Announcing Obama's new 'Carbon Pollution' plan

I got this email this morning direct to my private email, and not part of an email list. I suppose the White House thinks the reach and impact we have at WUWT have is important enough to merit a direct email to me of this press release. So, I’ll play the game, publish this PR, and we’ll watch with disdain as our energy infrastructure is dismantled over an overblown climate threat that has become little more than a political tool. As Willis Eschenbach noted in a recent guest post, “Obama May Finally Succeed!”

White-House_Logo

FACT SHEET: PRESIDENT OBAMA TO ANNOUNCE HISTORIC CARBON POLLUTION STANDARDS FOR POWER PLANTS

PRESIDENT OBAMA TO ANNOUNCE HISTORIC

CARBON POLLUTION STANDARDS FOR POWER PLANTS

 

The Clean Power Plan is a Landmark Action to Protect Public Health, Reduce Energy Bills for Households and Businesses, Create American Jobs, and Bring

Clean Power to Communities across the Country

 

Today at the White House, President Obama and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy will release the final Clean Power Plan, a historic step in the Obama Administration’s fight against climate change.  

 

We have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that’s not polluted or damaged. The effects of climate change are already being felt across the nation. In the past three decades, the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled, and climate change is putting those Americans at greater risk of landing in the hospital. Extreme weather events – from more severe droughts and wildfires in the West to record heat waves – and sea level rise are hitting communities across the country. In fact, 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all occurred in the first 15 years of this century and last year was the warmest year ever. The most vulnerable among us – including children, older adults, people with heart or lung disease, and people living in poverty – are most at risk from the impacts of climate change. Taking action now is critical.

 

The Clean Power Plan establishes the first-ever national standards to limit carbon pollution from power plants. We already set limits that protect public health by reducing soot and other toxic emissions, but until now, existing power plants, the largest source of carbon emissions in the United States, could release as much carbon pollution as they wanted.

 

The final Clean Power Plan sets flexible and achievable standards to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, 9 percent more ambitious than the proposal. By setting carbon pollution reduction goals for power plants and enabling states to develop tailored implementation plans to meet those goals, the Clean Power Plan is a strong, flexible framework that will:

 – Provide significant public health benefits – The Clean Power Plan, and other policies put in place to drive a cleaner energy sector, will reduce premature deaths from power plant emissions by nearly 90 percent in 2030 compared to 2005 and decrease the pollutants that contribute to the soot and smog and can lead to more asthma attacks in kids by more than 70 percent. The Clean Power Plan will also avoid up to 3,600 premature deaths, lead to 90,000 fewer asthma attacks in children, and prevent 300,000 missed work and school days.

 

– Create tens of thousands of jobs while ensuring grid reliability;

 

– Drive more aggressive investment in clean energy technologies than the proposed rule, resulting in 30 percent more renewable energy generation in 2030 and continuing to lower the costs of renewable energy.

 

– Save the average American family nearly $85 on their annual energy bill in 2030, reducing enough energy to power 30 million homes, and save consumers a total of $155 billion from 2020-2030; 

 

– Give a head start to wind and solar deployment and prioritize the deployment of energy efficiency improvements in low-income communities that need it most early in the program through a Clean Energy Incentive Program; and

 

– Continue American leadership on climate change by keeping us on track to meet the economy-wide emissions targets we have set, including the goal of reducing emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

 

KEY FEATURES OF THE CLEAN POWER PLAN

 

The final Clean Power Plan takes into account the unprecedented input EPA received through extensive outreach, including the 4 million comments that were submitted to the agency during the public comment period. The result is a fair, flexible program that will strengthen the fast-growing trend toward cleaner and lower-polluting American energy. The Clean Power Plan significantly reduces carbon pollution from the electric power sector while advancing clean energy innovation, development, and deployment. It ensures the U.S. will stay on a path of long-term clean energy investments that will maintain the reliability of our electric grid, promote affordable and clean energy for all Americans, and continue United States leadership on climate action. The Clean Power Plan:  

 

Provides Flexibility to States to Choose How to Meet Carbon Standards: EPA’s Clean Power Plan establishes carbon pollution standards for power plants, called carbon dioxide (CO2) emission performance rates. States develop and implement tailored plans to ensure that the power plants in their state meet these standards– either individually, together, or in combination with other measures like improvements in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The final rule provides more flexibility in how state plans can be designed and implemented, including: streamlined opportunities for states to include proven strategies like trading and demand-side energy efficiency in their plans, and allows states to develop “trading ready” plans to participate in “opt in” to an emission credit trading market with other states taking parallel approaches without the need for interstate agreements. All low-carbon electricity generation technologies, including renewables, energy efficiency, natural gas, nuclear and carbon capture and storage, can play a role in state plans.

 

– More Time for States Paired With Strong Incentives for Early Deployment of Clean Energy: State plans are due in September of 2016, but states that need more time can make an initial submission and request extensions of up to two years for final plan submission.  The compliance averaging period begins in 2022 instead of 2020, and emission reductions are phased in on a gradual “glide path” to 2030. These provisions to give states and companies more time to prepare for compliance are paired with a new Clean Energy Incentive Program to drive deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency before 2022.

 

Creates Jobs and Saves Money for Families and Businesses: The Clean Power Plan builds on the progress states, cities, and businesses and have been making for years. Since the beginning of 2010, the average cost of a solar electric system has dropped by half and wind is increasingly competitive nationwide. The Clean Power Plan will drive significant new investment in cleaner, more modern and more efficient technologies, creating tens of thousands of jobs. Under the Clean Power Plan, by 2030, renewables will account for 28 percent of our capacity, up from 22 percent in the proposed rule. Due to these improvements, the Clean Power Plan will save the average American nearly $85 on their energy bill in 2030, and save consumers a total of $155 billion through 2020-2030, reducing enough energy to power 30 million homes.

 

–  Rewards States for Early Investment in Clean Energy, Focusing on Low-Income Communities: The Clean Power Plan establishes a Clean Energy Incentive Program that will drive additional early deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency. Under the program, credits for electricity generated from renewables in 2020 and 2021 will be awarded to projects that begin construction after participating states submit their final implementation plans. The program also prioritizes early investment in energy efficiency projects in low-income communities by the Federal government awarding these projects double the number of credits in 2020 and 2021. Taken together, these incentives will drive faster renewable energy deployment, further reduce technology costs, and lay the foundation for deep long-term cuts in carbon pollution. In addition, the Clean Energy Incentive Plan provides additional flexibility for states, and will increase the overall net benefits of the Clean Power Plan.

 

Ensures Grid Reliability: The Clean Power Plan contains several important features to ensure grid reliability as we move to cleaner sources of power. In addition to giving states more time to develop implementation plans, starting compliance in 2022, and phasing in the targets over the decade, the rule requires states to address reliability in their state plans. The final rule also provides a “reliability safety valve” to address any reliability challenges that arise on a case-by-case basis. These measures are built on a framework that is inherently flexible in that it does not impose plant-specific requirements and provides states flexibility to smooth out their emission reductions over the period of the plan and across sources.

 

Continues U.S. Leadership on Climate Change: The Clean Power Plan continues United States leadership on climate change. By driving emission reductions from power plants, the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Clean Power Plan builds on prior Administration steps to reduce emissions, including historic investments to deploy clean energy technologies, standards to double the fuel economy of our cars and light trucks, and steps to reduce methane pollution. Taken together these measures put the United States on track to achieve the President’s near-term target to reduce emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and lay a strong foundation to deliver against our long-term target to reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The release of the Clean Power Plan continues momentum towards international climate talks in Paris in December, building on announcements to-date of post-2020 targets by countries representing 70 percent of global energy based carbon emissions.  

 

Sets State Targets in a Way That Is Fair and Is Directly Responsive to Input from States, Utilities, and Stakeholders: In response to input from stakeholders, the final Clean Power Plan modifies the way that state targets are set by using an approach that better reflects the way the electricity grid operates, using updated information about the cost and availability of clean generation technologies, and establishing separate emission performance rates for all coal plants and all gas plants. .

 

Maintains Energy Efficiency as Key Compliance Tool: In addition to on-site efficiency and greater are reliance on low and zero carbon generation, the Clean Power Plan provides states with broad flexibility to design carbon reduction plans that include energy efficiency and other emission reduction strategies.  EPA’s analysis shows that energy efficiency is expected to play a major role in meeting the state targets as a cost-effective and widely-available carbon reduction tool, saving enough energy to power 30 million homes and putting money back in ratepayers’ pockets.

 

Requires States to Engage with Vulnerable Populations:The Clean Power Plan includes provisions that require states to meaningfully engage with low-income, minority, and tribal communities, as the states develop their plans. EPA also encourages states to engage with workers and their representatives in the utility and related sectors in developing their state plans.

 

Includes a Proposed Federal Implementation Plan: EPA is also releasing a proposed federal plan today. This proposed plan will provide a model states can use in designing their plans, and when finalized, will be a backstop to ensure that the Clean Power Plan standards are met in every state.

 

Since the Clean Air Act became law more than 45 years ago with bipartisan support, the EPA has continued to protect the health of communities, in particular those vulnerable to the impacts of harmful air pollution, while the economy has continued to grow. In fact, since 1970, air pollution has decreased by nearly 70 percent while the economy has tripled in size. The Clean Power Plan builds on this progress, while providing states the flexibility and tools to transition to clean, reliable, and affordable electricity. 

 

BUILDING ON PROGRESS

 

The Clean Power Plan builds on steps taken by the Administration, states, cities, and companies to move to cleaner sources of energy. Solar electricity generation has increased more than 20-fold since 2008, and electricity from wind has more than tripled.  Efforts such as the following give us a strong head start in meeting the Clean Power Plan’s goals:

– 50 states with demand-side energy efficiency programs

– 37 states with renewable portfolio standards or goals

– 10 states with market-based greenhouse gas reduction programs

– 25 states with energy efficiency standards or goals 

 

Today’s actions also build on a series of actions the Administration is taking through the President’s Climate Action Plan to reduce the dangerous levels of carbon pollution that are contributing to climate change, including:

 

Standards for Light and Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Earlier this summer, the EPA and the Department of Transportation proposed the second phase of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, which if finalized as proposed will reduce 1 billion tons of carbon pollution. The proposed standards build on the first phase of heavy-duty vehicle requirements and standards for light-duty vehicles issued during the President’s first term that will save Americans $1.7 trillion, reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels per day by 2025, and slash greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion metric tons through the lifetime of the program. 

 

Low Income Solar: Last month, the White House announced a new initiative to increase access to solar energy for all Americans, in particular low-and moderate income communities, and build a more inclusive workforce. The initiative will help families and businesses cut their energy bills through launching a National Community Solar Partnership to unlock access to solar for the nearly 50 percent of households and business that are renters or do not have adequate roof space to install solar systems and sets a goal to install 300 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy in federally subsidized housing by 2020. Through this initiative housing authorities, rural electric co-ops, power companies, and organizations in more than 20 states across the country committed to put in place more than 260 solar energy projects and philanthropic and impact investors, states, and cities are committed to invest $520 million to advance community solar and scale up solar and energy efficiency for low- and moderate- income households. The initiative also includes AmeriCorps funding to deploy solar and create jobs in underserved communities and a commitment from the solar industry to become the most diverse sector of the U.S. energy industry.

 

Economy-Wide Measures to Reduce other Greenhouse Gases: EPA and other agencies are taking actions to cut methane emissions from oil and gas systems, landfills, coal mining, and agriculture through cost-effective voluntary actions and common-sense standards. At the same time, the U.S. Department of State is working to slash global emissions of potent industrial greenhouse gases, called hydrofluorocarbons (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 of carbon pollution through 2025.

 

Investing in Coal Communities, Workers, and Communities:  In February, as part of the President’s FY 2016 budget, the Administration released the POWER+ Plan to invest in workers and jobs, address important legacy costs in coal country, and drive the development of coal technology. The Plan provides dedicated new resources for economic diversification, job creation, job training, and other employment services for workers and communities impacted by layoffs at coal mines and coal-fired power plants; includes unprecedented investments in the health and retirement security of mineworkers and their families and the accelerated clean-up of hazardous coal abandoned mine lands; and provides new tax incentives to support continued technology development and deployment of carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration technologies. 

 

Energy Efficiency Standards: DOE set a goal of reducing carbon pollution by 3 billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030 through energy conservation standards issued during this Administration. DOE has already finalized 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. 

 

Investing in Clean Energy: In June the White House announced more than $4 billion in private-sector commitments and executive actions to scale up investment in clean energy innovation, including launching a new Clean Energy Impact Investment Center at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to make information about energy and climate programs at DOE and other government agencies accessible and more understandable to the public, including to mission-driven investors.

 

Advertisements

324 thoughts on “Announcing Obama's new 'Carbon Pollution' plan

    • The next guy I meet in person who uses carbon (dioxide) and pollution in the same sentence is going to get a sharp left to the ‘Marie Carelli”

    • So biff, you really think it is that good eh ?? Well dung beatles just love bovine scat.
      Why does this editor not know what beatles are ??
      “””””….. a historic step in the Obama Administration’s fight against climate change. …..”””””
      So king Obama, is going to sit in his oval office chair with his boots up on the special oval office desk, in his formal salute, and do a king Canute number on the climate, and command it to cease changing.
      Biggest unknown at this point is whether he or Gina McCarthy is the smarter of the two.
      This white house occupant has so many feathers already in his ” legacy “cap, that nobody is ever going to remember just what exactly it was that he did, while in office.
      And with the Clintons the most likely next tenants, there isn’t going to be anything left, that really needs to get done; so they are going to get bored to tears.

  1. Maybe next week he can stake out a leadership position on Bigfoot and spend billions eliminating that nasty vegetation he hides in. The vegetation must be bad since it DEMANDS that CO2 pollutant to thrive.
    The Ministry of Truth is alive and well.

    • Because ignoring it won’t make it go away. Discussion and analysis is relevant, or you can choose to stick your fingers in your ears and go “lalalalalala!”

      • Mr Watts,
        You are correct in saying it will not go away. The question I would submit is:
        What action can folks take that would yield positive results?
        I suggest a campaign of emails to representatives.

      • Starting now, it’s time to graph the cost of power to the”average consumer”, with the endline $85 less in 2030, the POTUS line! Let’s see how the actual trend goes. But are the savings monthly or annual? Are they $2015 or $2030? So many questions….

      • Paul,
        The house of representatives in the US are powerless because they … oh, never mind,
        Obomber is implimenting this through executive fiat, via his bureaucratic and ideological minions.

      • The Obama people may want to float this plan as a trial balloon with us so that they can formulate rebuttals to combat all of us skeptical nay-sayers after the plan is rolled out!

      • This was prominently featured on the BBC news last night.
        It is very kind of you Americans to take over the mantle of climate leadership from us Brits and to willingly agree to paying far more for your energy costs and your gasoline. The competitive advantage you currently enjoy due to fracking and low energy costs will now disappear and you can all see what the rest of us in the developed world have been squealing about for years.
        The higher energy costs will come directly out of your pockets.
        tonyb

      • Robert of Ottawaw.
        Representatives in the House and Senate could vote to defund the EPA rendering the EPA useless and/or ineffective.
        In America we can do anything we want to!

      • @Robert
        Yes, those hoof beats you hear aren’t zebras, they are RINO’s in full charge, er retreat.

      • Anthony, I applaud the open approach that you take on climate, airing all views and not shutting down dissenting voices. Of course it was the right thing to do, to publish Obama’s statement.
        It is a nice irony that the previous post was Willis’s excellent article on the diabolically high cost of renewable energy.
        Brian (August 3, 2015 at 10:06 am) asks “What can we do about this? Seriously, so many people are outraged about the lies, we need to get organised while we still have time, what can we do?“.
        I think that is a very valid question. WUWT has been and is fantastic, but I doubt that it reaches as far as it needs to in order to combat the madness. I agree with Paul that we need to start generating emails to representatives. Can you, and we, produce some short and to the point statements and articles specifically for WUWT readers to send to their political representatives and local media? It is time for truth to get its boots on.
        Maybe we could start by using Obama’s “Under my plan the electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.”. In conjunction with Willis’s graph it would be deadly – if only people knew how to read a graph. (And that tells you how hard it is to get sensible information through to people in the age of holistic education and social media).

      • “Representatives in the House and Senate could vote to defund the EPA rendering the EPA useless and/or ineffective.”
        If they had the balls to do that, they’d have done so years ago.

      • Jack, the House and Senate aren’t powerless, because they could refuse to pass bills that contain any spending for the EPA and any other rogue agency.
        What they lack is the desire to actually do anything that might get the NYT and Wash Post mad at them and heaven forbid, cause them to be disinvited from any of the A-list parties.

      • Mike, I believe Anthony and this site are most valuable doing what they do now. Publishing science that won’t see the light of day anywhere else and trying to stay out of the politics of the issue. Which isn’t to say that we the poloi are forbidden from commenting on the politics.
        That someone needs to take up the mantle of trying to do something to resist the growing tyranny from Washington is beyond argument. Personally, I’m more of a Patrick Henry than a John Adams.

      • Defunding the EPA sounds great until you realize that our Undocumented Worker-in-Chief uses the Fed Reserve as his personal money source and will fund it around Congress. He can write any check he wants off the Fed. Res. or even just have the money sent over secretly. How else would he fund his shadow government of czars?

    • It’s a matter for rejoicing. The USA has reached peak stupid, and it’s all downhill from now.

      • But which way is downhill? The B.S. is so ubiquitous and destabilizing that far too many people don’t know up from down, and they will continue to be led by the loudest voice.

      • Stupidity has no limits. It can, and will, continue to get worse for as long as we elect idiots to public office. Unfortunately, the idiots are on both sides so I don’t see it getting better anytime soon.

      • I think we are now so flooded with stupidity, it has spread out to a sheet flow across the land.
        I wonder…is the asthma getting worse in the parts if the US where it is warmer than normal, or cooler than normal, over the past several years?
        Or is changing climate responsible for all asthma now, regardless of actual temps?
        I am very curious to know where sea level rise is having all the awful affects?
        Is it at our seashore communities, which are still beong rebuilt as fast as possible, using federal emergency funding, after storms damage these areas?

      • As far as sea level rise, the sea level rise “Authorities” have done something similar to what NASA and the temperature “Authorities” have done to the temperature record recently. The sea level rise “Authorities” have begun using wave height averages as the new standard. The measurements are no longer taken at sea level, but at how high the waves splash on the measuring indicators.

      • Remember when socialists and progressives and Democrats cheered the “little” guys, the agrarian poor who would sneak onto the slow moving coal trains as they crept up the long grade, fill bags with coal and toss them onto the sides of the tracks, to be used at home for heating and cooking? This was celebrated as a form of democratic fairness, spreading the wealth, sticking it to the man, and so forth. NOW they’re the ones smacking down the little guy, hammering him on his utility bill, hammering him with higher costs for everything that must be transported (which is virtually everything), not to mention brainwashing his children to be climate shaming tools and propagandizing all of us to believe that higher energy costs will be good for job creation. How long will these people continue to accept this bullsh… er, malarkey?

      • My asthma actually did get worse for a while. That was back in the days when the oil companies figured out how to sell us their MTBE effluent, that they wondered what to do with, to help reduce the gas mileage for our cars.
        But in California, we had our ” Can you hear us now Rallies ” on the steps of the Sacramento Capitol, and finally got rid of that air pollutant.
        But they replaced it with ethanol, so as to keep our gas mileage (MPG) from going up.
        The oil companies said they could make California reformulated gas standards, without having to add water to the fuel molecule (H2O) ; which is all that an alcohol or ether is anyway. But the corn lobby has more horsepower than the voters.
        But the ethanolgas doesn’t give me asthma like the MTBE did (in spades).
        g

      • I believe it was Einstein who said that there are only two infinite things. The universe, and human stupidity. And he wasn’t sure about the universe.

    • Because the government aims to expand its power almost without limit based on an obvious and ridiculous set of lies, and if they are not stopped it will be very, very bad.

    • One of the things that makes WUWT good is that it presents information from the CO2 alarmist side of the fence. Even when qualifying articles with “People send me stuff” or “Claim: global warming causes XYZ” this site is more balanced the most others, in my opinion….

  2. Given that asthma diagnoses have gone up as pollution levels have gone down, the PR linkage is less than impressively robust.

    • In the UK, it is now realised ultra-clean homes in your first couple of years in life is coincident with rising asthma levels. Solution: get a dog and/or let your kids play in the mud, as these both help set up their immune systems the way nature intended.
      Also, on what planet is renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuelled energy, unless hugely subsidised.
      This is bad science from beginning to end, a modern day prohibition act.

      • Try planet Obama. It’s out there somewhere I’m sure. It certainly isn’t where I exist.

      • All conventional energy is solar and renewable. You just have to be more patient for stuff like coal, that is all.

      • Ernest Bush wrote: “Try Planet Obama.”
        Careful, don’t give those megalomaniacs in the White House any ideas.

      • This rise is US asthma rates over the last 30 years or so, despite contiuing improvement in air quality levels, has been attributed by many physicians to the big push for “weatherization” and sealing up all leaks in residences in order to combat energy “waste”. The government has spent billlions promoting and subsidizing such work. Doctors note that interior air quality levels, even when no smokers are present, have deteriorated significantly. Stale air and accumlated dust can no longer escape from homes the way it used to.

      • Of course it is cheaper the government pays the subsidies (with our money) and the renewable companies pocket the profit and then charge extra for the energy.
        The money that the government pays comes out of tax money that should be used for health and education, or it comes out of the economy resulting in your country going down the plughole. check to see who is investing ion renewable energy, here in Australia the union pension funds are deep into that investment stream so guess who supports the industry (and even then the chinese are the ones who get the manufacturing jobs) but the unions dont care about their members jobs just the funds that they control.
        Welcome to the real world USof A Obama has suceeded in selling you out and you are patting him on the back for doing so.

      • Unfortunately, we are unlikely to ever see another episode of large scale coal formation on the Earth. One of the main reasons that so much coal was formed during the carboniferous period is that plants and trees had developed lignin and various forms of cellulose, and it took many tens of millions of years for any organisms to develop the enzymes needed to break these down…so it all just sat where it fell. Lignin took the longest for any substantial ability to degrade it was “invented”, and during those tens of millions of years, trees had far more bark than has been the case since…five or six times more…and bark is/was mostly lignin.
        That plus large areas of inland seas allowed a period of coal bed formation which exceeded by far anything before or since.

    • The plan will “…reduce premature deaths from power plant emissions by nearly 90 percent in 2030 compared to 2005…” Now how was this 90% derived?

      • ” Now how was this 90% derived?”, Very easy, 86.276% of all statistics are made up on the spot!

      • It’s main point is that when a power plant is shut down, it’s emissions are reduced by 100%. The second trick is that it talks about deaths from power plant emissions, not by other sources such as vehicles or forest fires. And, of course, they don’t require themselves to give you the net reduction in premature deaths. Thus they can ignore increased deaths from cold or hot weather when people can’t afford to use electricity.

      • They have no real way of determining how many deaths are caused by power plant emissions, which is the point. They can make any assumptions they want in this matter and have no qualms about making up numbers to suit the agenda. The agenda being, of course, a socialist takeover of the United States by an out-of-control government.

      • Simple; in 2030, people will be 25 years older than they were in 2005, so their deaths will no longer be counted as ” premature “.

      • Simple combination of mathematics and PR – if two statements are identical, use only the statement that sounds better. Since only coal fired power plants have any real possibility of causing significant actual air pollution, and even if only one person has ever died prematurely from it, shutting all coal plants down will eliminate that specific source of pollution. Choosing between, “The plan will totally shut down 90% of all coal powered power plants in the US, making the national grid far less reliable and electricity far more expensive, since those coal fired plants presently produce as much as 40% of the power used in the US.” and “The plan will reduce premature deaths from power plants by 90%.” the White House propagandists picked the second one.

      • Since the number of premature deaths from power plant emissions is the US is close enough to zero that the difference is difficult to measure, how exactly does the administration plan on reducing it further?

      • Ken S – shouldn’t that be 86.277% (” ..86.276% of all statistics are made up on the spot!)? Or am I too pessimistic?

  3. – Save the average American family nearly $85 on their annual energy bill in 2030, reducing enough energy to power 30 million homes, and save consumers a total of $155 billion from 2020-2030;
    So at least by 2030, the American people will have a metric by which they can measure this plan and say ‘O’Bama was talking bollocks’.

    • Translation: “It won’t be as bad as the worst case might be.”
      As Willis pointed out (and Obama admitted*) the price of electricity could quadruple. In the face of that fact, it is risible that Obama would claim that consumers are going to save money. I take it that we should not believe anything else he says.
      How do you know if a politician is lying? …
      *“Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74892.html

      • No matter how high electricity prices go up, they will claim that it would be worse if they hadn’t acted. The same thing applies to job losses. No matter how many jobs are lost because of this plan, they will say that unemployment would be worse without their intervention. They made the same claim when their stimulus plan failed to create jobs. And when Obamacare failed to reduce the cost of healthcare, they also claimed healthcare costs would be worse without it. When it comes to lies, the only limit is your imagination and the gullibility of your audience.

    • “– Save the average American family nearly $85 on their annual energy bill in 2030”
      Sure, just like the “affordable care act” saves me the $2400 per year they promised.

    • Bloke down the pub
      How Socialists think.
      The $85 savings comes from subtracting the actual cost pf energy to the average American family from what the government will claim the average cost to an American family WOULD HAVE BEEN if these rules were not enacted.
      So the cost of energy by 2030 could be four times higher than it is now but the claim will be that is still $85 dollars lower than it would have been without these rules.
      That is socialist thinking.
      Under Socialism people will be starving in the streets and Socialists will be claiming that even more people would be starving if it were not for their brilliant policies.
      We are letting hate filled lunatics run the country. “The phrase “hate filled lunatics” describes them accurately.
      They have an irrational hatred of personal freedom and democracy and an irrational love of peonage and dictatorship.
      These people are like criminals who act in the NOW utterly unable to even think about the future consequences of their actions.
      Eugene WR Gallun

      • No, socialist thinking doesn’t care what the cost of energy will be now or in the future. It’s a cost we all have to bear, equitably, because how it got there, will always be in the public interest. Obama’s plan means it will be $85 cheaper, in dollars of the day, or about 18 cents, in today’s currency. But nobody will get the 18 cents, because somebody will always be having to do without, and your 18 cents will go to ease their need before yours, because that’s what socialists believe.

    • In 2030, $85 will be worth even less than it is now, and right now it is less than a quarter a day…or enough to buy a cup of coffee every few weeks.

  4. When they say “carbon pollution” do they mean CO2 or is that intended to cover particulates as well as carbon compounds? I am probably being thick but it isn’t clear to me.
    I am not sure how the engine manufacturers feel about the feasibility of doubling fuel efficiencies but the curves I have seen indicate that it will be very difficult so perhaps the intention is to have vehicles powered by something other than IC engines. If that’s the case we are drifting into unicorn territory.
    Presumably the easiest way to meet the power plant emissions required would be to just go nuclear.
    All of that notwithstanding this plan reads more like a fuzzy wish list than anything even vaguely enforceable.

    • Remember when a diamond was a girl’s best friend? Now it is merely pollution. Wait, we’re carbon-based life forms, so we’re pollution too. I guess we need be eliminated. /50%sarc

      • You’re right, Skeohane, chemically speaking, there ain’t much difference between us and a lump of coal.

      • Jay, what about intellectually (“chemically speaking, there ain’t much difference between us and a lump of coal”)?

    • They use “carbon pollution” as a propaganda wheeze, making people think of soot. Of course it is CO2, a colorless, odorless, trace gas that is essential for life.

    • The term “carbon pollution” is purposely vague to confuse the public. In reality, they are talking about a reduction of CO2 because of their religious beliefs. Particulate matter was reduced to near zero decades ago. What you see see coming out of smoke stacks of power plants is CO2 and water vapor. Any photo or video showing otherwise is caused by manipulation of the image.

      • I think they say ‘carbon pollution’ because they know that many people will think it’s carbon monoxide that they’re referring to.

      • While contemplating the 57 varieties of yuppie designer milk, in my local green supermarket; and wondering where they hid the ordinarymilk milk, I casually remarked to a middle aged nearby woman shopper, that all of those ” organic ” milks, had carbon in them, and that the SCOTUS had declared that to be poisonous.
        She replied: ” Wow, that’s good to know ! ”
        You see that is what we are up against. And no, I don’t fault the lady. She has been fed on this garbage by the pols, and the MSM, and people just assume it must be right; just like they think Wikipediunformation must be real.
        g

  5. Total ignorant rubbish. I really pity the American people to have such an idiot as president, but they did vote him in!

      • Nothing is 100%. If the vote were today, the polls say Hillary would win. A year is an eternity in politics, plenty of time for strange things to happen.

    • I repeat, Obomber is not an idiot. He knows full well what he is doing, following a strong left ideology.

      • You are correct, he is an elitist socialist effectively setting the ground work for a new era of communism.

      • Nah, you give him too much credit. He’s just a vengeful narcissistic child who’s figured out how to gold plate his future at whitey’s expense. He doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about socialism, communism or catechism. The DNC said “Hey, bud, how’d you like to be the first black president?”, and Obama simply said,”Sure, beats hustlin’ in Chicago for the rest of my short life. Do I get to wear a tie?”. The rest was just, “business”.

      • More than a few are proud of it.
        If he were to run for a third term, the odds are he would win again.

  6. Seems like a continuation of BOs plan to waste as many resources as possible to create a crisis to bury more resources and gain more political power.

  7. Bamster: ” creating tens of thousands of jobs.”
    ME — Now tell us who is going to pay for all those new jobs?
    (ans:) Us through higher energy bills.

    • And somehow they do not count the jobs lost at the coal power plants and mines. A coal power plant has 3-4 times as many workers as a gas-fired plant.

  8. The Clean Power Plan is a Landmark Action to Protect Public Health, Reduce Energy Bills for Households and Businesses, Create American Jobs, and Bring Clean Power to Communities across the Country

    My rule of thumb is that if you want to know the actual results of a government legislative act or program, it is usually the exact opposite of the title of the act or claimed desired goal of the act.
    So, the above becomes, “It will do nothing for public health or maybe create healthcare poverty, it will increase energy bills for consumers and businesses, it will destroy some jobs, and it will probably wind up crashing the grid and cutting off power to communities.”
    Unless Congress miraculously grows a spine, I guess we’ll see how well my rule of thumb holds up.

    • I think you have a beautiful rule there. Along the lines of never believe unless officially denied. Congress will be no help. Supreme court is probably already torturing a thesaurus to twist into constitutional authorization.

  9. This reminds me of the questions at a Miss world competition…
    what would you like?
    world peace and love for all
    When do you want it?
    Some time far off in the future

  10. What these regulations will do is further heighten governments at all levels treating Big Business as their ‘partners’ in the economy. It is a Corporatist fantasy that plays right into the Sector Strategies being pushed by the feds under WIOA, signed about a year ago, and the National Governors Association.
    It continues our hurtling towards what the Germans termed Vampire Capitalism in the 30s.

  11. Many people have been pointing out since the late 80s that this “carbon scare” or “CO2 will drown/fry us” scare has been supported and paid for by the western governments and especially government of the USA. Obama is not necessarily ignorant of the real facts, he is following the aggressive policies of the US that aims to control every aspect of the lives of the mundane citizens (you and me).
    A man once said, “war is the health of the state”. A full scale international war against nuclear armed opponents would be a tad risky even for the US Empire, so a nice little war on CO2 to “save the world” is being prosecuted instead. This new affront is just the latest advance in the war on CO2 which just happens to have horrendous collateral damage — damage to whole economies. And as always, the poor suffer the most.
    Consider the poor in this country. Would a doubling (or more) of the cost of utilities and heating hurt the poor? Do animals go potty in the woods?
    The sad fact is that even with the change in president coming up, who will back down from all the hundreds of thousands of EPA regulations? Who would demand that we disband the EPA? Who would tell the public that a return to the laissez faire free markets of the Classical Liberals who built this country would be a good thing? Heck, not even many Americans know what the Classical Liberals believed.
    https://www.mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism

  12. I heard this garbage on the BBC news (where else?) this morning. My first thought was – why does Obama hate plants so much?
    Stupid is as stupid does.

  13. “…opportunities for states to include proven strategies like trading…”
    The only ‘proven’ aspect is that fraud becomes rampant.

  14. The – Ensures Grid Reliability statement offers no ideas at all , apart from wishful thinking , how this can be achieved while pursuing the goal of basing energy production on the ‘unreliable’ renewable energy approach remains a mystery. Toward the end of their term all presidents start to think about ‘legacy’ and what quick wins they can get on which this can be built . A bit like the rulers of old who wanted to leave their mark on history.
    In this case it would seem Obama has identified CAGW has one of his ‘legacy’ ideas, ill advised or just lacking in knowledge it does not matter . And it worth bearing in mind that although its easy to mock the CAGW ‘believers’ for their poor science in reality where it matters they still have a very good hand in the game.

  15. Bloody hell Anthony, your country is up the perverbial without a paddle. This gibberish nonsense will send your country broke with China laughing their asses off watching the moronic Obama administration do flappys with their hands and achieving nothing but global derision from every quarter.
    God, the stupid hurts!

  16. Cables Show Hillary Clinton’s State Department Deeply Involved in Trans-Pacific Partnership
    http://www.ibtimes.com/cables-show-hillary-clintons-state-department-deeply-involved-trans-pacific-2032948
    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Thursday attempted to distance herself from the controversial 12-nation trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. During her tenure as U.S. secretary of state, Clinton publicly promoted the pact 45 separate times — but with her Democratic presidential rivals making opposition to the deal a centerpiece of their campaigns, Clinton now asserts she was never involved in the initiative.
    “I did not work on TPP,” she said after a meeting with leaders of labor unions who oppose the pact. “I advocated for a multinational trade agreement that would ‘be the gold standard.’ But that was the responsibility of the United States Trade Representative.”

  17. I have used WUWT as a valuable source of facts and science but leftists plug their ears on purpose. The conversation is not about the right or wrong of climate change it is about the fundamental transformation of the USA.
    I think WUWT needs to refocus its overall view for what is really happening.
    1 Obama and the left wing do not care if WUWT is right on climate change.
    2 Any climate change falsehood can and will be used to increase government control.
    If “we the people” can finally accept the left wings objective reality of retooling the countries rules and regulations to favor a socialist country we will stop spinning our wheels and maybe reclaim sanity in government.
    I debated for several years with a small group of leftists. Their idea of compromise was to see how much I was willing to bend on a position without them giving anything.
    I would suggestion the WUWT group organizing and petitioning representatives in government. PAC’s have more power than individuals.
    Speaking for myself I emailed all my representatives this morning on 2 issues of importance to me using one issue per email.
    Now I see a 3rd issue, climate change, that is going to require more emails today. I keep my emails respectful, short and to the point with a clear yes/no
    All the best to Mr Watts and all of you folks here at WUWT!

    • As a follow up I live in florida. My representatives are:
      David Jolly
      Marco Rubio
      Bill Nelson
      In addition I also email Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.
      That is a total 5 emails from me and then I rinse/repeat on behalf of my wife who approves of my actions for a total of 10 emails.
      If the WUWT gang would start emailing representatives world wide simply do the math and the influence multiplies quickly. If governments world wide would disagree with the USA’s climate change policy it would bring pressure to bear on the current climate change policy being proposed.

      • Dear Mr ,
        Pres Obama is submitting his Clean Power Plan. The plans inaccuracies are to numerous to list and would unfairly burden poor people.
        I do not support this plan and I would encourage you to vote no.
        All the best!
        Paul

    • I debated for several years with a small group of leftists. Their idea of compromise was to see how much I was willing to bend on a position without them giving anything.
      “I agree with you completely, those are excellent points. Now let’s do it my way.”

  18. It amazes me that they do not check the mess that is present in Germany and Spain where they are at least a decade ahead of the US with windmills and solar. Those countries have proven that intermittent power generation does not work in so many ways including environmental destruction.

      • Many people take that view and leave out the “maybe”.
        A friend said that “Obama was the true Manchurian candidate, but out in the open for everyone to see.”
        Obama’s grandparents were Communists, his parents were Communists, his principal mentor was a radical Communist, the people that brought him to power in Chicago politics were radical and historically violent Communists.
        It is human nature that if reality doesn’t agree with our beliefs, we act on our beliefs. Wisdom arises from the pain of confrontations between reality and belief.

      • Capitalism must be destroyed before Socialism can be implemented.
        Those who work to destroy Capitalism are Heroes!
        That is how hate filled lunatics think.
        Eugene WR GAllun

    • Of course the US administration knows of those messes in Europe and Ontario, except for the administration, they are great successes showing how to “fundamentally transform” the USA into some ideological utopia, where only government cronies are well-to-do.

  19. Asthma can be cured by not eating wheat. I tell everyone I know with asthma to stop eating wheat. One friends daughter lived in the ER for 8 years. Did so many steroids her bones where breaking in her feet. No wheat no asthma attack in 2 years. Several other people I know have had similar results.

  20. The first three things stated in this this press release are flat-out lies – asthma, extreme weather and sea level rise.
    That tells you what you need to know.

    • “The Clean Power Plan is a Landmark Action to Protect Public Health, Reduce Energy Bills for Households and Businesses, Create American Jobs..”
      All LIES – back to the propaganda rule, whoever gets the Lie out first…

  21. Unless the Rebublicans can actually win a Presidential election and Congress can grow a backbone, this deliberate destruction of the energy infrastructure and diminishing of the U.S. economy will continue.

      • I’ll go for Repuglicans and Dumocrats; don’t see a lot of difference as long as they are in the pay of corporate oligarchy. Per interview with Jimmy Carter:
        “the United States is now an “oligarchy” in which “unlimited political bribery” has created “a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors.” Both Democrats and Republicans, Carter said, “look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves.”

    • With some exceptions, Americans have become the proverbial frogs in a pot with the heat turned on. Fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind as well.

  22. Earlier this year the Supreme Court, in Michigan vs. EPA, (also referenced as Schuette vs EPA), reasoned that EPA rules that refuse to consider costs are not enforceable. It’s my understanding, from talking with a couple of folks at the are closely tied to the Mackinaw Center (www.mackinac.org/, and no the spelling difference is not an error), that the economic analysis that goes with these rules is even less rigorous than the analysis that went with the rules in the case of Michigan vs EPA. So once again we have efficient government at work, creating illegal rules, and then standing back and expecting their bosses, (citizen taxpayers), to pick up the bill. Everything will spend years in the courts, litigation costs for some states will be absurd, and in the end it will be a cobbled mess of rulings, many by biased judges, and we’re all no better off. For that reason alone it’s time to shut down the EPA, and while we’re at it we should probably shut down HUD, HSA, HHS and roll Transportation, Energy and Labor into Commerce, move VA back into Defense, and then require zero based budgeting for all Agencies except State and Defense.

    • There is one catch to this methodology. If they create a framework too big to fail Ala ACA, they will not be able to dismantle it. We need to bridge 18 months without a significant implementation affecting infrastructure and funding of the power grid. At which point we better have a supreme leader not buying into this bull chit or bring bought by it.
      On a separate note… think of the disparate impact claims we can expect down the road. You think housing is an issue? Where are all the low income houses sited near?

    • We need a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget except in times of declared war.
      Eugene WR Gallun

  23. The “carbon” argument in reality is just a secondary agenda to the real goal of creating an energy shortage. The Obamarxist abhor the energy industry since in reality they have so little control as they have established in healthcare, banking, etc. By creating a shortage they will have a photo op to parade frozen grandmas from the ghetto.Government is always prepared to deny responsibility for its policies and can then convene senatorial showtrials to blame the energy industry with the predetermined conclusion that only increased government influence can equitably distribute the misery.

  24. From the UK I won’t criticise your democratically elected leader whom you’ve voted for twice.
    But I will comment on this from a logical perspective:

    Since the beginning of 2010, the average cost of a solar electric system has dropped by half and wind is increasingly competitive nationwide.

    Either you are competitive or you are not. You can’t be “increasingly competitive”.
    You are just bankrupt.

    • The cost of home solar has dropped by 1/2 only if you factor in tax credits, so the correct phrase is:
      “moving in the direction of a viably quasi-competitive position relative to some of the potential and or available alternatives.”

  25. Forget turtles – it’s lies all the way down. It is an outrage, an affront to anyone with half a brain, and actually traiterous. And yet, I know people (family members) who can ill afford paying more for electricity, which is already high here in NH, who I know probably applaud this. There’s a combination of both a disconnect as well as a willingness to deny reality.

  26. Obama would do well to think about ‘his’ legacy (which so obsesses politicians, particularly those that have held high office) since this plan will not look good when the crows come home to roost.
    It is highly likely that future historians will look back on this very badly.

  27. “We have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that’s not polluted or damaged.”
    Dear Mr. President: Our first moral obligation is to “leave our children”, i.e., stop aborting them.

  28. Actually the rural solar part is going to come in handy as the rest of this nonsense leaves them stranded without viable transportation and subject to an increasingly brittle and inadequate electric infrastructure. The only things able to get to them will be the EPA drones monitoring to make sure they don’t use their fireplaces.

  29. It would take much more than a blog post to document thoroughly all the distortions and misstatements of fact in this White House release. Several things however are immediately apparent.
    1. “prioritize the deployment of energy efficiency improvements…”
    It should be obvious that improving energy efficiency, indeed improving the efficiency of anything, increases demand. It does not reduce overall consumption. This is basic economic theory. If demand is not to rise, then the unit cost of electricity will have to rise alongside. This punishes all electricity applications which cannot improve efficiency.
    This bit:
    “Save the average American family nearly $85 on their annual energy bill in 2030, reducing enough energy to power 30 million homes, and save consumers a total of $155 billion from 2020-2030;”
    is thus an outright lie. It leaves out the higher unit cost of electricity.
    2. The bulk of US electricity free of carbon dioxide emissions comes from two sources, nuclear and large hydro. That the CLP is completely silent on both of these shows that the goal here is not actually reduction in CO2 emissions. The goal is to promote specific generation technologies, wind and solar only. As the actual performance of grid utilities with large amounts of renewables showed over the past 10 years, each increment of additional renewable capacity increases the demand for fossil-fired backup generation. In the case of EOn in Germany, their proportion of renewables has risen sufficiently high that the backup requirement is now 80% of the installed renewables.
    It should also be noted that because of the nature of wind, the backup generation must be maintained on standby, that is, in a hot condition, consuming fuel but not actually producing electricity when wind generation is high.
    https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/eon-netz-wind-report-2005/
    and http://www.aweo.org/windEon2004.html
    3. “Continue American leadership on climate change”
    Now we come to the heart of the matter. As shown in 2, increasing renewables will not significantly reduce demand for fossil fuels. What this document is about is “showing leadership”. This is all about the UNFCCC gabfest in Paris at the end of this year.
    In short, this is not an energy plan, it’s propaganda. Cost projections and promises out to 2030 are utterly meaningless for an administration whose mandate expires next year.

    • The savings will come from the fact that many people will no longer be able to heat their homes

    • How about they just butt out of what is not in the range of their Constitutional duties, to the American people.

  30. That’s a Republican in the White House next. Because between now and the next election is a very cold US winter. And as they say: when cold you appreciate fossil fuels that little bit more.

  31. That they have actually managed to demonize the stuff of life (carbon) and the breath of life (carbon dioxide) is remarkable. That they have done it so successfully is frightening.

    • And a much higher percentage of them, being immigrants from third world countries who use emergency rooms as their primary free medical care, also tend to have more children, so the population demographics is what is changing, not a new incidence of asthma.

  32. In response to input from stakeholders, the final Clean Power Plan modifies the way that state targets are set…
    Was anyone here asked? Does anyone here know anyone who was asked? The administration has implemented an entirely different use of the word stakeholders. Indeed throughout this document words are twisted to mean things quite the opposite of their traditional use.

    • “stakeholders” means lobbyists, the mass-media cartel, rent-seekers, bureaucrats and the green mafia.
      Why, what did you think it meant?

      • Exactly right, Sasha.
        We The People can all go to he!! as far as our ‘elite betters’ are concerned… after they’ve taken all our money.

  33. The US committing economic suicide, I cannot get my head around that. Still stupidity is free, which perhaps explains it all given the attractions of what is free. Wierd America, really wierd.

  34. Three basic flaws of EPA’s CPP: the medical computation of indirect health benefits, which has never been demonstrated to be without funding bias; The faith in the advancement of technology responding to political dictates instead of the marketplace; and the costs of stranding electrical assets and the large investment in new infrastructure which essentially just replicates old distribution assets.
    One last thought: the final implementation of the CPP begins after this administration has left office, which means the plan never was formulated by a national political mandate and won’t have one in 2018 when President Obama and Secretary McGartht are likely to be in the rear view mirror.

  35. Oh, the cognitive dissonance!
    Temperature goes up, CO2 goes up, it must be the CO2.
    Asthma goes up, pollution goes down, it must be the pollution.

  36. Every presidential and congressional candidate must promise to dismantle the federal EPA and rescind all rules relating to CO2 (a life-giving, trace gas) production. Tell them failure to do so will automatically remove them from our support.
    /Mr Lynn

    • if CO2 is a pollutant why hasn’t the EPA issued ambient air quality standards lke for CO2, 2.5 particulates, ozone- amazing one molecule of CO2 for every 10,000 molecules of atmosphere

  37. I deplore as a european the way Obama is trying to reduce the economic and military status of USA and to actually help China acquire ascendancy relative to USA. I do hope that the republican congress can engineer a budget that reduces funding for EPA, NOAA and GISS and completely removes funding for this absurd Clean Power Plan. Congress should pass such a budget and pass it to the President for signature and at the same time launch a PR operation to convince the voters that BO simply wants to destroy USA before leaving the White House so that any blame for stopping payments to government departments falls on OB and the Democratic Party. This could also help getting a republican president elected if a decent candidate could evolve from the current densely packed candidate list. Having depended on USA to guarantee my freedom for longer than I care to think about I would not like to see somebody like BO diminish USA economically and militarily.

    • We have no power to influence the people. Most are low information voters and those who are informed are largely informed by the left wing media. It brings to mind the Bible verse about the Anti-Christ—and a mouth speaking great things. MSM is that mouth.
      Max

  38. Anthony,
    With all the emphasis on solar (and wind), and given your experience with your own solar installations, do you have any sympathy for the big push for the solar portion of this? I don’t remember a recent update on your experiments and would enjoy hearing your latest views.

    • Agree – I also remember Glenn Beck spending oodles to get completely off the grid, best equipement, etc. – failed at his goal.

  39. I believe that Donald Trump has begun to awaken a “sleeping giant” within the US “voter-eligible” populace and my only hope is that said “awakening” will continue unabated.
    This will be the first “test” for judging how said “awakening” is progressing, to wit:
    FOX News Channel (FNC) and Facebook announced today that they will present the first Republican presidential primary debate in conjunction with the Ohio Republican Party on August 6, 2015. The debate will be presented live from the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, OH from 9-11 PM/ET on FNC along with FOX News Radio, FOX News Mobile and FOXNews.com.
    Read more @ http://press.foxnews.com/2015/05/fox-news-and-facebook-partner-to-host-first-republican-presidential-primary-debate-of-2016-election/
    But who knows, ….. the social “pendulum” may have done swung too far to the “left” to ever swing back.
    And if so, our Republic will be no more ……. and Socialism will become America’s “Rule of Law” …… for a short time anyway.

  40. I keep wondering, in the year 2030 how are we going to know if this policy is a success or not with regard to an improved climate? What is going to be measured?

    • “What is going to be measured?”
      measured? Who needs to measure anything. Success (or failure) with be determined by the whims of our fearless “leader”, not by some silly measurements.
      I fear that once the CO2 hook is set, there is no going back. Any change is climate from that point on would either mean the new taxes CO2 are “working”, or they’ll need to increase taxes.

      • Paul:

        Success (or failure) with be determined by the whims of our fearless “leader”

        So here’s the thing: in 15 years’ time the US will be looking for the POTUS who will succeed the POTUS who succeeded Hillary Clinton. (OK, I assume that most POTUSs make it to two terms – Carter being the exception). So that means, who is there in the Senate at this moment who is likely to make to the WH in 16 years’ time?

      • PS: And Obama will be 54 years’ old tomorrow (4th) so may still be around in 30 years’ time.

    • I agree Pointman, but let us not forget that it was the Republicans who first championed the Imperial Presidency. When the Democrats had a lock on the Congress so tight that it was thought the Republicans would never hold a majority again, the Rs were all for Executive Power. Anyone remember a fellow named Nixon?
      And now Karma bites them in the Elephant’s Rump.

      • Tell us, just what did Nixon do which compares in any way with the constant Un- Constitutional usurpation of power evinced by the current administration?

  41. Here is a preview of the lyrics to a song I and friends hope to have recorded and posted soon:
    Science, Politics and Fear
    The man elected President now calls me a denier,
    He tells his followers to “put my feet to the fire”!
    Engaging in other-isms, spin and vicious mirth,
    Proposing that; “doubters live on a flat earth”.
    Exaggerating all the climate dangers that he’s learned-
    Preaching that we’re doomed for all the fossil fuel we’ve burned.
    Refrain:
    Science, politics and fear…
    They tell us “hell on earth” will soon be here
    So get out your jar of Humboldt-grown and I’ll bring beer-
    Here comes science, politics and fear.
    When singing this song I wonder just how long it might be,
    Before those ‘”men in black” come sneaking ‘round to visit me?
    While I understand the theory of that ‘greenhouse effect’,
    The common sense my daddy taught me’s making me suspect…
    There’s much more to climate changing, than trapping infrared
    And the people have, by governmental science been misled.
    Refrain:
    Science, politics and fear…
    The end of the free market could be near,
    So let’s protect the liberties we all hold dear
    From science, politics and fear.
    Instrumental verse & refrain
    The panicked legislation is a challenge to surmise,
    When so many years have passed with no big temperature rise.
    Those models, they get further from reality each year
    Yet, consensus of opinion of the future mongers fear!
    But I fear global governmental centralization
    And unelected rulers of that United Nation.
    Refrain:
    Science, politics and fear…
    Yes, ‘1984’ is almost here!
    That unholy trinity replaced the Holy one, its clear-
    Science, politics and fear!

    Suggestions for improvements are welcome.

  42. I could not get past the first phase: “We have a moral obligation to leave our children”
    That isn’t just political maneuvering, or ephemeral tactics, that statement is diabolical.
    …For the children… while government funded planned parenthood dissects human beings for profit
    …For the children… while that a$$-hole doubles the national debit so that our children will never be able to live with the comforts we enjoyed because it is beyond repayment mathematically
    …For the children…while christian children world-wide are being beheaded daily because of his practical approval of the march of Islam, his being Barack Hussein Obama’s
    …For the children…while his government has destroyed the primary support to the child, the family.
    …For the children…while his government has implemented mind control education policies and scripts via common core so that western children will end up hating themselves, as privileged, racist, exploiters.
    …For the children… while his immigration strategy is to raid central america of children to use them as a fulcrum to bring their parents into the USA.
    The Climate change regulations are just one more step to destroying American exceptionalism, and thereby impoverishing all of the children in the USA and thereby allowing the rest of the world to fall into chaos.
    He is destroying the USA and her children.
    Global warming was, is and always will be, a political means to a Marxist end.

    • Obama didn’t start this. It’s been going on for quite awhile and has been promulgated by both democrats and republicans. Obama’s claim to fame is, he has made the destruction of the USA blatantly obvious, he’s brought it out of the shadows and into the mainstream.

  43. The effects of climate change are already being felt across the nation
    Pristine weather stations, stations that require no temperature adjustments, show there has been no warming whatsoever in the contiguous United States for the last ten years. As for asthma problems I think secondhand smoke from the President smoking is a bigger factor than climate change.

    • Ralph, his distortion of asthma causation does not agree with the EPA factsheet:
      http://www.epa.gov/asthma/pdfs/asthma_fact_sheet_en.pdf

      Asthma continues to be a serious public health problem. According to the Centers for Disease
      Control and Prevention:
       An estimated 25.9 million people, including almost 7.1 million children, have asthma. 1
       Asthma prevalence is higher among persons with family income below the poverty level. 2
       Almost 14 million people reported having an asthma attack in a recent government survey. 3
       Asthma accounts for more than 15 million physician office and hospital outpatient department
      visits, 4, 5 and nearly 2 million emergency department visits each year. 6
      African Americans continue to have higher rates of asthma emergency department visits,
      hospitalizations, and deaths than do Caucasians:
       The rate of emergency department visits is 330% higher. 3
       The hospitalization rate is 220% higher. 3
       The asthma death rate is 180% higher. 3
      Approximately 3 million Hispanics in the U.S. have asthma and Puerto Ricans are
      disproportionately impacted:
       The rate of asthma among Puerto Ricans is 113% higher than non-Hispanic white people and
      50% higher than non-Hispanic black people. 7
       The prevalence of asthma attacks is highest among Puerto Ricans. 2
      Asthma in Children
       Asthma is one of the most common serious chronic diseases of childhood.
       Asthma is the third-ranking cause of hospitalization among children under 15. 8
       An average of one out of every 10 school-aged children has asthma. 9
       10.5 million school days are missed each year due to asthma. 3
      The Cost of Asthma
       The annual economic cost of asthma, including direct medical costs from hospital stays and
      indirect costs such as lost school and work days, amount to more than $56 billion annually. 10
      Environmental Factors
       Indoor and outdoor environmental factors can trigger asthma attacks: dust mites, molds,
      cockroaches, pet dander, and secondhand smoke.
      ASTHMA FACTS
      Asthma Can be Controlled
       With a plan that includes medical treatment and control of environmental triggers, people with
      asthma can lead healthy, active lives.
      Asthma and the Environment
      Research by EPA and others has shown that:
       Dust mites, molds, cockroaches, pet dander, and secondhand smoke trigger asthma attacks.
       Exposure to secondhand smoke can cause asthma in pre-school aged children.
       Exposure to dust mites can cause asthma.
       Ozone and particle pollution can cause asthma attacks.
      • When ozone levels are high, more people with asthma have attacks that require a
      doctor’s attention.
      • Ozone makes people more sensitive to asthma triggers such as pet dander, pollen, dust

  44. Just look what this global warming religion has already done.
    Committing economic suicide for what exactly. The left likes this new religion because it is anti-growth and it increases the power of government. Courts and the right are just letting them get away with it. When will it end.

  45. Let’s stand back and consider what all this means. 1) Tim Wirth was right in that global warming is a means to an end on all other forms of pollution, energy use, and whatever else they dream up. 2) That end target is coal for other pollution reasons and not really global warming as Wirth revealed. 3) Taking the Wirth strategy to a WH and multi-agency level means that beating the daily policy drum of climate change is really about defending the ludicrous cost estimates of EPA in cost benefit schemes. 4) Success of this grand policy puzzle has implications for other over reach designs and agency operations such as carbon taxation for redistribution of wealth, business manipulation with quid pro quo payments to campaigns, and any number of efforts to create a living, evolving Constitution and legal enforcement.

  46. He lectures the American people on morals while pushing his own agenda that the electorate is not much interested in…
    …But the BBC then reports: “The measures would give the president the moral authority he needs to argue for global reductions in greenhouse gases at a major conference in Paris later this year.”
    It’s hard keeping track of these “morals”, both where they are going, and where they are coming from.

  47. Which Rebumblican candidate will have the cajones to attack this diabolical scheme first? And I mean with both barrels, not just lip service.

    • “Someone who isn’t an idiot” – you’re too picky Bruce. You’ll never get anywhere asking for real intelligence from politicians. Politics is an agglomeration of crooks, frauds, idiots and thieves, with the odd civic-minded person there to maintain appearances.

  48. I’d say it’s probably more of a ‘rub it in all of our faces’ move. Because, yes, he IS that petty.

  49. Unless his plan places a global limit on the amount of coal that can be produced each year there will be no change in the amount of coal burned around the world. If the demand exists the coal will be produced, and there’s no indication that coal is anything less than the first choice of fuel on a global basis. This will also make cleaner energy fuels too expensive for many impoverished nations so no doubt the US tax payers will pony up to compensate for the royal cockup created by the imperious US president.
    This is BO’s version of the much coveted energy tax every global leader seeks to command. What better way to hold the minions in check?

    • next step will be to ban all coal exports from US, put your miners out of work so that Aussie miners (with the support of our PM) can continue to dig the stuff up and send it all over the world (but particularly China and India. Pointless excersise on your part but thanks from all of us downunder.

  50. Is there any functional difference between an ideologue and a witch?
    Last time the weather turned cold,. we(our ancestors ) burned witches.
    This time when crops fail and chaos rules, what will we burn?
    Cause it is our nature to burn things to stay warm.
    As for Emperor Zero, the Hans Anderson Tale still applies, there actually are people who are too stupid to suspect they are stupid.
    We have shown a stunning tendency for electing such creatures to lord it over us.And then allowing such “geniuses” to appoint their fellow travellers to administer our common affairs.
    After all when practical people avoid the circus of politics.. what could go wrong?

    • Nobody rescinds unlawful power. Read the history of EO’s that are still on the books from the Franklin Roosevelt administration. The constitution is naive in that it never considered the 3 branches of government might just agree on some kinds of corruption. That is where we are today.

  51. I read a lot of bloviating and excoriating of Obama on this site but very little substance. Face it, all of the data are pointing in the same direction, AGW is happening and it will cause major disruptions to our society if we don’t reduce fossil fuel use dramatically. Your echo chamber is getting smaller and smaller…

    • Oh dear! Now I’m worried. I hadn’t taken on board that a 0.8 rise in Deg C in GAT (whatever that is) over the next century is going to cause major disruptions. However, being a sentient human being I know that, in and of itself, that your concern for AGW is nonsense and I can now stop worrying.

    • It is the Chinese who are destroying the planet. How about a war with China to save the planet? No? You are not serious. Your lack of rationality is already in evidence.

    • Which direction is it pointing? UAH & RSS show no warming for the past 18 years. All of the climate models predicting warming over that time period. Looks like the AGW theory is without substance and are pointing in the wrong direction.

      • Reg,
        UAH data is all you have. In addition to increasing temps in all other data sets, ice loss in Greenland and the western Antarctic, increasing rate of sea level rise, and long-term decline in Arctic sea ice we just learned today that ice loss from glaciers is 4x greater than in the 80s. All based on empirical data, not models. Time for you and you friends to get real!

      • Luke, has it ever occurred to you that your religious zeal for doom mongering is based upon looking at snapshots of cycles which span millennia and assuming a linear trend? You also assume something which is not empirical: the actual quantitative impacts of anthropological activity on these poorly understood cycles, if indeed there is any at all.
        The upcoming solar grand minimum coupled with cold oscillations of the AMO and PDO will tell much more than any speculation or predictions by self-appointed pundits viewing current trends and assuming linearity.
        Peer review does not assume empirical status, only consensus of opinion. If the fundamental assumption is wrong, all conclusions based upon that same fundamental cornerstone are erroneous.
        By examining the data collected during the upcoming phenomena, there will be evidence of the actual influence industrialization has exerted on climate change. Then decisions to scuttle the world economy can be made without regret if rapid warming is evident and technology cannot provide a means of adaptation.

      • Dawtgtomis,
        So now that the empirical data are all going in the wrong direction, you are retreating to the “it’s cycles” argument. Sorry but all of the long-term data that have been collected indicate that the increases in C02 and temperature and the decrease in arctic sea ice are unprecedented over the past several millennia.
        Here are papers on arctic sea ice
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
        temperatures
        https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott%20et%20al.,%202013,%20Science.pdf
        and CO2
        http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:993781:5/component/escidoc:993780/cp-6-723-2010.pdf

    • You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you? These are literally by-rote talking points pushed by the press for simple-minded nodding heads. The whole point of what goes on here is that the data actually points the other way – that’s why it’s being altered – and the alarmist scenarios are nothing but extrapolation of butterfly-effect, shoot-from-the-hip science fiction. That’s the other point – a quarter century of doomsday predictions and they’ve gotten a donut for it, so now they’re changing their story.
      Activist arrogance, stupidity, gullibility. Face it… in the mirror.

  52. co2 is NOT pollution…..and this will not create any jobs it will finish killing off the rest of the coal mining jobs…….and it will increase the cost of electricity by more than double……….both sides of the scientists are harming this nation one side by LYING and the other side by not rebutting the lies………and lastly humans do NOT control the weather which is REQUIRED to impact the climate.

  53. On the bright side, when the USA is enfeebled by this idiotic nonsense, it will be easily reclaimed for the Crown.

  54. O: “We have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that’s not polluted or damaged.”
    Meaning: We will scar every ridge line with noisy, rumbling, industrial machinery and you will think it its beautiful.
    O: “Create tens of thousands of jobs while ensuring grid reliability.”
    Meaning: Today the PV industry produces about 1/100th as much power as the coal power industry, yet employs just as many workers. We shall increase the PV output 30-fold and thus increase employment through vastly lower worker productivity. Of course any new PV capacity will also require backup with coal, gas, or hydro in order to maintain grid reliability.
    O: “Save the average American family nearly $85 on their annual energy bill in 2030”
    Meaning: Refer to past claims that the AHA will save your family $2400 per year. Aren’t these words pretty? Don’t they seem equally sincere and believable?
    O: since 1970, air pollution has decreased by nearly 70 percent while the economy has tripled in size…
    In the past three decades, the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled…
    The Clean Power Plan…. will…. decrease the pollutants that contribute to the soot and smog and can lead to more asthma attacks in kids by more than 70 percent… [and] lead to 90,000 fewer asthma attacks in children.
    Meaning: Air pollution has already been decreased by 70% since 1970 yet asthma rates have tripled. Our goal is to reduce air pollution by another 21% [ (100%-70%) x 0.7 ] which should magically reduce the incidence of asthma for some reason. It is my belief that the voter is too stupid and/or ignorant to understand arithmetic so I will throw out these nonsensical numbers just for effect. I further believe that the press is such a confederacy of lazy dunces that no-one in the mainstream will call me on it. If anyone does, though, I will simply call them a r*cist flat-earther.

    • How were you able to capture the closed captioning “scrolling” text from the TV broadcast? I’ve been looking fir ways to do that. (Actually, maybe Anthony knows this due to his hearing disability)

  55. Quote:
    We have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that’s not polluted or damaged by the effects of climate.
    ___________________________________
    And we have an even greater duty not to sell (or give) nuclear technology to nations who have sworn to use nuclear weapons in a Middle Eastern war, and have sworn their hatred of America.
    How about that, Obama – you know – for our children’s sake…?
    Ralph

  56. All of it is about power, power over each of U S.
    All of it lies and fraud by evil intent.
    All of it evil by evil people lusting for power.
    Lies supported by the MSM/msm/blog media and the public school liars who have your children in lock down in the use of reason.

  57. Since asthma is the catch all linchpin of EPA justifications, do any asthma doctors prescribe cool, CO2-free breathing rooms for patients or are asthma researchers wasting time and money on real factors in asthma?

    • CO2 concentration of exhaled air is already 40,000 ppm. There’s no mechanism I know of for heated air greater than 98.6 F to allegedly cause the long term cellular change of cells lining the small airways seen in Asthma, along with the increased mucus production and availability of cellular agents that cause the small airways to constrict when an allergen touches them off.

  58. Alan Robertson
    August 3, 2015 at 8:13 am

    Obama’s grandparents were Communists, his parents were Communists, his principal mentor was a radical Communist, the people that brought him to power in Chicago politics were radical and historically violent Communists.

    Communism is contagious but not, afaik, congenital.

  59. I mentioned earlier that it’s Obama’s 54th birthday tomorrow – the 4th (curiously he shared the late Queen Mother’s birthday). Anyway, I wondered, what would WUWTers like to get him for it? (It GWS, he needs some sense and perspective about AGW),

  60. Obama said it himself in his own sinister way after the last Pres. election.
    “I hear the non voters too.”
    What he is saying in his own smirk’ing way is that if you do not care enough for your freedom, liberty, Constitution to vote against my evil ways, then you will get the full deal of evil I have for you all.
    His hate is strong, he aims it at all of U S.

  61. Just a thought, but the following might save a great deal more CO2 than anything in this action plan, and cost a great deal less (if Co2 is considered a problem, of course).
    a. Force all shops to close their front doors, when the temperature is below 100c.
    b. Encourage all US homes to be double glazed and insulated. I was amazed to see how many homes in the US were wooden clapperboard shacks with single glazing. Anyone invented the brick yet?
    c. Encourage US motor manufacturers to licence-build European engines for their cars. I was severely unimpressed with the mpg on my hire-car Ford. I can do about 50% more than that with my large Euro twin-turbo diesel (an ordinary cheap saloon).
    d. Encourage people to use cars for personal trasport, instead of pseudo-HGVs. Why do you need an eight liter petrol engine, to go to the shops.
    If anyone is concerned with enegy usage, you could trim the US per capita energy usage rather quickly. As an aside, I could not find a per-captita energy consumption comparison. Anyone seen one?
    R

    • Ha, and if I use the right search term, I find one.
      According to this comparison, the US uses twice the energy per capita as Europe, without any percieved increase in prosperity. So any required reductions in energy consumption and emissions could be achieved solely from energy savings, rather than increasing renewables or any of the other changes to energy supply.
      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Energy_Use_per_Capita.png/550px-Energy_Use_per_Capita.png
      It is not exactly rocket science, but well above the capabilities of the Obama regime.
      R

      • Why don’t you plot the President’s, and Kerry’s energy use and demonstrate what hypocrites they are on the subject. Time for them to lead and not just penalize the peons who pay their bill. Kerry’s state Dept made about 100 plane trips to Europe to forge a horrible deal with Iran. What a waste of energy and resources that could feed and heat the poor.

      • And another thing, Silver Ralph, I don’t see it as unreasonable the the US uses 10 times the energy/capita than Nigeria, say. What I do find sad is that Nigeria is trying to develop on a tenth of the US’s energy. That’s not the fault of the USA.

      • GDP is a measure of wealth.. As I said, the US is not measurably wealthier than Europe, no matter what the GDP figures might say. Some of the poorest regions and people I have ever seen, have been in the US.
        This suggests that the US’s energy usage is not simply productive, but wasteful. If the goal of the Greens is to reduce emissions (and emissions reductions in general are a laudable aim), then all of the US’s required emissions saving could be acomplished with energy savings, with no changes to the ower supply system whatsoever.
        What this means, is that all of Obama’s expenditure on Renewables, to reduce emissions, is a complete waste of time and money. That amount of money spent on efficiency could have achieved those reductions several times over, with no threat to energy security or stability.

    • “Encourage all US homes to be double glazed and insulated. I was amazed to see how many homes in the US were wooden clapperboard shacks with single glazing. Anyone invented the brick yet?”
      Most US localities use something like the 2006 International Building Code and the 2006 International Residential Code with slight local variations. Brick is attractive and durable. It also has a high carbon content and very low R factor. Wood actually stores carbon while is remains in place.

      • 2006, eh? The UK has been putting in double glazing since the 70s. And this does not alter the fact that there is a lot of old housing stock in the US, especially in the more rural regions, that are still using single glazing and precious little insulation. While in Europe, the vast majority of old housing stock has been upgraded.
        In fact, the majority of early window conversions have already been upgraded twice, from alluminium frame double glzing to UPVC double glazing. While the majority of flats in Russia have been triple glazed since the 1950s (although their poorly organised area heating system negates any gains in window insulation. I am not sure if this stupid system has been changed in the last 14 years since I was there last.)
        R

      • Remember a few yaers back (2009 or so – Waxman-Markey?), and the first writing of the “Cap & Trade’ regulations for that ‘carbon pollution’? IIRC, they included a mandate (subsidized by the $$ generated through the taxing of that ‘carbon’) for all new homes, also any home that would be placed on the market for sale, to meet energy standards that, for the older home amounted to tens of thousands of dollars of retrofit in order to be deemed fit for resale by the proposed rules (see:http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/cap-and-trade-implications-for-the-housing-industry)
        Look for something similar to an older (or even newer) domicile near you!
        MCR .

      • I am sure there is a simple method, even if only through persuasion, ridicule and corporate embarrassment.
        Corporations and businesses do not have a right to waste the nation’s resourses, just like you don’t have the right to run a red traffic-light. These are called rules and laws. I presume you have them in the US, or is it simply anarchy over there?
        R

  62. Then, there is the whole matter of the Clean Power Plan’s constitutionality and I think that Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe will have much more to say about that in front of the Supreme Court.

  63. What can we do about this? Seriously, so many people are outraged about the lies, we need to get organised while we still have time, what can we do?

  64. http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/03/obama-will-jetset-to-the-arctic-to-warn-about-global-warming/
    The Obama administration will kick off a massive campaign Monday to push the president’s agenda to cut carbon dioxide emissions just months ahead of the United Nation’s global warming summit in Paris.
    This climate campaign, oddly enough, includes a trip to the Alaskan Arctic by President Barack Obama to “call attention to the effects of global warming,” according to The Washington Post — which was briefed on the administration’s new campaign by an unnamed source prior to its unveiling to the public.
    http://www.icenews.is/2015/07/31/climate-change-documentary-seeks-icelandic-footage/
    A documentary project that highlights the love people have for their environment and their concerns about how seriously climate change could affect Europe is hoping to receive more video entrants from Iceland.
    The film, which is being made for the French-German public TV channel ARTE and will be broadcast during the Paris Climate Summit, aims to inspire people to speak up on the issue and fight to ensure the environment is not altered to the detriment of the earth.
    The producers explain that the aim is to make a 52-minute movie using one-to-three-minute short videos filmed by citizens from 51 countries from Greenland to Kazakhstan.

  65. Anthony,
    One thing insufficiently explained to the public is the magnitude of the effects of the new regulations.
    A climate difference of 1C is the climate difference between two places 40 miles apart, N-S.
    http://www.backyardgardener.com/bulb/climatezone.html
    (50F/1000mi = 1F/20mi = 1C/40 mi)
    So the total 0.01C in climate difference to be achieved by these regulations is the difference in climate between the ends of two street blocks.
    Every billion dollars spent on this plan results in the climate difference between the big toe and the little toe of one of your feet, if your little toe is to the north.
    That, or putting 10,000 kids through college. Whichever you find more important for our future.

  66. The big build-out of coal fired generating capacity in the US occurred between 1960 and 1980.
    That puts normal replacement starting in 2020 and ending in 2040.
    Coal fired plants with ‘real pollution’ controls are quite pricey.
    Obama just left out the reality that we are going to need to build something besides windmills and solar panels(like nuclear power) announcement for the next guy.

  67. When is Donald Trump or any other brave GOP candidates gonna come out and say Carbon Dioxide is plant food not a pollutant.

  68. Solar Farms in the Mohave Desert and where exactly do you get the fresh water clean them.

    • Solar Farms in the Mohave Desert and where exactly do you get the fresh water clean them.

      And, where do you get the water to build them? Where do you put the roads to maintain them and supply them? Where do you get the water – and the fuel and the houses and the towns to house and feed and “water” the people to maintain them and service them?

  69. so the common man pays the carbon taxes – to enable the poorest to pay their carbon taxes via electricity bill too.
    but first the privileged stakeholders of the 10 to 20 times subsided ruinous renewables get their share.
    ____
    anyone here wishing for
    ‘more than 260 solar energy projects
    and philanthropic and impact
    investors,
    states, and cities are
    committed to invest $520 million to advance community solar and scale up solar and
    energy efficiency
    for low- and moderate-income households’?
    Think that offer itself is a direct insult.
    Hans

  70. Tackling so called Climate Change will cripple the U S Economy by denying access to cheap Fossil Fuels will create recession and put millions of Americans into unnecessary poverty.Succeed in doing what OPEC and Osama Bil Laden and so far what China have failed to do.
    Where are the GOP candidates in the Climate Debate ?

  71. I do not understand the rush to mitigate climate when that is not even possible. The common sense approach is to do as our forefathers did and adapt!!!
    In 100 years the present infrastructure will be largely in need of replacement anyway, so demolish it and build suitable infrastructure as it becomes needed and economically profitable.
    What they are missing is that it is infinitely more critical to develop the third world and thereby reverse the population trend, so that in a century there will be less demand on the resources and the croplands. This will be bolstered by technology advances that lie ahead which further decrease the need for fossil fuels.
    It is very foolish to artificially create a shift to energy sources which have not proven to be economically viable in the marketplace without public funding and have much ‘environmental baggage’ of their own.

  72. This chart indicate the relative increase in energy costs The President of United states will force upon you:
    https://edmhdotme.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/screen-shot-2015-07-29-at-10-24-14.png
    The poor will suffer the most.
    And the arguments for doing it has nothing to do with real science – too much of it has been falsified.
    Can you imagine that Obama got the Nobel peace prize?
    I have really forgotten why he got it, and honestly – I have no idea why.

    • 1. The latest EIA levelilized cost comparison for generating electricity for renewables and fossil fuels is incorrect as long as the cost comparison fails to account for the cost of building and operating 75 % back up power needed when there is no wind or sun. There have been recent comments by alarmists stating that we should aim for fossil free energy by the end of this century. How are they going to live when there is no more fossil fuel or nuclear plants ( nuclear plants are not being built either) for back up . The level of renewables should never exceed 20-25 % of the demand and is only suitable for certain regional applications . We need a stable and reliable grid system or we will have blackouts and brown outs constantly. Using renewables only for a major power grid would spell suicide for power availability . In GERMANY where there are 25000 wind turbines , there are nearly 3000 cases/year where they need to step in to stabilize the gird.
      In addition the cost comparison does not reflect the fact wind turbines have a useful life of only 12-15 years in comparison to fossil fuel plants which last plus 30-40 years . The capital cost component for wind turbine should be doubled at least to reflect the need for at least one additional replacement turbine during a 30-40 year period ,or the life of the fossil fuel plant .
      Reply

  73. dawtgtomis:

    I do not understand the rush to mitigate climate when that is not even possible.

    Quite right! How long does it take people to realise the arrogance of their government which thinks it can control the darn climate?

    • I talk this subject with my rural neighbors and that is the greatest agreement I experience. When you farm you realize how little influence our species has on this ball of rock. Religious folks around here tell me that only the devil can whisper in your ear and make you think you control nature. Most of us old farts remember experiences or accounts by elders of the same weather cycles we are now experiencing.
      Obama may find plenty of folks in Chicago and other megalopolises who buy the meme, but here in conservative Petticoat Junction he will have a hard time making us abandon common sense.

  74. Well high energy costs does drive the middle class to poverty, and those already at poverty level to homelessness and/or death, which of course ostensibly helps reduce the carbon foot print from human beings.
    There is of course close to zero impact to climate in this policy just less human beings to share the wealth.
    So it is a brilliant plan by Mr Obama’s handlers for making the rich a wealthier population using the pretense of saving the planet.
    Hope and change.

  75. Harry wrote at 11:40 am:
    “How long does it take people to realise the arrogance of their government which thinks it can control the darn climate”
    The arrogance is boundless, but Shelley described best how this folly could well end:
    ” ‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
    Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away”

    • There are more similarities.
      This poem was about Ramesses the Great. But Ramesses is also known as the Great Chiseller, because he carved his name into pre-existing monuments and claimed them for his own. All of the pillars in Tanis, for instance, are Old Kingdom pillars that Ramasses carved his name into.
      Obama bathing in the prestige of past glories, and claiming them for his own? Surely not…..
      R

  76. I think there is growing fear in the CAGW movement that the next few years will put the lie to the CO2/global temperature link, and the pendulum will swing back to a more balanced climate outlook. They will have thus missed the opportunity to enact the sweeping wealth-redistribution schemes that are currently driven by this meme. By enacting as much as he can, Obama is hoping that there will be enough momentum established that regardless of what the science ultimately decides on the CO2 issue, it will be impossible to go back.
    Electric rates will be so high that global subsidies for the poor and for under-developed countries will be mandatory, and promising to provide those subsidies will be an additional item to add to the leftist goody bag come election time.

  77. “Under the Clean Power Plan, by 2030, renewables will account for 28 percent of our capacity, up from 22 percent in the proposed rule. Due to these improvements, the Clean Power Plan will save the average American nearly $85 on their energy bill in 2030, and save consumers a total of $155 billion through 2020-2030, reducing enough energy to power 30 million homes.”

    Can anyone explain how the above claims are possible? How do you replace cheap coal with expensive renewables and save $155 billion dollars? Or, for that matter, how do you reduce energy usage by switching to renewables? Are they factoring in the fact that renewables are less reliable and would therefore cause more outages? Not having power for extended periods would certainly reduce energy usage, but it would not ensure the “grid reliability” they say the plan will provide. Does anyone think their claims are even possible?

  78. Implimentation will lead to grid failure. Demand will exceed supply. Until presented with rotation brownouts and regional power failures the populous will do nothing. I will be off the grid prior to implimentation. Those whom remain on the grid will be enjoying a Third World lifestyle!

  79. Another masterful move by Bruddah B.O. in the global chess game of eco-politics… and it really ain’t about ‘global warming’ at all…. that’s just a cover story for the unwashed masses who depend on yellow journalism to keep them informed.

  80. I believe Mr. Obama will be remembered as a man of actions. Unfortunately they will have been inappropriate actions, committed in a knee-jerk and sometimes unconstitutional manner.

  81. The White House swimming pool holds a large volume of Kool Aid. One only needs to swim in it once a month to stay on message.

  82. Lots of fluff with few details about the what and how. I wonder if this is simply dusting off the previous administration’s failed attempt (but with more on the solar and less on the ethanol)?

  83. Really interesting.
    Is not as bad as it looks…..
    It is an introduction to the “Clean Power Plan”.
    Actually thinking carefully, such a plan needs not much help and support to stand and be implemented by it’s own merit essentially, regardless of Climate change, or the “fight” against climate change or whatever in the climate change lines.
    Who would not want “Clean Power” and “Clean Energy” in principle, regardless of climate change…..!
    That in principle is the main projection of the future, always has been…….even in times before the climate change furore.
    So as far as I can tell, generally in principle, the plan stands sound.
    Of course, the cheap sail point through “climate change”, is and will be upsetting to many, very much so indeed……..steering the feelings, so to speak. 🙂
    Is not so stupid, even when there may be many fair arguments and disagreement in particular points of that plan.
    cheers

  84. “Who would not want “Clean Power” and “Clean Energy” in principle, regardless of climate change…..!”
    Are you daft? So-called clean power/energy are simply buzzwords relying on people’s emotions and ignorance. Those with at least half a brain don’t want them because of their cost.

    • Bruce Cobb
      August 3, 2015 at 2:14 pm
      I really don’t mind if I am daft.
      But very pleased at what you say:
      “Those with at least half a brain don’t want them because of their cost.”
      Very well summarized…..concise.
      That is the main point, always has been so.
      cheers

    • Not because of their cost but because they are so unreliable they are just not an option. By clean I do not include CO2 as being dirty until the climate science has had a total review by not peers who I dismiss as cronies if a single one is cross reviewed but by best in field for each area of expertise. I cannot think of a single area of climate science where the climate scientist are remotely in that class.
      I admit they are the jack of all trades in that field but they are master of none particularly data acquisition and computer modelling where they are really backward.
      There is no excuse for data that needs any adjustments for well over half a century. there is also no excuse for a computer model of CO2 that does not include biological and geological changes to the the CO2 system.
      What would you think of a computer model that proved that painting battleships in metallic grey primer made them faster and more powerful weapons? The correlation is perfect, in fact infinitely superior to that for CO2, but coincidental to the use of steel hulls, hydrodynamically superior shapes and steam power and bigger guns.

    • If they want them because they reduce CO2 (not), then why did they force ZERO CO2 producing Vermont Yankee to be shut down? Which Increased the production of CO2 and Increased the cost of electricity in VT and NH. Don’t see how that helps.

  85. This is an attack on the poor, no question. Particularly as it will make no difference to CO2 emissions. Why does Obama hate the poor, just so he can get campaign contributions from the trillion dollar Big Green???
    AND the EPA is lying on the health benefits. I live next to a coal power station, work in public health and worked work environmental health issues. By all means attack car exhaust, which does cause a problems, but coal – there were not problems with miners health, no problems with respiratory illness (I moved my family from the city to this town because there was less pollution). McCarthy lies.

  86. I continue to be surprised that the producers of coal take these attacks lying down. What they should do is outline a plan starting tomorrow to close down the production and sale of the deadly coal. If coal is a killer than its use should be stopped now, not in 20 years time.
    Some might say that the producers of coal have contracts that they cannot break, but it is my, possibly wrong, understanding that a contract that requires an illegal or immoral action is not enforceable. Surely destroying the health of the planet and its people is as immoral as it gets.
    I estimate (WAG) that the pollies would ditch their beloved CO2 within 20 seconds of such a producers announcement, and then start blaming their advisers for bad advice.
    It is time for the producers to stand up to the destroyers of the world, politicians!

  87. This present initiative is bad science from start to finish. What the World needs now is more cheap energy, particularly the developing World which is the majority of humanity. Asthma, to deal with just one facet of the stupidity, is not caused by CO2, but by excessive cleanliness in homes. Having a pet around, or letting children play in the garden would do more good for it. Breathing into a paper bag, to increase CO2, actually helps asthma. This treats the immune systems the way nature intended.
    Once again it is Industrial-Grade Stupidity.

  88. Paul asked Anthony, “What action can folks take that would yield positive results ?”.
    A very good question indeed and that question applies to folks in Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, The France, The Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Belgium and other countries.
    The answer is this:-
    It needs SOMEONE very special (and yes, we know who that person is) to produce a Special Feature Film for general public viewing and “viral” transmission in various languages across the world.
    This film / movie will cause government collapses quickly: it will (hopefully) create havoc.
    Folks: please remember that the shite-hawks in the bunkers (oops … did I just say that ?) in Berlin, Washington, London and The France and Brussels, Belgium are watching here, so be careful.
    If you (Paul) can give us all a better idea, I’m sure we would genuinely love to hear of it.
    At this stage of the year, what with the up-coming Parasite meeting in November, I think you will find me correct in my “answer” above. I do hope so.
    Regards,
    WL

    • ……It needs SOMEONE very special (and yes, we know who that person is) to produce a Special Feature Film for general public viewing and “viral” transmission in various languages across the world.
      This film / movie will cause government collapses quickly: it will (hopefully) create havoc…..
      You are wildly over optimistic. it is now not even possible to get publicity in the general marketplace even for a book let alone a film that is not clearly pro global warming / climate change. The indoctrination by the media has total and I really do mean total control of even what is overtly fiction to prevent even the most subtle de indoctrination, particularly of teens, using literature to encourage them question the “truth”.

  89. What we need is a commitment by governors to tell the federal govt where they can stick their new regulations. Without the states to act as enforcers of the new rules, they will be dead on arrival.
    Are there any governors who sufficient gonads to stand up for the people who elected them?

  90. Pages & pages of discussion and grumbling but no attempts or initiatives for action — very Republican, that.

  91. All this grief for 0,01 degrees C!!
    From Joe Bastardi
    http://patriotpost.us/opinion/36771
    All This for .01 Degrees Celsius?
    By Joe Bastardi · Aug. 3, 2015
    Print Email Bigger Smaller
    As the president reveals his plan to reduce greenhouse gases to save us from an apocalyptic atmosphere, I wish to remind people of three things:
    1.) The true hockey stick of the fossil fuel era: Global progress in total population, personal wealth and life expectancy.

  92. If Obama cared about the planet he would immediately propose cutting the size of the government since the government is mostly wasted energy. It never was about climate change. There is no chance of Obama’s plan having a meaningful impact on the climate. Doesn’t matter. This all about the love and worship of government power.

  93. From over here it appears that Obama is either a total idiot or a really corrupt politician in someone’s pocket. Either way he has set the stage for there not to be another coloured president for several decades.

  94. It’s a confused statement. Are they setting targets for emissions cuts, or for the building of so much renewable energy capacity? The difference is important. It will also be a key provision to put in place an overall cap on how much this is all going to cost.

  95. “Reduce Energy Bills for Households and Businesses”
    Pure fiction!
    Renewable energy is many times more expensive than e.g. natural gas:
    https://edmhdotme.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/screen-shot-2015-07-29-at-10-24-14.png
    Ref.:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/31/european-renewable-energy-performance-for-2014-fall-far-short-of-claims/
    And – there seems to be a relation between oil prize and food prize:
    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/How-Oil-Prices-Affect-The-Price-Of-Food.html
    And – there seems to be a relation between energy consumption and employment:
    http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/us-number-employed-vs-energy-consumption-1982-2011.png
    And – there seems to be a relation between energy price and general price level:
    http://www.colorado.edu/economics/courses/econ2020/section6/section6-main.html
    “A well-known example of a supply-side shock was the OPEC oil embargoes during the early and late 1970s. The economic effect of the oil embargoes was a surge in the price of oil and other petroleum products. Higher oil prices caused energy prices to soar, which translated into electricity price spikes. As the producers of goods and services saw their utility bills climb, the increased cost of production led to a scenario as shown above by energy-intensive industries such as steel. Higher production costs led to a contraction of supply and higher prices of inputs and consumer goods.”
    How can this plan possibly not result in:
    Increased energy costs, increased commodity prices, increased energy poverty?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_poverty
    Hence the plan seems to be both pure fiction and highly unethical.
    Provided to the poor in particular by
    EPA, IPCC, United Nation, the Pope, Obama and others

    • The basic macroeconomic mechanism is that a supply shock (increased energy cost) will cause cost-push inflation. (If the money supply is increased – as it probably will).
      Anyhow it can´t be good.
      How can this possibly not be understood by a government – do they have some new ideas about economic theory as well?

  96. Based on 2013 figures US had a total electricity GENERATION of about 4,074 TWh, about the same as Europe combined. About 39% comes from coal plants . New EPA rules will mean that 32 coal fired power plants will be forced to be shut down and an additional 36 plants might have to close due to new federal air pollution regulations . These 68 coal fired plant shutdowns will further reduce the US capacity by 25,246 MW. There will be very little margin between capacity and demand .
    . As the GERMAN experience clearly shows, 75 % of the time the renewables produce less than 20% of the nameplate capacity. So back up power has to be purchased which comes from coal or nuclear. But there is no surplus to buy
    Also as the UK and Danish experience shows, the wind turbines have a lower useful life of 12-15 years due to excessive wear and tear. Coal plants last 40-60years. The median existing US coal fired generating station was built in 1966; A third was built in the 1950’sThe EPA seem to have stacked the regulations for coal so much that , it is now almost impossible to build a coal fired plant in US. Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside project cost was estimated at $2 BILLION for two units in 2006. It is now estimated to be $ 1.8 BILLION for only one unit. New coal fired plants now cost about $3500/ kW. They used to be $1500-1800/kW. On shore Wind turbines run about $2500/kwh. Off shore turbines run about $ 6000/kw. Solar photovoltaic run about $4000/kw
    If US continues to shut down coal plants and only build mostly renewables , there will be no backup for the 28% renewables(at least 340 000 MW Capacity) which fail to make power 75% of the time . A future of frequent blackouts and high power costs.

    • Thank you Herk.
      I posted this in 2009:
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/#comment-72001
      Allan M R MacRae (15:30:19) : [excerpt]
      Pierre Gosselin is technically correct re the need for (nearly) 100% backup of wind power by conventional electric power generation. From my earlier post on another thread:
      The biggest problem I see with wind power is the “substitution capacity”, the percentage of conventional power generation that can be permanently retired when new wind power is put into service. This number is typically less than 10%.
      The best report I’ve found on this subject is:
      E.On Netz Wind Power Report 2005, Germany
      http://www.eon-netz.com/Ressources/downloads/EON_Netz_Windreport2005_eng.pdf
      http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
      Simply, the wind often does not blow when we need the peak power – so we need a ~same-size conventional power station over the hill, spinning and ready to take over when the wind dies… …the fact that wind power varies as the cube power of the wind speed is a further problem – power variations in the grid due to varying wind speed can cause serious grid upsets, even shutdowns.
      Just one such blackout in a cold winter could have devastating results – for a preview, look up a sampling of the mortality stats during the Ontario-Quebec Ice Storm of 1998.
      http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/99vol25/dr2517ea.html
      Storage of electricity is much easier said than done.
      One interesting idea for electricity storage is a “super battery”, consisting of many plugged-in electric cars. This should be possible in a decade or two.
      Wind power is supposed to work well in conjunction with (excess) hydro power, but I have not seen this clearly demonstrated.
      I have studied this subject and in conclusion I am not yet a fan of wind power.
      Regards, Allan
      [Post Script – 2015: I’m still NOT a fan of wind power.]

  97. Meet Solyndra 2.0: This US-Taxpayer-Subsidized Spanish “Renewables” Firm Is Collapsing
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-04/meet-solyndra-20-us-taxpayer-subsidized-spanish-renewables-firm-collapsing
    News that bonds and stocks of Abengoa SA – the Spanish renewable-energy company – plunged after a plan to shore up capital failed to reassure investors that it can stop burning cash is likely to have passed many by. But coming just one day after President Obama unleashed his Clean Power Plan, the fact that the company – that is now facing significant liquidity concerns – received over $230 million in US taxpayer subsidies in 2014 – despite two ongoing federal investigations – may raise an eyebrow or two as images of Solyndra’s government-sponsored farce come to mind… as Diane Feinstein, Ken Salazar, and Bill Richardson – with the help of subsidies and Ex-Im bank loans alledgely exerted their influence to keep this zombie alive.
    In 2014, as FreBeacon reports, the Spanish renewable energy company under investigation by at least two federal agencies unveiled a new biofuel production facility on Friday that will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies.
    ======
    Note: Iberdrola is the US/Canadian affiliate of Abengoa.

    • Spain’s Iberdrola Gets U.S. Grants for Wind Projects (Update3)
      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aElP..Gdw9jo
      Sept. 1 (Bloomberg) — Iberdrola SA, a Spanish company, will get most of the more than $500 million in economic recovery funds the Obama administration said today it is distributing to U.S. renewable-energy projects.
      Bilbao, Spain-based Iberdrola will get $236 million for wind farms in Texas, Oregon and Minnesota and an additional $59 million for a Pennsylvania wind project, U.S. officials said.
      Twelve projects in total will get funds, with 59 percent of the money going to Iberdrola’s Penascal project in Texas, the Hay Canyon and Pebble Springs wind farms in Oregon, Locust Ridge II in Pennsylvania and the Morraine II wind farm in Minnesota.
      The money is part of President Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan. The entire plan contains about $3 billion that will be given in lieu of tax credits to support about 5,000 biomass, solar, wind and other types of renewable energy production facilities.
      “This renewable energy program will spur the manufacture and development of clean energy in urban and rural America,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a written statement.
      Obama has set a goal of doubling renewable energy production in three years. He also has said that development of cleaner energy sources would create jobs.
      “We are delighted and we are right now putting the stimulus money to use,” said Jan Johnson, a U.S. spokeswoman for Iberdrola.
      She said the company plans to spend $6 billion over four years on renewable energy projects in places such as Arizona, Texas, Illinois, North Dakota and Oregon.
      84 Turbines
      The Penascal wind farm, near Sarita, Texas, the biggest project covered by the grants, is to receive $114 million. It began operating in April, using 84 turbines supplied by Japan’sMitsubishi Corp., and produces 202 megawatts, or enough to power 70,000 South Texas homes, according to an April statement by the company.
      The grants will help develop 840 megawatts of capacity, or about 3 percent of total U.S. wind power, said Matt Rogers, an adviser at the Energy Department. Except for $2.7 million of the grants that went to solar projects, all the $502.6 million in grants support wind technologies.

  98. “Create tens of thousands of jobs while ensuring grid reliability”… pedalling exercise bike generators on demand several times a day.

  99. Apologies – no time to expand on what I’ve already said on this subject – see below from 2014.
    We wrote in 2002 that green energy (e.g. wind and solar) cannot replace fossil fuels – maybe someday with new technology, but certainly not then, and not now.
    This new Obama energy plan is uneconomic and will severely damage the US economy.
    I have worked in energy most of my career and actually have an excellent predictive track record on this subject – unlike the IPCC and fellow-travelers – every one of their scary predictions has failed to materialize.
    This is a really bad decision – the risk in Canada is that our imbecilic leftie politicians will copy Obama.
    On the bright side, as the USA declines, Europe will become competitive again – the Europeans, starting with the British and the Germans, are already winding down of their idiotic green energy schemes/scams.
    Best wishes to all, Allan
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/24/winters-not-summers-increase-mortality-and-stress-the-economy/#comment-1944478
    It is hard to believe that anyone could be so foolish as to drive up the cost of energy AND also reduce the reliability of the electrical grid, which is what grid-connected wind and solar power have done.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/10/even-china-cant-jump-start-the-electric-car/#comment-1787518
    [excerpt]
    Cheap reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society.
    When uninformed politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer.
    It IS that simple.

  100. WHY is nuclear left out of the equation? Why do they appease the power industry by adding, at the very end “and Nuclear” but don’t count it?
    We ,presently have (end of 2014 numbers) ~20% Nuclear, 4% wind, >1% solar, and 6% other (non hydro), and 13% hydro thus, we have exceeded his 28%. Without Hydro it is above 28% also. So what is the true goal? 28% NON CO2 producing energy? Or 28% ignoring the present contribution from Hydro and Nuclear thus propagating the Green Plague that is going to kill the USA (and make the filthy rich 1%ers even richer)? Again this is what feeds my skepticism about the TRUE impact of CO2.
    Is Obama, or the next president going to significantly help the nuclear effort? Do the math, to get 28% of our power from Obamas designated unreliable “Renewables” means construction of the equivalent of name plate capacity equal to (or greater than) 100% of the present electrical generating load. The cost of that endeavor, plus subsidies and tax breaks is going to bankrupt us ignoring the fact that the cost of electricity will double TWICE.
    28% renewables in the US with NO NUKES is going to translate to $0.50 kWh plus in electricity, for FREE energy? A few years ago I helped, part time, at a facility with 20 employees implementing a new computer system. Their second largest cost was electricity, it exceeded the cost of the material, transportation, and water/sewer. They will go out of business when they get just $0.20 Kwh. How many more will fail? And the NPP I retired from is still selling electricity to the ethanol manufacturing plants and the USAF for under $0.05 – for now. They will not be able to keep that low rate as they continue to increase the residential rate about 10% every year like they have for the last five years.

  101. If Obama new how extroadinarily difficult/ impossible it is/was to sythesize carbon in stars requirng a fluke happening an act of God some would say he wouldn’t be so keen to ban it. A quantum mechical quirk of the wave/particle duality of matter allowed resonance to create an energy spike for a million billionth of a second to give the strong nuclear force sufficient time for three helium nucleii coming together at impossible odds by chance collision to fuse and create carbon with six protons and six neutrons rather than the preferable option of disintegrating. But for this there would no sentient beings with global warming capabilities just asterile universe. He should think hard on the facts before introducing any ill thought out legislation and give thanks for magnanimity of Max Planck for inventing the quantum

Comments are closed.