Government energy policy wonk predicts U.S. will have climate laws by end of decade

From the regulate the masses anyway we can department:

US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said that US public opinion and state and local policymakers were moving toward reducing carbon responsible for the planet’s fast-rising temperatures

US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said that US public opinion and state and local policymakers were moving toward reducing carbon responsible for the planet’s fast-rising temperatures

NEW YORK (AFP) – US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz on Monday predicted that the world’s largest economy would have legislation by the end of the decade to combat climate change.

His optimism comes despite intense political debate in the United States with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump vowing to scrap the Paris climate accord if elected on November 8.

But Moniz, opening the annual Climate Week of events in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, said that US public opinion and state and local policymakers were moving toward reducing carbon responsible for the planet’s fast-rising temperatures.

“I will state quite frankly, I have a bet riding on the fact that we will have economy-wide legislation in the Congress by the end of this decade. I really believe that this is coming,” he said, joking that as a physicist he believed in “rationality.”

Legislation to create the first nationwide carbon caps in the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter after China, died in the Senate in 2010, with little prospect seen for action after the Republicans took control.

President Barack Obama instead has relied on executive authority to take measures such as regulating power plants and fuel standards.

Moniz said that the United States was confident it would meet its goal submitted under the Paris accord of reducing emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases by 26 to 28 percent by 2025, from 2005 levels.

“But I think there’s no issue that rather than a sectoral approach, which is inherent in using administrative authorities, a simplified economy-wide approach would be preferable and, frankly, would be a lot clearer in terms of the signals for business,” Moniz said.

The United Nations is hoping that this week’s meetings will put in force the Paris accord, which requires formal agreement by 55 countries accounting for 55 percent of global emissions.

The accord got a major boost earlier this month when Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping jointly committed themselves to the global climate pact.

Advertisements

109 thoughts on “Government energy policy wonk predicts U.S. will have climate laws by end of decade

  1. Won’t happen if GOP holds onto Congress and takes the White House. Some states may pass carbon taxes and more idiotic regulations, but steam is coming out of the cuckoo Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism (CACCA) engine.

    America is doing its bit to reduce CO2 emissions anyway, but relying more heavily on gas. Not that there’s anything wrong with more plant food in the air.

    Waxing Arctic sea ice would help forestall these disastrous policies so devoutly to be resisted.

    • I wonder why this is not more of an issue as an important difference between Democrats and Republicans in the debate and who is best for the country if elected.
      Even Fox rarely brings up the difference, focused instead on “birther” which most voters don’t care about.

      • ‘I wonder why this is not more of an issue as an important difference between Democrats and Republicans’

        It’s similar to the situation with immigration. The democrats want a permanent underclass and voter base. The republicans want cheap labor.

        With climate change, both parties have dogs in the fight – although the differences are not as clear cut across party lines. But not the least of it on the republican side is thirty years of investment in ‘green energy’ – they aren’t prepared to take a donut in returns if it all turns out to be for nothing.

        For democratic motivations, just pick up the Huffington post. And then wash your hands.

    • Why is he wearing that pink petroleum fossil substance on his lips ??

      Doesn’t he know that there’s a war going on out there against climate change ??

      He looks like something out of Joseph Haydn’s generation.

      And he’s our Energy Secretary ; wasting precious fuel like that ?

      G

    • Well it looks like California is going to install Li-Ion batteries from Musk/Tesla to make up for those mandated but not so reliable windmills & solar panels to the tune of ~100 million. Considering the Tesla auto “bricks”, wonder just how reliable & cost effective they will be:
      “The California energy commission warned this summer that the loss of Aliso Canyon could cause up to 14 days of rotating power brownout due to gas shortages. The relatively mild California spring and summer prevented the disruption. Tesla’s Powerpack batteries are expected to provide plenty of backup power to off-set any winter natural gas shortage.
      Tesla reports that it will deliver the 80MWh Powerpack battery system before the end of 2016 to be installed at Southern California Edison’s Mira Loma substation.
      “Upon completion, this system will be the largest lithium ion battery storage project in the world,” Tesla posted on its website. “When fully charged, this system will hold enough energy to power more than 2,500 households for a day or charge 1,000 Tesla vehicles.”
      Neither the State of California, Southern California Edison, nor Tesla disclosed the size of the award. Bloomberg estimated that with a 2MWh Powerpack system costing $2.9 million, the contract would be about $100 million.
      Utility grid operators are beginning to embrace battery storage as a much more reliable method of providing renewable energy than “intermittent” wind and solar power, which require a 100 percent natural gas power plant back-up. Batteries are also much more economical for the limited time buffering of power availability.”
      http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/09/19/tesla-wins-100m-award-80mwh-socal-edison-battery-storage/
      http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/tesla-already-has-38000-reservations-for-the-powerwall-but-use-case-is-narrow/

      • 2,500 households! And they’re bragging about it? And the storage costs as much as the generation! And they’re bragging about it? One down and about 1 million to go! Insanity!

      • Lunacy. Just imagine how much more of this there will be if Federal ‘climate change’ legislation is passed.

        Actually you don’t have to imagine it, simply look at the UK where the Climate Change Act has resulted in an electricity infrastructure that can barely keep the lights on, at a cost that is threatening heavy industry with extinction and screwing the competitivity of the rest of our manufacturing industry.

      • @TomHalla
        an 80 mwh battery will back up a gigawatt power plant less than five minutes (if it could be drawn on at that rate

        Actually something like a picosecond

        Hint: Capitals Matter In SI Units. MWh!=mWh.

        And if you think I am a pedantic grammar Nazi, remember Spinal Tap….

      • “Yea, and an 80 mwh battery will back up a gigawatt power plant less than five minutes (if it could be drawn on at that rate)”

        Cool, I have some 2800 mAh x 1.2 volt batteries in my flash light, I could run a small nation with the four of them.

      • Umm, 100 million for 2500 homes is 40k per home. I think I want to be on the selling side of this deal.

      • “…enough energy to power more than 2,500 households for a day or charge 1,000 Tesla vehicles.”

        Cute! I’m assuming that you’re kidding that it takes 2 1/2 times as much energy to charge a Tesla as to run a whole house.

      • SO, Power 2500 households or charge 1000 Teslas…hmmmm
        I didn’t realize that 1 Tesla uses as much energy than 2.5 households per day.
        Talk about an Energy Hog!!!

    • USA is already a net carbon sink anyway.

      In fact we are the ONLY large land based one on the planet.

      G

      • I think you will find that the two largest national carbon sinks are 1.Argentina, 2.Australia.
        [Willis post ?years ago, from memory]

  2. Having “economy-wide legislation in the Congress by the end of this decade” is not the same as passing such legislation into law. Lots of bills get introduced only to die in Congress. Who is president is not enough.

  3. If we stay on a 2% or lower growth rate, or head into recession, then by the end of the decade we could be close to being number three on the list.

    • Are you implying that keeping the U.S. growth rate at or below 2% is part of a plan by the Obama Administration to reduce emissions and get around Congress? Come to think of it, they have imposed almost a trillion dollars in new regulations on business over the past 8 years. They had to know that such regulations would depress the economy and reduce emissions as a side effect. Yeah! Let’s kill jobs and put the brakes on prosperity so we can wage war on an imaginary climate boogeyman. After all, he’s getting ready to spring out of his hiding place in the deep oceans any day now. Real enemies, like ISIS and al Qaeda, pale in comparison to the destructive power of the climate boogeyman, which has no limits other than one’s imagination.

  4. The climate lobby is a lawless cabal. Useful idiots with PhD’s like Moniz add prestige to a roached cause. This administrations actions on the Dakota pipeline project send the signal to business that loopy is yapping about. You can follow all of the rules and we will still screw you arbitrarily.

    A sizable part of the GOP is complicit in all of this.

  5. “greenhouse gases by 26 to 28 percent by 2025, from 2005 levels.”

    No problem. Hillary will implement socialism, the economy will do a full Venezuela, and the resulting depression will reduce fuel usage.

    • Actually, the US has already reduced CO2 by half this goal since 2005 — that mostly from greater energy efficiency in many forms and switching from coal to natural gas in power production. Just the ongoing current trend in these may get the US there in 2025.

  6. Kinda scary. We have the US Environmental Protective Agency. We know how destructive rather than protective it has became after politics rather than honest science has ruled. A US Climate Protective Agency? “Hell on Wheels” aimed at even more control with no rails to keep it on track.
    Government bureaucracy is not our friend.

    • For me, the most telling portion of the information provided:
      “using administrative authorities, a simplified economy-wide approach would be preferable and, frankly, would be a lot clearer in terms of the signals for business”. Essentially, this is an administrative arm of central government dictating the mandates for the entire country. This, I believe, is the end-goal – use of climate “policy” to centralize and consolidate power.

  7. So this should be front and center on campaigns, debates, and all other exposure of candidates. Let’s start the trend of honest and open government policy debate now instead of cloakroom bets and ploys.

  8. As a physicist, Moniz would do well to review his notes on energy density. Wind and solar just don’t cut it, and they won’t be the energy sources replacing fossil fuels unless the Energy Secretary has found a way around that little problem. For example, compare the world’s first solar powered airplane, Solar Impulse, with a Boeing 747. Passenger ratio: 1 to 350. Speed 28 MPH (night) or a maximum of 56 MPH versus 550 MPH. Or think about powering a 100,000 ton container ship from China to San Francisco using sails versus a modern high-efficiency bunker-burning engine. I think you get the picture.

    • He undoubtedly has a financial portfolio tied to renewables, aided by the likes of Tom Steyer and George Soros. Analogous to Hillary Clinton’s lucrative cattle futures trading acumen back in Arkansas.

      • “I will state quite frankly, I have a bet riding on the fact that we will have economy-wide legislation in the Congress by the end of this decade. I really believe that this is coming,”

    • I think he may be more concerned with getting “the goal” done than with getting the job done.
      (Who put him in his position?)

    • We Don’t need no stinkin’ sails !

      Those containers will (by then) each power themselves across the oceans.

      The USPO has a slogan to sell their few custom sized packing boxes:

      ” If it fits, it ships ! ”

      That will become:

      ” If it runs by itself, it ships ! ”

      So each container will have solar panels (made in China) on top that will provide all the energy required to move that container and its contents, across the oceans.

      Any container that can’t power itself doesn’t get on the ship.

      See how easy it is to cure the problem.

      g

  9. This how the USSR might win WWIII before most people even know we are at war: buy control of key groups claiming to be environmentalists and use that control to shut down the USA economy with “carbon” regulation. Sierra Club, WWF, ect.

    [“might win” ??? .mod]

    • Keep your hands off the World Wrestling Federation.

      Vince McMahan and Hulk Hogan won’t put up with that.

      g

      • Right on Afonz,

        I think they could even go back and get themselves a new Tsar / Czar.

        Gotta learn Comrade Putin some new manners first.

        St Petersburg is such a pretty place I’m told.

        Jim needs to do a coupla “Hail Marys”.

        g

  10. By 2020 the climate will have cooled enough that even the psuedoscientists GISS and NOAA data adjusters won’t be able to hide it.

    But then Climate Change was never about honest science.
    It will be fun to watch as early 70’s type cold NH winters keep coming while the climatist fraudsters claim ever more warming.

    • Make a USCPA and it won’t make a difference which way natural climate variations swing.
      Man’s ego will claim the blame and those among us who love power will claim the ability to fix it. All they’ll need is the authority to do so. Bye bye freedoms.

  11. I find it impossible to comprehend how anyone can deny that weather is changing. Look outside! Geez, unless you are blind, you can see that weather is beginning to affect trees and birds and even water temperatures. We need comprehensive legislation and taxation to battle this weather change, no doubt cause by the rise of human cities and agriculture and contrails and internal combustion engines.

    Deniers need to be either incarcerated or given mental health therapy. The time to act is now! I’m taking donations to accelerate this action against weather change.

  12. Here’s the law that will exist within a decade:

    Anyone abusively indoctrinating another person with the death cult belief system in climate changing only by human action, in denial of the existence of a global climate system, will be sentenced to seven years of supervised reeducation watching flocks of birds, shoals of fish, clouds, snowflakes and unadjusted temperature histories and proxy reconstructions.

  13. These people are morons – molten salt nuclear reactors are CLEARLY the future of power production – inherently safe, cheap to build and cheap to operate – the cheapest energy technology out there and only
    a few years away from commercialization, and capable of burning our nuclear wastes – reducing their radioactivity to very manageable levels ,requiring only a cheap storage technology for the several generations. until the wastes return to background radiation levels. Anyone aware of current power technologies will predict that the future power technology will be molten salt nuclear, irregardless of what the greenies believe. Most environmentalists are woefully ignorant of nuclear power, past and present. They still live in the 1970’s.

    • molten salt nuclear reactors are CLEARLY the future of power production

      No, they are not. It’s fine to play up their strengths and ignore their weaknesses, but they are as yet an undeveloped technology that is simply one of many possible nuclear fission options.

      Nuclear power of some sort will be needed (if we still have a civilisation) once gas becomes more less economically viable, but second guessing what sort of technology it will be, is rather futile.

  14. He is betting on the roll out of California energy and tax policy across the country in yet another replay of that lead-lag relationship sprung by less-than-upfront party leadership.

  15. If the Billion advanced to Green Energy and Climate change went into a crash Molten Salt Reactor program; the US and World would have 24×7 emission free energy at a cost cheaper than coal. egeneration.org

  16. This is propaganda, the aim is to create the expectation of an outcome, and that outcome, by causing uncertainty in the energy sector — similar to market manipulation.

  17. An legislation should be directed towards preventing the subversion of science as the means for political ends. Another useful legislative act would be to withhold UN funding until the IPCC is disbanded.

  18. ..Thank God President Trump will put an end to this one sided love affair of scientific stupidity by cutting off unaccounted for funds for unscientific research ! IMHO

  19. As a theoretical physicist and Secretary of Energy he could possibly show why, at the molecular level, thermalization explains that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Instead, he has apparently abandoned science and become a political hack.

  20. Coming soon . . . a law that states the burning of carbon-containing fuels shall not produce CO2 as a by-product.
    Why complicate things if you don’t have to?

    • Well no water effluent either. Gotta [treat] all GHGs as equals.

      Well Moonbeam Brown just signed some new California Green Demise Law on the 6PM NEWS this evening.

      Anthony will catch up with the story details soon I assume.

      We are done for.

      g

  21. It’s already happening. Even if Trump wins, and even if he can and will do what supporters hope, he’s not in charge of every city or state in the union. Legislatures in blue states simply impose regulation without press or public comment. Jerry Brown in California is now regulating Dairy cows.

    They won’t talk about it – they’ll just do it. Real bad boys move in silence.

    Remember, this is a trillion-dollar opportunity and they want their money.

  22. Watch out this is likely the next chapter in the environmental play book

    “Plastic crockery and cutlery is to be banned in France unless it is made from biologically sourced materials.

    The law comes into force in 2020. It is part of a French environmental initiative called the Energy Transition for Green Growth, part of a package aimed at tackling climate change.

    But, the Independent reported, the move faces a challenge from Pack2Go Europe, a Brussels-based organisation representing European packaging manufacturers.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/17/france-bans-the-use-of-plastic-crockery-and-cutlery-to-aid-battl/

  23. The Trudeau puppet in Canada is already drafting a national carbon tax that will enrich even more his handlers…

  24. {Ernst Moniz] said, joking that as a physicist he believed in “rationality.”” An inadvertent irony, given that he cannot have evaluated climate models.

    The association of physicist and rationality does not have a greater irony than, “John Holdren” and “Science Advisor.”

  25. I’m willing to take the bet. Too many people are getting wiser about the issue. I, for one, have never bought the CAGW stuff. I think common sense is to blame. (and I have been looking at all the pros & cons since the beginning of this charade).

  26. The Washington DC plum book is driving this and much of the national politics. Anyone have any idea of what the total worth of all those positions is nowdays? Gotta say, this wonk looks like what he is.

  27. Hummm, he may be right as soon as he gets a haircut and drops a couple chins that are directly attributed to his percieved problem. Just sayin, how did he get here anyhow?

  28. Moniz who is scientifically educated ought to know better than keep pushing carbon reduction as a rational choice because it isn’t. Carbon dioxide is not the cause of global warming and never was. The existence of a temperature standstill during the current hiatus ought to be enough to convince any rational being that global warming is not happening. Monckton observed nineteen years of no warming before the 3016 El Nino put an end to it. I will take three years off of it for the super El Nino he included that should not count. This current hiatus is not the only one we have experienced. There was also a hiatus in the eighties and nineties you cannot see because the greenhouse warming team is covering it up with a fake warming called “late twentieth century warming.” You will find this hiatus in my book “What Warming?” as figure 15. It is based on satellite temperature values for that era and it lasted from 1979 to 1997 (or 18 years). It so happens that during a hiatus atmospheric carbon dioxide keeps increasing but global temperature does not. That is against the the predictions of the Arrhenius greenhouse theory used by the IPCC. According to Arrhenius, there is a cause and effect relationship that requires that increasing carbon dioxide must cause temperature to rise because of the greenhouse effect. This has not happened during any known hiatus period. This means that Arrhenius has made a wrong prediction both in the twenty-first century and the eighties and nineties. The total number of hiatus years involved is the sum of 18 and 16 which is 34 years. From this we can say that the greenhouse emission that the Arrhenius theory predicts has failed. And having made such an extensive and wrong prediction the Arrhenius theory itself should no longer be used. The reason it does not work is that the only greenhouse gas it can handle is carbon dioxide. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not even a major one. Water vapor is. Of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, water vapor constitutes 95 percent and carbon dioxide is less than 4 percent (just 3.6 percent according to one source). The only greenhouse theory that can handle atmospheric water vapor is MGT, the Miskolczi greenhouse theory. According to MGT, water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere form a joint absorption window in the IR whose optical thickness is 1.87. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR, just as the Arrhenius theory says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And .as soon as this starts, water vapor starts to diminish, rains out, and the original optical thickness is restored. This reduction of water vapor also reduces total absorptivity to background level and thereby prevents the greenhouse effect that Arrhenius predicts from happening. A bystander looking at it from the side would notice that carbon dioxide is increasing but temperature is not because the greenhouse effect needed to raise the temperature is blocked. And that is exactly what is happening during a hiatus.

  29. Sometimes I am tempted to get myself banned by remarking that the real cause of all humanity’s problems is indeed human emissions. Human male sperm emissions.

    • Well, I hope you’re not a full blown Malthusian misanthrope environmentalist who thinks you’re intelligent and wise enough to decide who should be alive. Have you seen the 10:10 “No Pressure” video?” If not, please go search for it and watch it, and report back on how it makes you feel. If it disgusts you, then I’d say there’s a good chance for your full recovery.

  30. Clearly he is confused. Last time I checked, this is still the USA, with a constitution, separation of powers, etc., not North Korea.

  31. So who will play the role of Dr. Grubber in this policy duping of the voters? It could be a cast of thousands scaled to match the big money grab.

  32. Just so you all know, the latest round of SunShot grants is yet another splash of taxpayer funds onto startups and research teams with far less potential contribution to renewables than the established sector leaders in renewables. It’s another case of “we don’t pick winners” which translates as “we only pick losers…. and a tranche of political favorites mixed in too.”

  33. Well, I believe only 19 nations out of the minimum 55 out of 195 attending have already signed it. Obama is merely making a fool out of himself. And so is Ernest Moniz.

  34. For most of us it is obvious that this guy is a hopeless nut. But, having come from a meeting last evening where the HSUS was out in force to object to recently proposed predator controls for a study our state wildlife biologists were planning, I now know how lies and liars can win the day. And on the same note, California is leading the way to ignorant hell: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/limits-on-methane-for-dairy-farmers-in-california/ I am trying not to think it is too late, but I fear it is.

  35. I see no evidence that more than a small hand full of senators and representatives want any form of climate laws.
    Kyoto went down to defeat in the Senate 99-0 only a decade or so ago.

  36. I’m not sure what it looks like state by state but political hacks are leading the charge to tax credit mining in a lot of places and deals. That has been going on for almost 8 years now.

Comments are closed.