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.
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.
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.
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.
Hahaha
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/oil.jpg
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.
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 .
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”.
‘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?
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.
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.
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.
F this whole thing. That’s why I’m supporting Ted Cruz for POTUS…
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:
http://www.powermag.com/industry-in-turmoil-coal-plants-shutting-down-around-the-world/
“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”.
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/
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.
http://lenbilen.com/2014/04/20/cut-dairy-emissions-25-by-2020-fart-tax-anyone-a/
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.
http://lenbilen.com/2014/12/06/china-the-powerhouse-of-the-world-check-the-co2-statistics/
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.
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).
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.
Don’t make plans for carbon dioxide cuts after Jan. 20, 2017. That’s the US presidential inauguration date.
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.
China is moving away from coal as well: http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/china-to-shut-remainder-of-its-major-coal-power-st
Yes I saw that before. Surely you can grasp the differences between metro area policy vs national level grid planning?
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
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.
http://www.egcfe.ewg.apec.org/publications/proceedings/CFE/Austrailia_2012/4D-2_Jie.pdf
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.
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.
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.
Unilateral and over reach are a bad combination to say the least.
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.
dbstealey April 1, 2015 at 12:40 am
“Voting is not a right.”
Care to explain this interpretation?
Thanks very much!
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.
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?
“Voting is not a right.” Do you mean like this?
http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/561*425/ows_14141930639183.jpg
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..
“while busing in illegals?”
It’s all digital now, pal.
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%.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/
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.
Chris,
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. ☹
dbstealey, if you have evidence to refute the .01% figure based on voter id fraud, please provide it.
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…
Chris,
How much evidence do you want? I have a folder labeled “Voter Fraud”. Here are just of few of the many links:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
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.
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’?
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.
DB,
Do you have this one, in which illegal aliens in FL voted half a dozen times each:
http://toprightnews.com/illegal-aliens-non-citizens-caught-voting-in-florida-in-large-numbers/
Sturgis,
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.
I suppose this press release presupposes a high climatic sensitivity to CO2 increases in the atmosphere.
How misinformed!
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.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857
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.
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.
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