUGE problem, and it gets worse every election. There is some on the Republican side [&IANAR], but the Democrats commit well over 90% of all vote fraud. The top law enforcement officer in the country is A.G. Eric Holder. He has done exactly nothing to correct the problem, which makes him complicit.

Reply to  Chris
April 2, 2015 3:16 pm

Ron House,
Sure he is. The U.S. Attorney General has been involved in many voting issues. He could certainly investigate and prosecute voter fraud — if he wanted to.
Holder also refuses to investigate the IRS abuse of citizens, the flood of citizens of other countries entering the U.S. illegally by the thousands every month, and numerous other blatant violations of the law. Disregarding rampant voter fraud fits his M.O., which is clear: if the crimes benefit his Party, he turns a blind eye. But if the crimes are committed by his political opponents, he gives ’em both barrels, and then some.
Question: whatever became of ‘equal treatment before the law’?

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  Chris
April 3, 2015 9:12 am

A number of state-wide elections have been decided by blatant fraud, with more “lost” ballots repeatedly found until a Democrat WA governor and MN senator were “elected”. People in OH & FL have admitted voting multiple times. Winos vote in WI and MO in exchange for smokes. The OR & WA vote by mail would be laughably fraudulent, were it not for the crime of depriving legitimate voters of their voice. College activists vote their apathetic dorm mates’ ballots and retrieve thrown away ballots from the garbage. Nursing home staff vote for their incapable patients. The entire move to legalize illegal immigrants and import hordes of sick children is designed to increase the anti-American electorate.
Obama’s 2012 victory was well within the margin of fraud in key swing states.
Without new federal legislation, it will only get worse. Voter ID alone won’t stop this scourge. At a minimum thumb prints should be required and vote fraud made a capital offense. If you lack both thumbs, then another finger will do (but only one out of privacy concerns). If no fingers, then a toe. If no digits, then iris scan. If no eyes, then a print of whatever body part you might still retain.

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  Chris
April 3, 2015 9:26 am

Do you have this one, in which illegal aliens in FL voted half a dozen times each:

Reply to  Chris
April 3, 2015 2:07 pm

I’ll add that one to my folder. I may or may not have it, but there are too many links there to check. I’ll just throw it in there with the others. Thanks.

April 1, 2015 6:42 pm

I suppose this press release presupposes a high climatic sensitivity to CO2 increases in the atmosphere.
How misinformed!

April 2, 2015 6:26 am

Replying to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/31/white-house-releases-plan-to-lower-carbon-dioxide-emissions/#comment-1896006 – Chris.
From the link…
Coal: Huge numbers of birds, roughly 7.9 million, may be killed by coal, according to analysis by Benjamin K. Sovacool, director of the Danish Center for Energy Technologies. His estimate, however, included everything from mining to production and climate change, which together amounted to about five birds per gigawatt-hour of energy generated by coal.
The referenced study.
Reading the paper, I see he says the wind power carcass rate may be under-counted. He also includes mountain top removal mining in West Virginia, electrocution of birds in power lines (how would that a coal only problem?), a very loose estimate of the impact of acid rain on wood thrush habitat, and a complete WAG on climate change. His WAG on climate change BTW is, unsurprisingly, 96% of his attributed death toll from coal.
So. Seems to go out of his way to underestimate wind, and overestimate coal. How much of an underestimate? His estimate for the avian death rate of 20k is 1/7th the “low” estimate of the link you gave, and less than 1/16th of the high estimate. So, I’d say that paper is clearly engaging in some wild speculation.

April 2, 2015 10:17 am

The trouble with a massive, blinders-on over reach policy campaign targeting CO2 is that we could lose half the rain forests from deforestation and no one will recognize the dangers. Such one-dimensional climate wars will stand by while a real problem creates real impact that cannot be smoothed over by media and activist methods of denial. This is similar to the recent case of the WHO being asleep while Ebola spread a volunteer medical group sounded the alarm. A much greater assault on the UN’s undercount of deforestation must stay in the news to stop the official neglect strategy from going further.

April 2, 2015 12:41 pm

Humans and other carbon-based life forms will need to ‘check their privilege’. Just ’cause you’re alive, doesn’t mean you aren’t pollution! The EPA is no doubt already forming policy guidance to eliminate these dangerous sources of pollution. Cutting power to all states not on a ocean coast, will likely reduce CO2 emissions sufficiently to meet the goal. /sarc

%d bloggers like this: