Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The National Black Chamber of Commerce has been upsetting climate advocates, by insisting that President Obama’s clean energy plan would hurt the US economy. The response from climate advocates has been nothing short of vitriolic.
For example;
How the polluter-backed National Black Chamber misleads minorities
By Martin Luther King III December 29
Martin Luther King III is co-founder of the Drum Major Institute.
For months now, the National Black Chamber of Commerce has been warning communities of color that the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan will cause job losses and generate higher energy bills.
In fact, the opposite is true.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s first-ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants will create clean- energy jobs, improve public health, bring greater reliability to our electric power grid, bolster our national security, demonstrate the United States’ resolve to combat climate change and maybe even reduce our utility bills.
By limiting the emission of carbon dioxide, the Clean Power Plan also will slow a main driver of extreme weather, which has inflicted widespread economic damage and human misery, including death.
That’s what the National Black Chamber of Commerce neglects to mention.
Unfortunately for Martin Luther King III’s dubious claim about energy bills, it was President Obama himself who explained that his plan will cause energy bills to skyrocket.
So what has the NBCC done, to provoke such a response? The following is an excerpt from the NBCC report on the 15th December;
3. Congress Alert: Currently, Congress is negotiating the omnibus spending legislation. One concerning provision that they are reportedly trying to slip into this trillion dollars spending package is a provision that would increase funding for the Green Climate Fund by $3B. This money uses Americans’ tax dollars to subsidize projects in foreign countries under the guise of climate change. Please let your congressperson and senators know this is unacceptable before they finish this really pork filled package.
Read more: http://www.nationalbcc.org/news/progress-reports/2561-progress-report-december-15-2015
Back in September the NBCC held a seminar, titled How Climate Policy Hurts the Poor
Regardless of one’s personal opinions on the effect man-made greenhouse emissions have on the climate, the Obama Administration’s proposed Clean Power Plan will exact a high price on Americans and have a negligible impact – if any – on global temperatures. NERA’s economic consultants estimate a temperature reduction of only 0.018 degrees C in 2100 at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. In August, the Environmental Protection Agency announced its final rule to achieve a 32% reduction in “carbon pollution” from the electric power production sector by 2030.
Experts estimate a significant impact on the cost of electricity to all consumers and businesses. President Obama has kept his promise that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” as a result of his policy. The poorest and most vulnerable members of society will be disproportionately harmed by these impending spikes in energy prices. Europe is already experiencing “energy poverty” where families and the elderly are being forced to choose between eating and heating. Tens of thousands did in the United Kingdom in several recent winters because they are unable to pay their electricity bills and still buy enough food. Will this happen in America next?
The world’s poorest – the 1.3 billion in developing countries who depend on wood and dried dung as primary cooking and heating fuels, smoke from which kills 4 million and temporarily debilitates hundreds of millions every year – will be condemned to more generations of poverty and its deadly consequences. Instead, developing countries desperately need to replace such primitive and dirty fuels with electricity, the most affordable sources of which are fossil fuels.
Plenty more where that came from – the NBCC website is well worth a read.
I admire that the NBCC has chosen to steadfastly and consistently defend the interests of its members, in the face of what must be substantial political pressure to join President Obama’s climate crusade.
[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, David. What a sad, pathetic, wasted life. -mod]
Nice exposé of the emptiness of MLK III’s argument.
At least there is this comfort to take away: this hollow message will only keep the sheep in the corral, not add any new ones to the flock.
There is nothing to be gained here.
I don’t flock.
Well there is also the U.S. Black Chamber : http://usblackchamber.org
According to THEIR blog post:
“We know climate change is a real and growing threat. And now that we’ve stated the problem, it’s time to rally around the President and his initiatives, primarily the Clean Power Plan, which is set to reduce carbon emission from power plants. The Clean Power Plan also has incredible economic benefits, namely helping us save nearly 7% on our home electricity bills. This is significant.”
How do you save 7% on a bill most poor blacks don’t pay? Even for those who pay, 7% is not a significant result from what will be an enormously expensive program,
Wait there’s more:
“Our communities are wrought with injustices of various kinds– the lack of healthy, affordable food; poor opportunities to quality education and employment; and limited resources to support business creation. All of these exacerbate the impact of climate change on the Black community. Our need for environmental equality comes in many forms, each requiring deliberate action with deliberate speed. Let us play an active role in securing our part of the green economic boom.”
Now if you read through the BS you will find that what this organization is saying is that the government is giving away money so we better get some before it’s all gone. I particularly like the phrase “environmental equality”.
Their Twitter account was created in 2011, and the President’s messages only go back to 2012…
@Tom in Florida, 1.21 pm The article states the “National BCOC,” . Your post says ” USBCOC “are the same ? If they aren’t which one is on who’s side I wonder.
Different. Just pointing out there is another so called black organization. This one claims to be on the side of Obama. If they are related or in touch, they seem to have both sides covered.
The NBCC website from which I obtained the quotes is linked by the Martin Luther King III article.
“environmental equality”.
I do believe we have the new catch phrase for 2016!
I think the last few years being “sustainability” or maybe “climate justice”?
All being ridiculously meaningless with a touch of coo coo for cocoa puffs……..
Why A Fake Article Titled “Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs?” Was Accepted By 17 Medical Journals
http://www.fastcompany.com/3041493/body-week/why-a-fake-article-cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs-was-accepted-by-17-medical-journals
Here’s some background on this new rival chamber, apparently sponsored by the Obama administration. So much easier to create a voice you like than to listen to a voice you don’t…
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/27/obama-in-the-middle-of-ugly-fight-over-who-represents-black-business/
Does “environmental equality” imply that if some place is still an a pristine state but another is polluted, it’s better to move pollution to the pristine one, until pollution is equalized?
Van Jones, the communist and green jobs tsar was going to fix all this.
We should always remember this:http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html , is it greenhouse effect?
The Warmists knew that the great mass of poorly educated African American people in the US would instinctively trust a black President on the subject of Global Warming. Therefore giving him the democratic leverage to act on their behalf.
What should not be forgotten is that there are a great many, well and highly educated African Americans who saw through the hoax from the beginning.
Using Democrat logic, if we ban lower-cost generic drugs and force people to buy higher-cost brand names, it will be good for the economy and cause prices to decline. If it works that way when you force people to buy higher-cost energy, why wouldn’t it work the same way for medicine, food, and other products?
The ugly truth about anti-carbon so-called “green” energy policies is that they hurt most those who can least afford to be hurt. The lies that the virulent Warmunist WaPo spews are unspeakably vile.
National Black Chamber of Commerce? Isn’t that racist?
Gee, are they just now noticing that the government climate change “solutions” are hurtful to the poor and “middle class”? – All of us! This includes other minorities such as Hispanics, Muslims – you name it…
Sorry, fellas…the decision has been made by the Democrats. See Keystone XL…Green trumps union therefore green trumps black.
Low risk decision on the part of the Democrats…like they might ever lose the black vote…be serious.
One of the poorest countries in Africa,South Africa, riven by unemployment of around 25% and a big health budget is looking to go to nuclear power.
The local bishops want them not to use nuclear as the economy is going down the gurgler and the capital cost is high and unaffordable in the first place.
The local Faith and Light type communities are arguing for solar and wind.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/12/31/south-african-bishops-call-for-referendum-on-nuclear-power-plants/
Both are affordable if Obama shares the 3 billion $ US to subsidize them.
Africa in the meanwhile is exporting natural gas to fuel the power needs of France.
China is opening up the silk road to new ports and infrastructure to start mining Africa and send
the raw materials to China, hence its new infrastructure banks.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/30/china-could-see-2-3-trillion-inflows-after-yuan-enters-imfs-currency-basket.html
http://internationalbanker.com/finance/chinas-silk-road-financial-diplomacy-takes-shape/
Nuclear power of itself would appear to be unaffordable for SA
But without stable base load power it cannot manufacture itself out of recession now that China has slowed down.
Former finance minister Nhlanhla Nene has said repeatedly that nuclear energy would not be procured if SA could not afford it. The African National Congress has also expressed caution, passing a resolution at its national general council in October, calling for ‘‘a full, transparent and thorough cost-benefit analysis of nuclear power’’.
http://nuclear-news.net/category/africa/south-africa/
According to Bloomberg its going to be Russia or China who will stump up the cash for
base load power but the terms will be confidential, the equipment will be provided by the financier.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-05/will-putin-pay-for-100-billion-south-africa-nuclear-power-plan-
Now here is the opportunity for Obama to put a floor under his legacy.
Particularly when he has a lazy 3 billion $ as a sweetener.
He could give them what they need,reliable base load power and kick start a power station.
At the same time he could pull them out of dependency and show the Chinese and Russians where to get off.
After all, its about helping the poor, in a practical way, giving them the dignity of work, wherever they may be.
The black brothers in the US have made this point.
Obama could then make the next intellectual jump.
If its good enough for thinking Africans, maybe its good enough for Americans too.
Maybe small nuke plants on ships could anchor a mile or three offshore and sell power via a cable hookup to South africa and other impoverished countries. It could be a money-maker over time, and a goodwill enhancer. I’ve read that Russia was contemplating offering such a service. Maybe some maverick US billionaire should pick up the ball and run with it.
PS: Would Greenpeace try to harass such a ship? What would be the results(s)?
I fail to see why the US should participate in any way to help South Africa with its energy problems. It’s not like we have all this money sitting around. Why on Earth should we borrow $3 billion we can’t pay back just to give it to a country that probably won’t spend it effectively anyway?
Start from zero on this. We don’t have the money. Period. Where is the justification based on our own national interests to borrow $3 billion to help a perfectly viable country with its internal problems? Better we just work on our own debt…or so it seems to me.
I completely disagree with Boxer on climate, but she handled herself well there. It was the National Black Chamber of Commerce guy who was taking fake offense who got it wrong. I mean, he might have a point about Boxer citing the NAACP if the organization he represents didn’t have “Black” in its very name. So he can’t honestly say that Boxer is playing to race by citing another Black group, when his own group is clearly defined by race from the outset, by its own leadership, which means him. Change the name and the orientation, and open the membership to other races if you don’t want to be compared to other black groups.
brokenyoyg
Agree about NBCC guy’s apparent fake offense.
A better line of reasoning for him might have been to question why a political (NAACP) organization’s opinion was being equated with actual business owners (NBCC).
Kind of like asking the girl scouts (of any/all colors) for a technical opinion on the impact of LHC at CERN.
Excuse an old guy for being cynical, but I interpret these remarks to really mean: “We are not getting a big enough cut of the global warming scam. Give us more to shut up.”
Sorry if my age is showing.
Re steve says: January 1, 2016 at 8:44 am
Hard to say about Obama’s ideological roots on this specific issue, but I of course have a mode….er, I mean theory. 🙂
He has a history of neo-Marxist beliefs, and environmentalism has the same roots:
– negative view of humans (denial of the mind, thus fixed-pie economics and resource limits, and drive-to-the-bottom ethics thus not taking care of the environment)
– collectivism (worker bees not individual minds)
– praise of contradictions, which their evasion of evidence around them is consistent with
When you lose the leverage of a leading superior class, it is imperative to discover or create another.
Eric Worall writes:
I admire that the NBCC has chosen to steadfastly and consistently defend the interests of its members, in the face of what must be substantial political pressure to join President Obama’s climate crusade.
Unfortunately, the (probably mostly caucasian) Chamber of Commerce approves of the new flood of illegal immigration. Many business owners like the idea of all that cheap labor. But they are not thinking it through.
It’s like taking in a stray dog without knowing it’s half wolf. When you or your family are attacked, it’s too late to do a DNA test.
The CoC should simply insist on a federal law requiring all employees in the U.S. to be here legally. End of problem; employers would all be on the same level playing field.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a
Dawtgtomis,
Thanks, that occurred to me after I hit ‘post comment’. So the real problem already has a solution. All we need is a President and Attorney General who will enforce the law. That would Trump the current lack of enforcement…
Socialism is the belief that if you take money from your right pocket, and put it in your left pocket, you will become richer.