“Hillary Clinton’s climate and energy policies, explained”

Guest post by David Middleton

Vox’s David Roberts actually wrote a useful article.  Since there is a slim chance that Hillary Clinton might be America’s first woman and second Marxist President, her views on climate and energy are worth examining.  Thankfully, Mr. Roberts’ article contains plenty of material worthy of ridicule… And I like ridiculing people like Mr. Roberts and Mrs. Clinton.  So, without further ado…

ClintonClimateEnergy.PNG

Link to article

Media coverage of the Democratic primary has not shed much light on Hillary Clinton’s proposals for climate change and clean energy policy.

But oh, she has proposals. Lots of them! I read the white papers. And I called the campaign to talk through some of the specifics and the broader political thinking that informs them.

Her plans haven’t gotten much press — not as much as, say, her gaffe about coal miners — but they are exhaustive. In fact, they are quintessentially Clintonesque, rich with wonky detail, conversant with the policy levers available, and careful, always, to stay within the bounds of the politically possible (as she sees it).

I’m going to break this down as a series of numbered lists — not one, not two, but five lists of three:

  1. The three key facts the campaign took as starting points
  2. The three overarching goals of the plan
  3. Three numerical targets by which the success of the plan will be judged
  4. Three strategies to get there
  5. Three issues (e.g., fracking) environmentalists are keen to hear more about

 

All the juicy policy stuff is in part four, so skip down there if you just want the nuts and bolts.

The three key facts the campaign took as starting points

1) Climate change is a serious problem that requires hitting the targets promised in Paris.

Clinton agrees with Bernie Sanders (and exactly zero of the 17 Republicans who ran for president) that climate change is “an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time.” According to the campaign, meeting that challenge means, at a very minimum, hitting the greenhouse gas targets President Barack Obama pledged before the international community at the Paris climate talks: 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

[…]

3) The next president must do more, and Congress won’t be much help.

The measures Obama has put in place do not currently have the US on a trajectory to hit its 2025 goal, much less the more ambitious goals that lie beyond it. So the next administration must do more.

And Congress — or at least the House of Representatives — is likely to be controlled by Republicans in 2016, which means comprehensive climate and energy legislation will be off the table. As campaign chair John Podesta told National Journal last year, “In the short term, the chances of this Congress becoming a real partner with an administration” on climate change policy are “small.”

And as Clinton has said, “Climate change is too urgent a threat to wait on Congress.” So she’s developed a strategy that doesn’t require waiting.

The three overarching goals of the plan

[…]

2) Make sure the transition works for all Americans.

A transition of this scale will not work without broad political buy-in. That means engineering a shift to clean energy that, in Clinton’s words, “doesn’t leave anyone out or behind.”

According to the campaign, that means a number of things: economic development for coal communities, a focus on low-income households and communities of color, expanding union density in the clean energy space, and helping states figure out net metering and retail rate design issues.

Coal communities are particularly important to Clinton, who mentions them on the stump frequently. She just returned from a two-day tour through Appalachian coal country, in which she spoke at length about her plan to “revitalize coal communities.” That plan was one of the first pieces of energy policy she released.

 

[…]

Let’s pause here for a moment.

This:

“The next president must do more, and Congress won’t be much help… And Congress — or at least the House of Representatives — is likely to be controlled by Republicans in 2016, which means comprehensive climate and energy legislation will be off the table.”

Plus this:

“Make sure the transition works for all Americans.  A transition of this scale will not work without broad political buy-in. That means engineering a shift to clean energy that, in Clinton’s words, ‘doesn’t leave anyone out or behind.'”

Equals mind boggling idiocy.

Congress is elected by the people she expects to “buy in” to the destruction of our economy in a Quixotic effort to end the natural variability of Earth’s climate.  The House of Representatives is the most directly elected branch of our Federal government.  The people she expects to “buy in” are electing people to Congress who won’t authorize the trillions of dollars of new welfare programs (“economic development for coal communities, a focus on low-income households and communities of color, expanding union density in the clean energy space, and helping states figure out net metering and retail rate design issues.”) she expects to dole out in exchange for the “buy in.”

The phrases “bread and circuses” and “you can’t get there from here” come to mind.

Back to Fantasyland…

Three numerical targets by which the success of the plan will be judged

Clinton pledges that within 10 years of her taking office, the US will (quoting from her campaign website):

  1. “Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.” (That would mean installed solar PV capacity of 140 gigawatts by the end of 2020, up 700 percent from current levels and well beyond most forecasts.)

  2. “Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.” (The campaign estimates this would save Americans about $8 billion a year in energy and health care costs.)

  3. “Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships and trucks.”

I could have shortened this list to one item:

  1. You people need to stay home and freeze in the dark!!!!!

This is even more mind boggling in its idiocy than the “buy in” bit…

“Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.” (That would mean installed solar PV capacity of 140 gigawatts by the end of 2020, up 700 percent from current levels and well beyond most forecasts.)”

140 GW of solar panels will generate about as much electricity as 35 GW of coal- or gas-fired generation.  This wouldn’t even be a “drop in the bucket”…

ClintonClimateEnergy_9

Data from BP and U.S. EIA (Click for larger image.)

While I have no idea what Donald Trump’s plans are regarding energy and climate change, Mrs. Clinton’s are worse than those of the current occupant of the White House.

quote-under-my-plan-of-a-cap-and-trade-system-electricity-rates-would-necessarily-skyrocket-barack-obama-59-50-86

References

Statistical Review of World Energy 2015, BP

Electricity Generating Capacity, U.S. EIA

Advertisements

156 thoughts on ““Hillary Clinton’s climate and energy policies, explained”

    • All this shows a poor grasp of the economic ramifications of what this woman proposes.

      1. Requires more government spending, but I would submit that the US Government needs to urgently reduce spending rather than be committed to an open ended commitment.

      2. She is committing herself to spend tax payers money on expensive “smart” energy and spending more tax payers money to support those whose industries will be squeezed out. These include coal miners and employees in the oil and gas industries.

      3. All these things will have a depressive effect on the economy, so peripheral industry indirectly related to energy will start declining and tax revenues will decline-unemployment will increase.

      If Milton Friedman were alive today he would point out that these policies will clearly destroy the American economy, and he would be correct.

      Cheers

      Roger
      http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

      • Has anyone ever asked the question”What happens when people don’t have jobs any-more and therefore can’t pay “Tax”?Where is the money going to come from to pay these people “Welfare”?

    • Yeah, mostly from people who believe she will give them a free ride at the expense of others.

      • The problem is that those who believe they have a right to a free ride are rapidly becoming a majority of voters.

      • I don’t quite get the following: “””””….. Since there is a slim chance that Hillary Clinton might be America’s first woman and second Marxist President, …..”””””

        How many regular readers of WUWT proudly proclaimed that they were a part of history, and voted for the First Black President of the United States (well not counting Bill Clinton).

        And some of them, having seen the result of their thoughtlessness, admit to having voted for him twice.

        So if you ask me, (don’t ask me) I believe there is a slim chance, that these same sort of unthinking voters, will NOT repeat their folly and become a part of some more history, by voting in the second Woman and Marxist President of the United States. (she already had two full terms).

        In Trump’s home state of New York, Bernie Sanders lost big time to Clinton. But Bernie collected far more votes than Trump did. So he was a very weak third in the midst of his greatest support.

        And there are hordes of probably voters who have adopted a “never Trump” posture, as if a Clinton Presidency, and probably for eight years, would be just the lesser of two evils.

        More likely it will provoke some author to write “The Rise and Fall of The United States of America.”

        I actually can’t even imagine, what possible totally bizarre election scenarios, we are in for. Nothing will surprise me.

        There are many who believe there is still time for some “White Knight” to gallop in from stage right, and pull off some sort of third party heist. Somebody who also is just a prominent warm body.

        Can’t think who such might be, but I won’t be surprised if it comes to pass.

        But maybe a country that can’t get it’s collective noses out of its finger toys, doesn’t deserve to survive.

        Certainly the millenials are about to learn that you do reap what you sow.

        For what we are about to receive; we are truly deserving.

        G

      • Not “are becoming”.

        Already have become.

        Remember it is eight years of Obama, since Mitt Romney said 47% of Americans pay no federal taxes.

        G

      • george,

        “n Trump’s home state of New York, Bernie Sanders lost big time to Clinton. But Bernie collected far more votes than Trump did. So he was a very weak third in the midst of his greatest support.”

        Apparently you don’t realize that New York has what is called a “closed” primary system. Two distinct Party primaries . . and ONLY those registered to vote in one or the other last October could vote, and then ONLY in the Party they registered for. There were TWICE as many people registered as Democrat, so a direct comparison of total votes is not reflective of what you seem to be implying. Mr. Trump received a higher percentage of those eligible to vote for him, than either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Sanders.

    • For some years now I have become more convinced that the liberal agenda all ties together and begins with education.

      First, you have to keep the masses down. To do so, you have to keep the masses dumb. Our educational system has been doing a very effective job of this. Federal programs, such as common, are geared to teach to the test, giving the appearance that children are learning. Unfortunately, they are not learning to think.

      • dam1953
        I agree this was all spelt out in George Orwell’s book1984 – Control the masses, dumb down the masses, control the narrative, control the mind = liberal agenda!

      • dam 1953 +1000 Well documented. Like saying algebra is too hard for grade 7 and 8’s. So teach them to put different coloured blocks in a group and count them. And don’t worry about spelling, it duznt matr. Amazing.

    • No, the sad part is summed up by this statement in the article “While I have no idea what Donald Trump’s plans are regarding energy and climate change…”.

      We know fairly well what is Clintons policy, and a lot of voters will vote for her based on that, but unfortunately not knowing Trumps policies, except for some slogans, which I personally can easily agree to, but with little coherent policy for how to achieve the not so well defined goals, we can expect to see a lot of people voting for Clinton not for her policies but as a vote against a candidate they don’t really know what to expect from.

      • And they don’t care a hoot about the Supreme Court of the United States.

        Why anything else even matters, is beyond me.

        G

      • Trump has said that he doesn’t think climate change is a big problem, so why would you want him to waste his time making plans regarding it? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    • That’s all right, given the rest of her “economic development” platform, staying home and freezing in the dark won’t be a problem for most of us. Me, I’m splitting wood–and hoping my EPA approved, 7K stove gets grandfathered. Urrrrggh . . .

    • Trump’s platform: illegal immigration, ISIS, national security, tax cuts, trade imbalances, jobs, growing the economy, etc.

      Clinton’s platform: Vote for me cuz I’m a girl.

    • None of us have “friends” on the left anymore. They view us only as tools to be used, or as obstructions to be crushed.

      • That’s how they have always viewed others. It’s just that now that they are getting power, they feel free to display their true selves.

    • The left is incredibly talented at ignoring any calculus that involves a tradeoff. Unfortunately a number of legislators on the right side of the aisle are equally inept. I really think there should be a math test requirement before anyone can serve as an elected official in the Fed Gubmint.

    • “…at least they have been warned…”

      Joe the Plumber, and Obama himself warned them (us). We see how that worked out.
      Gruber called it correctly.

    • Seaice1– Yes, if manmade CO2 emissions were a real threat, nuclear power would be the only viable option, however, CAGW isn’t about decreasing CO2…. It’s about increasing government power, control and money…

  1. “Since there is a slim chance that Hillary Clinton might be America’s first woman and second Marxist President”

    You are introducing facts not supported by the article.

    Unfortunately, despite Hillary’s socialistic, wasteful, agenda – wishing her an election defeat, will not make it so. GK

    • If I have to post /sarc every time I am being sarcastic, there’s no point in employing sarcasm.

    • Hmm, didn’t seem sarcastic to me. Slightly off target perhaps on both claims. Marx had some idealistic ideas with no hope of actually happening but was the springboard for Lenin and Stalin whose ideas were less idealistic and much easier to implement; concentration of poliical power. Unfortunately both major contenders seem interested in personal power.

  2. and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.

    …by relocating it overseas

  3. Obama is misquoted above, the full tongue-tied drivel:
    “The problem is not technical, the problem is not uh, sufficient mastery of the intracacies of Washington, the problem is uh, can you get the American people to say this is really important and force their representatives to do the right thing. Uh that requires mobilizing a citizenry, that requires them understanding what is at stake, you know, and climate change is a great example, you know when I was asked earlier about, uh, the issue of coal, uh, you’ll, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal-powered plants natural gas plants, you name it, whatever the industry was, uh, retrofit their operations, that will cost money that will be passed on to consumers. You can already, you can already see what the arguments are going to be, during the general election, people are going to say ‘Obama and Algore, these folks are gonna to destroy the economy with this $8 trillion dollars or whatever the number is’, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes there’s going to be an increase in the rates of electricty in the front end, but that over the longterm because of the combination of the more efficient energy usage and changing lightbulbs, and more efficient appliances, uh, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit, if we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you, you can uh, you can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington, you’re not gonna get that done.

      • 58 or 59 or 60….

        “” Uh, I’ve now been in fifty … ss-seven? states. I think one left to go. Uh, one left to go — eh, Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to, even though I really wanted to visit but my staff would not, uh, justify it.””

        57 + 1 left to go + Alaska and Hawaii = 60

      • …Obama is useless without his TelePrompter….Trump has never used one, he actually speaks what his mind tells him, which means he is telling you the truth, more or less !

      • Marcus,

        “…which means he is telling you the truth, more or less”

        No, that’s not the only possibility . . and from what I have seen/heard he is a master babbler and double-talker. So, unfortunately, as i see these matters, he’s only about ten times a better an option than voting for the alternative . .

    • The short and to the point quote is sharp and readily understandable.

      The complete quote is rambling waffle and almost guaranteed to leave listeners scratching their heads.

      Don’t think he knows what he’s talking about and others usually write the stuff for him.

      • I remember when Obama declared himself to be a better speech writer than his speech writers. A better campaign manager than his campaign managers, and so on.
        According to him, the only reason why he doesn’t do everything himself is because their just aren’t enough hours in the day for him to do everything, so he is forced to rely on the help of lesser beings.

      • MarkW,

        That brings to mind Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, in which he warns those in charge (princes) to always avoid flatterers. If they’re not avoided, slowly the prince begins to believe their flattery.

        Obama has been surrounded by sycophants (servile flatterers) for a very long time. He was groomed by flatterers. Just look at some of the YouTube clips made when Obama got the first nomination to be President. It wasn’t any different from adulation by school children for North Korea’s ‘prince’. And the incessant chanting: “Oh-Bah-Mah, Oh-Ba-Mah…”

        Obama never rejected flatterers. He ate up their flattery. Now he actually believes he’s the smartest guy in the room.

    • The key word is “longterm”. Assuming you live long enough. Assuming you don’t freeze to death because you can’t afford to heat your house. Assuming you don’t starve to death because high energy prices have made food unaffordable.

  4. If the solar capacity factor is 25%, then you need to drop the solar plot-line down from 140gw to just 35gw on the ‘actual generation plot’ (as mentioned in the text).

    And if Clinton does not mention how solar will be stored for overnight usage, the plan is meaningless. If she intends using natural gas as a cloudy or night-backup system, there is not much point having all that solar. They will need as much extra gas generation, as backup, as there is solar.

    And if they forget this truism of life, as they did in the UK and Tasmania, then you end up with thousands of diesel generators as backup. (The UK Strategic Reserve Generators.) So the net savings of emissions are nil, while the net cost is $gazzillions. (In the UK, the Strategic Reserve diesels are paid if they operate or not).

    • One of the Green Frog diesel generating sites in the UK Strategic reserve. One presumes they called it Green Frog, because it represents the ugly polluting side of ‘green’ renewable power.

    • Their plan is to put solar panels in Hawaii so they will be in sunlight while the eastern US is dark and vice versa. The rest of the time we don’t need no electricity.

      Oh yeah /sarc

    • Not on installed capacity, 140 GW is the installed capacity. It will only generate the equivalent of 35 GW of gas or coal capacity. The capacity factor affects the GWh, not the GW.

      1 GW of gas with a 90% capacity factor could generate 7,884 GWh in 1 year (1 * 0.9 * 24 * 365 = 7,884).
      1 GW of solar with a 25% capacity factor could generate 2,190 GWh in 1 year (1 * 0.25 * 24 * 365 = 2,190).

      • I think you mean solar at … 35 x 365 x 24 = 306.6 twh. I did not notice the change in units.

        But it will only be 306.6 twh if you can store some of that energy, or if you can drop other generators off the grid when the Sun comes out, to make room for the solar. If not, the total effective generation might fall to 153 twh, with the other 50% being wasted (a big zener diode plugged into the ground would soak it up….!).

        But in economic terms this energy is still wasted, even if it is used. They have to pay other generators a bonus to drop off the grid when the Sun comes out or when the wind blows. So the consumer pays thrice for the generation – once to generate via renewables, once again to not generate via normal fossil fuels, and then yet one more time for the Strategic Reserve (which is paid for whether or not the other two are generating).

        Sounds like a camel – a horse designed by a committee. And that is being unkind to camels.

        R

      • We have the same facility upstate NY in Stephentown which is just down Rt 22 from my farm.

    • The way they plan to generate solar energy at night is to use diesel generators to power “really powerful lights” to shine on the solar cells so they can keep putting power on the grid…it is scary to see these brilliant minds at work.

    • South Australia are also having problems with their “Bird Mincers”not producing enough power.when the “Interconnector”from Victoria,malfunctioned last year,160.000 people were with-out power for several days and now their last “Coal”powered generator has been closed,because of its age,they might have a lot more trouble brewing in the not too distant future.Interesting times ahead,methinks.

  5. Thomas Edison, an inventor with his name on over 1000 innovative patents, brought the world’s first energy revolution – electrical energy from coal,oil and gas.
    Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with zero patents between them think they can do it with photo-electric panels and propellers driven by the wind.

    “a) If you know that you know something – you can go ahead and do it.
    b) If you don’t know something, you can look it up, or ask someone.
    c) If you don’t know that you don’t know – then you are down right dangerous!”

    Can someone pass that on to these people??

    • Edison in the end was beat out by Westinghouse and Tesla {an immigrant from Serbia?) when they implemented AC over DC allowing the development of long distance transmission. Sort of the equivalent of the FF superiority over green energy which can never function with out energy storage on a large scale.
      It is my conclusion the confusion of the greens is their inability to recognize the difference between ENERGY and FUEL. Until they get this sorted out there will be no reasoning with them. The most significant contrast of the two is that fuel is “stored energy” in its native state. Whereas “sustainable (which, contrarily, is not sustainable in way) green energy” is just energy and a fleeting thing, available only when available and if not used at the time then gone and never available.

  6. Politicians do seem to ignore economics when it suits them. It seems implausible that such a rise in solar could be achieved without cost, and someone must bear that cost. The mechanisms may smooth that cost out, but is must come from somewhere.

    Putting it another way, if one believed that there were no cost to emitting CO2, then it would probably not be a sensible policy to switch from coal to solar at the moment.

    If you accept point 1, that AGW is a serious problem, then there are different ways to tackle it. Optimally, a carbon tax would probably be best. Economically, if this were used to offset capital taxes there would be no damage to the economy. Reductions in capital taxes are not too popular, so the best achievable option is to offset against income tax. This reduces the damage to the economy. That would price CO2 appropriately to the damage you believe it causes (otherwise you would not accept point 1), whilst giving people more money in their pocket to make the appropriate choices.

    For example, heating would be more expensive so some people would then volunteer to spend more on insulation and efficiency and some people would choose to install solar panels

    Since politically the carbon tax is not likely to happen, you are left with less efficient means to achieve the same objective. Instead of using market forces to get people to spend more on insulation and efficiency, you either make them or subsidise them. You encourage people to install solar panels. This is less efficient economically, because some people would have preferred a smaller car more insulation or solar panels. By selecting the programs you subsidise or encourage, you take market sources out of the equation.

    So if some carbon reduction policy is to go ahead, I urge everyone to campaign for a carbon tax instead.

      • To be fair, the measures proposed are hardly catastrophic. That sounds a tad alarmist. We are talking about small percentages of GDP – hardly catastrophy.

      • Tell that to the people who froze to death in Britain because they could no longer afford heat.
        Tell that to the unemployed miners who have lost their jobs because govt mandates have made their products unaffordable.

      • MarkW -“Tell that to the unemployed miners who have lost their jobs because govt mandates have made their products unaffordable.”
        Is that your definition of catastrophe? It is a very, very low bar.

    • seaice1 May 10, 2016 at 8:03 am
      Your whole point is moot. India, china and the rest of the developing world are building coal fired power plants. China alone is building 155 new ones. (as of last year).
      Now ten years down the road when both china and India need massive amounts of coal as their own supplies are limited what happens? I you and others of your mindset going to moralize and say naughty naughty, you must stop burning that nasty coal and we won’t sell you any.
      That didn’t work to well with Japan and oil in 1941 now did it. I know your sitting there going snicker snicker, china fight the U.S.N. Well why are the Chinese building aircraft carriers and a blue water navy?
      You may want to put off reading any more CAGW site stuff and pick up a copy of Alfred Mahan “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History”

      michael

      • My point is not moot because it is not affected by whether the proposed policies provide any benefit or not. I am looking only at the cost side of the cost benefit analysis in this point. If there are going to be policies to reduce carbon emission in the USA, regardless of any benefits, it is surely sensible to choose the ones with the least cost. A revenue neutral carbon tax has a lower cost for a given carbon reduction than the proposed policies.

      • The US stopped selling oil to Japan after they invaded China. Try to get the lessons of history right so you can actually learn from them. The US did not send anyone to the Moscow because the USSR invaded Afghanistan.

        China is now building more efficient coal plants and nuke so they will not need to depend on imported coal as much.

        China is not building a nuke carrier fleet or a blue water navy. Chinese propaganda based on token ships. China and the rest of the world depends on the US Navy. Almost all, including China, conduct naval exercises together because “Alfred Mahan “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History””

        Our nuke carrier, amphibious carriers, surface fleets, and submarine fleets are so massively superior to any other navy, that no other countries even bother to keep up.

        A lot has changed since the end of the cold war. Alfred Mahan would be writing about the benefits of being the only military superpower. This lesson was not lost on the Clintons. This is why they worry about CAGW.

    • seaice1 writes: “Optimally, a carbon tax would probably be best. Economically, if this were used to offset capital taxes there would be no damage to the economy.”

      Incorrect. The incidence of the tax is directly upon the engine of the economy, energy. The offset will not replace energy. Consequently, having my income tax reduced by the amount of my carbon tax initially seems harmless, but the impact of the tax is upon everything that moves, glows or warms; which is nearly everything, and the offset benefits none of that.

      It is not a “zero sum game” in which you can just move taxes around with no net impact. If the impact were “net zero” then there’s no particular reason to do it.

      If you stop the engine of the economy, tax revenue will collapse anyway, so what good is an offset?

      • If these morons really cared about reducing co2 emissions they would have been crying starting 30 years ago and we would be like France today with most of our energy being produced by nuke plants. But alas they are morons and push for carbon taxes and solar follies.

        And that is how you know it’s a scam on the stupid because the obvious solution is cheaper and better for the environment in nuclear fission.

        So what kind of moron says ” the worst problem facing humanity is co2 emissions ”
        And than goes and does not solve the problem in the obvious fashion?

        Someone who is scamming you.

        Or someone who is too stupid to be trusted with anything.

        In any event I just chuckle at people like sea ice who are so warped with bad logic and thinking that they can not grasp how bad their solutions really are.

        Here’s an idea:

        Instead of foisting some magical carbon tax on everyone that won’t solve global warming in any way, why don’t you voluntarily pay this tax yourself and stop trying to be a fascist pig and forcing me to pay for your obsolete forms of power for a change?

  7. First Solar CEO: ‘By 2017, We’ll Be Under $1.00 per Watt Fully Installed’

    Thus, 140 Gigawatts will cost $140 billion US dollars, and only provide 35 Gigawatts of electricity [25% capacity factor], if installed in optimum solar areas. 140 Billion dollars will build 35 Nuclear power plants providing in excess of 42 Gigawatts hours of electricity 24/7/365 and last 40 to 60 years. On the other hand every 10 -15 years the solar panels will need to be replaced, multiplying their total cost by at least 4 times the original installation cost, or more than $500 Billion dollars, enough that if each 10 years 35 more nuclear power plants were built the percent of power plants producing [ZERO] CO2 would have increased to well over 75%.

    Commercial Solar systems like Ivanpah Solar facility or other massive “Solar Farms” have similar costs (if not higher) and capacity factors. Don’t like my numbers, use yours. Results will be similar. And, YES NPPs will be in operation for at least 60 years even 80 unless the Wacoenvironmentalist shut them down to save the Earth and eliminate mankind in their effort.

    • OPPS — “enough that if each 10 years 35 more nuclear power plants were built the percent of power plants producing CO2 would have increased to well over 75%.” should read –
      “enough that if each 10 years 35 more nuclear power plants were built the percent of power plants producing ZERO CO2 would have increased to well over 75%.”

      [ Moderator – please fix]

    • You aren’t including the cost of the back up power needed when the solar plants aren’t producing.

  8. “That would mean installed solar PV capacity of 140 gigawatts by the end of 2020”

    China is salivating.

    • Both from the sale of all those PV panels, but from all the manufacturing they are going to be taking from us as US production becomes too expensive.

  9. If energy efficiency was so cost effective, those businessmen whom the Democrats routinely denigrate as only caring about the bottom line, would be doing it already.

    Oh wait, they already are. It’s just that they don’t do any conversions that will lose money, and that drives Hillary bonkers.

    • When I added a Heat pump 25 years ago I had to increase the attic insulation up to 15 inches (blown in) to meet utility requirements for their rebate and HP electrical rate (walls were “OK”.. It was several inches over that when I inspected after installation. I was up there a last year and saw that it has “compacted” down to about 12 inches. The code now recommends R-50 which is at least 3 inches over 1/2 of the attic and 4 over the rest. If I installed my self (fat chance, I am 74) it would take 10 – 12 years to recover the cost, (plus I would lose earnings on my retirement fund). If I paid to have it done it would be another 6 – 10 years to pay off. Needless to say I am not going to waste my money on an “improvement” that costs me more money to do than it saves me, and probably ot even return what I paid for it before I die.

      • The time to pay off the investment is even longer when you factor in the time cost of the money spent.

      • Depending on the temperatures where you live, the returns on attic can decrease rapidly because little can be done for say the walls and air leaks around the foundation and through wall “micro” breaches. The worst are windows which although claimed to have up to 3 R value under “ideal” conditions for multiple panes, can actually be a small fraction of 1 on a windy day depending on the temp delta.

      • It is time to replace your 25 year old heat pump. Also consider a radiant barrier.

        The important concept is that benefits of energy saving slip away with time.

  10. So where are these 500 million solar panels going to be installed I wonder? Let’s do the math and assume each panel is the 200 watt variety with a size of 6 feet by 3.5 feet. That’s 21 sq ft per panel X 500 million, that’s 10.5 billion square feet. According to Google units calculator that’s 376.63 square miles.

    So which state gets the joy to be the US solar farm? The one with the least amount of votes for her?

    • And how many square feet on just the southern facing roofs of the approximately 100 Million homes?

      “So which state gets the joy to be the US solar farm?” The referenced article implies a lot of farms on Bureau of Land Management “property.” Thus, you get to pay for 2,000 miles of new transmission lines! Happy Electric Bill Day!

      • “The referenced article implies a lot of farms on Bureau of Land Management “property.””

        Ah I didn’t read that part. Bye, Bye National Forests, Parks and land bordering some Native American reservations! Does this mean the Grand Canyon will be covered in solar panels now? Hmm….might throw off the photography. How about the Badlands? Oh wait, S. Dakota might be too far north for it to work.

        And I’m sure 100 million homeowners are going to LOVE having their roofs covered in solar panels that they will have to clean everyday to keep them running at peak efficiency. Speaking of cleaning the panels–does this mean a new department of the government? The Department of Solar Cleaning–now hiring 2 cleaners, 50 managers, 75 executive assistants, 400 district managers and of course 10 directors.

        You know it is one thing to throw out ideas, it is quite another to think them through a layer or 2 down. This sounds like one of those, “we’ll discuss that in the next meeting” kind of things. Before you even get into the cost/benefit analysis–the sheer question of, “who is going to clean them” should stop people short because, “Oh we’ll contract that out” is not a satisfactory answer to the questions of how often, with what and when and where (which incorporates transportation costs, insurances..etc).

    • I have a 5KW solar system in sunny South Australia, North facing (Southern hemisphere), no shadows from trees/buildings and angled not quite but close to my latitude (35S) to maximise exposure.

      Over the past 5.5 years I average 4.3 hours of maximum generation, approx 18% efficiency.

      I suspect that a large proportion of houses will not have the ideal positioning available on their roofs and will get less efficiency than I do so I would question anyone who works with 25% efficiency.

      Without solar tracking (ie, hugely more expensive) technology, 25% is a pipe dream.

      • “Without solar tracking (ie, hugely more expensive) technology, 25% is a pipe dream.”

        I think that wraps up the entire position. 25% efficiency is a pipe dream. This is one of those, “sounds good so we’ll say it” but you get the accountants on board and they are going to have a field day crunching numbers in a cost/benefit analysis and fun with graphing out the 25% efficiency destruction. I can almost see how giddy they’ll be….I know I would. :)

        I keep coming back to the analogy that “green” energy propaganda is like being a hypochondriac. Once the Dr. tells you that it’s all in your head, you invent even more bogus symptoms to treat for your supposed condition because the interwebs told you it might be true.

      • High latitudes would benefit from solar tracking. If you have 18 hours a day of sunlight but only 4 hours directly on the panel, some sort of tracking would improve generation, perhaps by a factor of 3.

      • Michael 2

        High latitudes would benefit from solar tracking. If you have 18 hours a day of sunlight but only 4 hours directly on the panel, some sort of tracking would improve generation, perhaps by a factor of 3.

        No. It “might” depending on day-of-year and latitude and regional/local interferences (such as buildings and trees and hills and vallys) improve the EXPOSURE of a rotating solar panel by a value that can be calculated (give me a latitude and day-of-year and I’ll show you) but it does NOT improve the “power generated” by anywhere close to 3x times a fixed direction (south-facing) solar panel.

        Reason is the amount of the sun’s energy that is absorbeed by clouds and by the atmosphere when the sun is low enough in the sky to require rotating the soalr panel on a vertical axis. Absorption at low solar elevatioin angles can be as much a 60 – 80% of the solar energy from earlier in the day – say from 10:30 am through 2:30 pm local solar time. Those 5 hours when the sun is high in the sky (higher than 33 – 40 degrees) generate most of the power on panels. Most of the ocean water absorption too for that matter.

        There IS “light” during the rest of the day. There IS some low level reflected and diffuse radiation as well. Certainly more than enough light energy to “see” with well into the early morning and late evening.

        But is wrong to assume that there is very much “useful energy” available from that light into a solar panel or heating blanket.

    • Aren’t you assuming the 500 million panels are connected end to end and side to side? You actually need to include all the land necessary, between rows of panels, for maintenance crews and additional facilities. You will then need to hire work crews to work 24 hour shifts to repair and clean 500 million panels. If you had a crew of 100,000 people each person would need to clean 50,000 panels/yr. Each panel would need to be cleaned at least 1 a year. (5,000,000 / 100,000 = 50,000/yr = 137 panels / day. (assuming 24 hour day and 8 hour shift) and a bazillion gallons of water, soap and etc. You need at least an area the 1/2 the size of Delaware and located in the Southwest.

  11. Note the dubious rigor of their logical argument. Their “key facts” used as starting points: “(1) Climate change is a serious problem that requires hitting the targets promised in Paris.” is counted as a “fact.” !?

  12. Trump is quoted as saying that paying off the US debt ($17 trillion) could be done in nine years….. (By my calculations that’s about $5.4 billion per person. Per year. Yup, should be doable.)

    Ian M

    • Uhm….

      Assuming $19.2 trillion in debt and a population of 323 million, it would cost each person ~$6,600/yr for 9 years to pay off the debt. I leave it for you to decide if that’s a good idea or not.

      • Lee,

        Other ways to pay off the debt are by growing the economy, or inflating the currency.

        The second alternative almost always leads to disaster, because it can so easily get out of control. So inflation isn’t a good answer.

        The economy can easily grow fast enough that tax increases are not necessary to pay off the national debt. But that would require freeing the economy by eliminating thousands of regulations that only benefit special interests.

        There’s the rub. Special interests have bought majority of representatives in Congress. It doesn’t take all that much money to buy a vote that protects interested parties, who stand to gain many $millions at the expense of everyone else.

        Maybe we need to elect someone new, who isn’t beholden to special interests…

      • Even if it were true that Trump doesn’t owe anything to any special interest, he’s being elected president, not dictator.
        No matter what he wants, he has to get it through congress first.

      • For a family of three, that works out to almost $20K/yr.
        If we scrimped and saved, we might be able to save $1K to $2k per year, and that’s only because we have been frugal for years.

        I would guess that between 95 and 99 percent of families could not come up with that much money per year.

      • The only solution is to get govt out of the business of picking economic winners and losers.
        So long as your wealth is dependent upon what happens in Washington, those with money will pay whatever it takes to protect themselves from the politicians.

        The idea that it is possible to separate money from politics is one of those feel good ideas that the permanently naïve float from time to time.

      • Well what ever the number, I like the idea of taking some of it back from all the countries that we have been providing low cost protection to for over half a century. There is also foreign aide and probably other high cost items like secret arms supplies to countries that shouldn’t have them. Might not totally correct but would make quite a dent over 10 years.

      • ,” it would cost each person 6,600/yr for 9 years to pay off the debt”
        ==================
        minus all children with no income, minus all the remaining that pay no Federal income tax. So about 20,000 per year for those working adults that pay some tax now. (not only is it a terrible idea, it is an impossible idea.)

  13. When your policy involves setting up huge numbers of diesel generators hidden behind high walls,( known as STOR in the UK ) and asking your major consumers to shut down or provide their own diesel generators when there is high demand then the assumption that the lunatics are running the asylum is unavoidable.
    If any of these morons actually believed that CO2 was destroying the world they would be out on the streets demanding nuclear power NOW as the only viable solution to their imagined disaster scenario. I can at least respect Hansen as he claims he has spotted a problem and is prepared to support the only logical solution to that problem.
    As for the people waffling on about carbon taxes and wind follies and solar panels, their obvious inability to define a problem and evaluate a solution makes them stand out as moronic in polite terms and total imbeciles in reality.
    We are truly in the new age of idiocracy.

  14. Hillary is NOT a ‘Marxist’. Good grief. She is a Bilderberg gang member, a New World Order guy. She works for effing Wall Street. She is a Goldman Sachs girl.

    • The DNC Chairwoman couldn’t differentiate a Democrat from a socialist…

      On MSNBC’s Hardball Thursday night, host Chris Matthews stumped DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) when he asked her what the difference is between a Democrat and a socialist.

      “What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?” Matthews asked, leaving Wasserman Schultz at a loss for words.

      “I used to think there is a big difference. What do you think it is?” Matthews tried again. “A Democrat like Hillary and a socialist like Bernie Sanders.”

      […]

      “You’re chairman of the democratic party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist,” Matthews reminded her.

      “The relevant debate that we’ll be having this campaign is what’s the difference between a Democrat and a Republican,” Schultz said.

      […]

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid…socialist.html

      Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist, which is a branch of Marxism…

      Social democratic Marxism

      Various trends of Marxism were created in Europe after Marx. The major one was Social Democracy in Germany by Eduard Bernstein. Bernstein renounced the ideas of violent revolution and economic determinism, and proposed a peaceful acquisition of hegemony through parliamentary democracy.

      Austrian Marxists such as Max Adler, and Otto Bauer, equally renounced violent revolution and argued for the needs of a moral foundation to promote socialism. They attempted to integrate Kantian ethics into Marxism.

      http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Marxism

      Therefore Bernie Sanders is a Marxist…

      8. In the book he wrote with Huck Gutman, Outsider in the House, published in 1997: “Bill Clinton is a moderate Democrat. I’m a democratic socialist.”

      9. In an interview with the Guardian in November 2006: “Twenty years ago, when people here thought about socialism they were thinking about the Soviet Union, about Albania. Now they think about Scandinavia. In Vermont people understand I’m talking about democratic socialism.”

      10. In an interview with The Washington Post in November 2006. “I wouldn’t deny it. Not for one second. I’m a democratic socialist. … In Norway, parents get a paid year to care for infants. Finland and Sweden have national health care, free college, affordable housing and a higher standard of living. … . Why shouldn’t that appeal to our disappearing middle class?”

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0…#ixzz3gMcmpXFR

      He says he is not a Communist.

      Social Democracy is a branch of Marxism. It is Communism with less violence, more civil liberties and indirect state ownership of the means of production.

      Social Democracy brings the pot of water to boil slowly, so the frog thinks he’s getting a warm bath. Communism just kills the frog outright unless he’s quick enough to jump out of the pot.

      Social Democracy is an intermediate step in the Marxist transition from capitalism to socialism and utopia…

      Social democracy
      Written by The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
      Last Updated 6-17-2014

      Social democracy, political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. Based on 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, social democracy shares common ideological roots with communism but eschews its militancy and totalitarianism. Social democracy was originally known as revisionism because it represented a change in basic Marxist doctrine, primarily in the former’s repudiation of the use of revolution to establish a socialist society.

      http://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy

      Since Mrs. Clinton can’t be differentiated from Mr. Sanders, she must be a Marxist too.. Or at least Marxist enough for me.

      Regarding her ties to Wall Street… That’s where the money is… And it costs a lot of money to run for President.  The refreshing thing about Bernie is that at least he’s honest about being a Marxist.

      • The varieties of “socialism” are indeed confusing. On the surface, Sweden and Venezuela today do not seem at all similar. The one tenet that actually characterizes all the variants is that the government should own the means of production/distribution. So I keep waiting for someone to ask Senator Sanders
        the $64 question: As president, what American corporations will you nationalize?

        But we’re getting ever farther off topic….

    • I really love it when the socialists go around proclaiming that anyone who has money, or works for a business couldn’t possibly be a socialist/Marxist.

      Just goes to show you how little they know about people and economics.

      • The line of reasoning generally goes like this: Obama can’t be a Marxist ideologue because the state doesn’t own the means of production.

      • I’ve always said that the only difference between ownership and control, is a worthless scrap of paper.

  15. Clinton is it. That said, all political rhetoric for vote getting aside, the Clintons are in bed with “big oll.” Follow the money and do the math.

    • While Bill wasn’t too tough on “big oil” and “little oil”… The Deepwater royalty relief was really cool… Hillary is a lot closer to Al Gore than she is to Bill when it comes to energy and climate change. That said, I found this to be shocking…

      The staunchly GOP-aligned oil industry that championed George W. Bush and Mitt Romney isn’t yet willing to embrace Donald Trump — and some of its lobbyists wonder if they could stomach seeing Hillary Clinton in the White House instead.

      […]

      Among those expressing uncertainty is the industry’s top lobbyist, American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard, who told POLITICO this month that he doesn’t know whom he will vote for in November.
      “It’s probably premature for me to judge,” said Gerard, a former Bush campaign bundler who in 2012 was widely viewed as a potential White House chief of staff or energy secretary if Romney won.

      Another oil industry source was even blunter about the prospects of a match-up between Clinton, who promises to crack down on oil and gas pollution, and Trump, who has accused Republican rival Ted Cruz of being “totally controlled by the oil companies.”

      […]

      None of this may translate into outright industry support for Clinton, especially given the leftward lurch she has taken while working to assuage suspicious green activists and fend off a Democratic primary challenge from Bernie Sanders.

      […]

      “It might be better to have four years of Clinton and try again in 2020,” Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKenna said.

      Stephen Brown, a vice president at the refining company Tesoro, said the choice “comes down to which risky bet are you willing to take.”

      “Is Hillary really more centrist on traditional energy issues than she is posturing on the campaign trail or is Trump more substantive on these same issues than he has telegraphed thus far?” Brown asked. “And can Republican incumbent senators running in blue states sufficiently present themselves as a check on a Democratic White House enough to win if Trump is tanking?”

      […]

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/oil-industry-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-choice-220947#ixzz48H54LlwI
      Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

      Banking on Hillary’s “leftward lurch” being a head fake doesn’t sound very smart to me.

  16. The measures Obama has put in place do not currently have the US on a trajectory to hit its 2025 goal,

    The measures Obama has put in place have no force of law unless they are adopted by Congress. It isn’t the country’s goal until it is adopted by Congress.

  17. ‘A transition of this scale will not work without broad political buy-in. That means engineering a shift to clean energy that, in Clinton’s words, “doesn’t leave anyone out or behind.”’

    Has Lady Hillary (I sort of like that title because I suspect she’d hate it) properly factored in the effect this wee transition (in 9 years; Waah!) will have on the LGBTQ community? I think not.

    • “she spoke at length about her plan to “revitalize coal communities.” ”

      *****************************************************************************************
      What does this mean?

      Such a slippery use of language. John Major the ex prime minister of the UK in the 90’s was a past master at it’s use. When accused of saying “…………..” in a debate, sometimes years later, he would say “No I did not say that, I said “……………” . He knew exactly what he’d said (and why) and of course no-one could argue that what he said wasn’t true, but missed the point that it was deliberately misleading at the time he said it.

      The use of specific language to give the appearance of saying something that people will support when the meaning, in reality, is completely different.

      So, back to the above – this doesn’t mean that coal INDUSTRIES will be given any measures to survive, recover or improve. It means that coal COMMUNITIES will be “revitalised”. and coal will be gone and people will be coerced into mostly subsidised green jobs etc. (maybe).

      Sorry about the s’s for z’s, but English is English. :-)

      SteveT

  18. It “takes a village” …….to stay warm with the wrong energy policy fail in place combined with the “who could have known” complications along the way, a la Edward Markey.

  19. “While I have no idea what Donald Trump’s plans are regarding energy and climate change, …”

    Donald Trump’s viewpoint on CAGW is quite clear. On paper he called it a word I can’t use on this site. Suffice it to say he called AGW a word that calls out the biological waste product that comes out the back end of a ‘bull’.

    This is an important point for all the self righteous ‘NeverTrump’ people who populate the Republican Party (Paul Ryan you know who you are). Now, observing the Donald I’m inclined to believe his belief that AGW is BS could change depending on which side he wakes up in bed next to Melania in the morning. But, there’s no question he’d be less damaging than Lady Hillary.

    • Harpo Marx is infinitely preferable to Karl Marx. Trump might be the next Ronald Reagan… Or he might be a total disaster. Hillary will be the next Barrack Hussein Obama and a total disaster.

      I just have no idea what Trump’s plans are. I tend to think he doesn’t know yet.

      • David Middleton,

        That’s how I see it. Trump is extremely practical, and he does hire the best people he can find. But we don’t know for certain how he would work out.

        What we do know is that if elected, Hillary would be in a position to continue Obama’s policies. That has to be the reason she’s escaped being indicted. It’s a quid-pro-quo: ‘Help me get elected, and I will protect your policies, like Obamacare and unrestricted illegal immigration.’ Because we know there’s no love lost between them. Obama protecting his legacy has to be a primary motivation, no?

        But when average Americans vote, they should be aware that there are other, much more important issues:

  20. Key starting point number one does not even bother to mention human caused climate change. That is the major sleight of hand fail that thinking people need to confront. Key starting point number two is more egregious because 99 percent of energy policy under Obama has been targeting large tax credits to the rich for the over priced rooftop version of solar and overpriced electric vehicles for the rich. If anyone calling the shots in the policy adventure had any brains or fairness, they would have steered CARB and DoE to more practical variants of vehicles and solar to be much further down the road than today. If they had bothered to think, we might not have another truck and SUV buying rush that we currently have. A middle ground approach with enhanced hybrids with larger batteries and community- or utility-scale solar instead of the 2x or 4x cost versions on the roof would have done 10x more by now. But then the standards for U.S. and German energy policy making any sense is so low it’s understandable, especially from an advocacy-driven development process.

  21. BTW, CARB objectives for automakers offering zero emission vehicles diverted billions of industry dollars that could have helped with common sense solutions for the masses like incremental hybrid development and community- or utility scale solar for the masses in place of solar for hedge fund manager rooftops.

    • she wants to outlaw Fracking
      ===========
      only two reasons the US has been able to cut down on coal use:

      1. economic meltdown
      2. fracking to replace coal with methane.

      without option 2, you are left with only option 1.

    • Since I work the Gulf of Mexico, primarily the Plio-Pleistocene plays, where “fracking” isn’t really essential (at least not on a shale scale), I should be a supporter of Bernie or Hillary, because a fracking ban would kill the shale plays and drive oil and natural gas prices through the roof… Oddly enough, I am not a Bernie/Hillary supporter

  22. And when all of Hillary Clinton’s command economy wet dreams fail, a bunch of families will have to move in together to share expenses, not unlike that scene in “Dr. Zhivago.”

  23. It is a “sure thing” that Lady Hillary’s plans will make things worse.
    There is a chance that “The Donald’s” results might not.

  24. First of all it’s party policy not Hillary. The only aspect that concerns a particular leader is the number of times per week beating the climate drum and the severity of the stupidity reading the advocacy scripts available to her. So let’s be grown up and get away from the notion of picking individual leaders in a beauty contest. It’s strictly party line doctrine on an eight year plan. Oh and the science was manhandled long ago to fit the political objectives along with a few Grubber-type science names to fill in the blanks. The useful idiots have all be assigned their respective duties by the Ministry of Truth.

  25. I read an article recently where the author pointed out that the initial calculations of the Planck effect climate sensitivity of CO2 was too much by a factor of about 20. What was neglected was the fact that adding that much CO2 to the atmosphere will lower the dry lapse rate which is a cooling effect. So instead of a Planck effect sensitivity of more than one degree C it is really less then .1 degrees C, a trivial amount. Then one must factor in feedbacks which must be negative for the climate to have been as stable as it has been over the past 500 million years. enough for life to evolve. With a climate sensitivity of CO2 actually near zero, and attempt to reduce CO2 in our atmosphere will have no effect on climate. So what Hillary wants to do will have no effect on climate. Then there is the question: who is going to pay for all that Hillary wants to do? I estimate that the money the federal government is borrowing today will end up costing the tax payers more than 12 times the amount borrowed to repay it over the next 170 years. Hillary is applying for the job of the federal government’s CEO. She needs to present her plan for the federal government to get out of debt. The tax payers have a right to know how much all this federal borrowing is really costing them.

  26. “Her plans haven’t gotten much press — not as much as, say, her gaffe about coal miners…”

    That wasn’t a gaffe, unless David Roberts believes that telling the truth about what you actually think is a gaffe. Is there anyone who thinks Hillary doesn’t really want to put coal companies out of business?

    “…expanding union density in the clean energy space…”

    Now there’s a hint about what they’re really up to. If they can use taxpayer money to create a vast clean-energy sector and make sure it is fully unionized, they couldn’t care less how much it costs or how much reliable energy it produces. It will allow them to buy votes with tax money, which to them is limitless and free. In fact, the more useless clean-energy companies are, the more dependent they will be on government funding, the more employees will vote Democrat, and the more their unions will kickback some of the money to Democrats as political donations to keep subsidies flowing. Why would Democrat politicians like Hillary use their own money to buy votes when they can get taxpayers to do it for them?

  27. She could better finance 35GW of nuclear power plants. They should cost something in between $175bl and $245bl, and be something in between 21 and 31 all-American-made big-size reactors (e.g. AP1000 and ABWR). Not to mention the chance to implement small modular reactors industry, for smaller communities or to supply power to energy-thirsty industrial plants (e.g. steel mills, chemical plants, desalinization plants). A big but affordable plan to be in 8 years.
    Ah sorry, I forgot that she will better follow environmentalist lobbies like Greenpeace rather than “enviromentalist-scientists” like Hansen or Lomborg…

  28. The first major step in both Obama’s and potentially Clinton’s efforts to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions does not rest with politically correct but large irrelevant wind and solar energy. It rests with an attack on coal-fired electricity generation and, through this, on both consumers of that electricity (whose costs will rise substantially) and the domestic coal producers who will lose their markets (at least until they find new ones in the several developing countries that are greatly expanding coal-fired power generation). Surprisingly few people are aware of how widespread is the use of coal for power generation in the U.S. Over 35 states make extensive use of it, with the largest users being Texas, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri and West Virginia. In terms of coal producers, Wyoming is by far the largest, distantly followed by West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Montana, Texas and Indiana. This gives an indication of the states whose people would be most adversely affected by a continuation of Obama climate policies.

    • Bob Lyman

      Over 35 states make extensive use of it, with the largest users being Texas, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri and West Virginia. In terms of coal producers, Wyoming is by far the largest, distantly followed by West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Montana, Texas and Indiana. This gives an indication of the states whose people would be most adversely affected by a continuation of Obama climate policies.

      And, if you are familiar with US politicas, the producing states, and the consumer states, regularly vote republican in presidential and local elections, and hence are the natural target for Oboma’s (and Bill Clinton’s and Hillary Clinton’s) enthusiastic efforts at detroying their jobs, their lives, and their economies.
      However, Obama and Clinton donors WILL CONTINUE to get subsidies and support in their economic practices: Warren Buffet donates tens of millions annually (and gives publicity work worth billions to his Washington enablers) and employs thousands of union robot voters in his railroads now dragging Canadian tar sand products across the United States. Further, those railroad trains drop their oil off at union-robot-manned wharves, shipping ports, ships, and canals and canal tank farms at each storage and transshipment point.

      Why was Keystone pipeline used to promote CAGW hysteria?
      The Keystone pipeline is a pollution threat?
      No, the pipeline was opposed BECAUSE it would provide the “wrong kind” of jobs to the “wrong people” voting in the “wrong states.”

  29. …“an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time.”

    More like, “an urgent opportunity and the defining excuse of our time.” As codswallop goes, this one sleeps with the fishes.

  30. Hilary Clinton Climate Change

    Has she got any Emails on her Private Server about the subject

Comments are closed.