Guest essay by Stephen Heins, Energy Consultant, Business Writer and Practical Environmentalist
While many of us have actively tried to follow the broad-based scientific discussions about climate change including those at the Paris Meetings, most of us are stuck between to the “alarmist” and the “denier” narratives. The “luke warmers,” as we are called, suspect that the climate change discussion is far from over.
Most troubling to some observers of the current Washington DC bureaucracies, the FCC and the EPA, is that they fit the classic mold of federal agencies furiously trying to regulate industries while they themselves are many years behind the investment, technology and innovation of the industries they regulate.
Suffice it to say, the world’s 7.4 billion people of global economy and planetary environment are far too important to be left to silo thinking or national and global politics. This is especially true with the skyrocketing need for big data, huge wireless broadband and ongoing technological innovation, particularly in the under-developed and under-represented parts of the world.
With that in mind, here are several flaws in the final version of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) of 2015:
• The use of several studies (e.g. Harvard’s study of indirect health benefits) are likely examples of “study-bias;”
• Medical computations of indirect health benefits from the reduction of PM 2.5 (or fine particulate matter) have never been well demonstrated;
• The CPP places complete faith in the advancement of technology responding to political dictates instead of the marketplace;
• The CPP lacks a full accounting of the costs of stranding electrical assets and the large investment in new infrastructure, which essentially just replicate old distribution assets;
• The Clean Power Plan has never been properly vetted by the states, and there never was a state or national political mandate calling for its formulation;
• Currently, a clear cut democratic majority, 28 states, have officially challenged the legality of the Clean Power Plan;
• With the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia just beginning its En Banc proceedings, President Obama and Secretary McCarthy are likely to be in the rear view mirror by the time it is fully litigated;
• Indistinguishable from any political campaign, the robust public relations campaign conducted by the EPA and the White House, and a large number of related texts and emails, are shrouded in the lack of proper disclosure not unlike the Colorado Toxic Spills;
• Actual greenhouse gas reductions from the Clean Power Plan are miniscule, and, according to Scientific America and the Energy Information Administration (EIA), by 2015, 47 states had already achieved sharp decreases in emission from 2007 levels, with more than billion tons of reductions;
• The US is already on a glide path whereby America has reduced more Green House Gas (GHG) than any other country in the world, a fact which even the Sierra Club acknowledges;
• The EPA has never provided a real cost benefit analysis of the Clean Power throughout all versions of the regulations;
• The CPP gives the EPA and state environmental agencies first class status, making all other state and federal agencies (like the Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Committee, and State Utility Regulators) virtual second class citizens, with second class powers;
• With “cross state” and regional emission differences, the CPP makes states and regions compete against each other in energy markets previously regulated by states, and is de facto helping to create a national emissions market, which has already been defeated legislatively;
• The Clean Power Plan is fraught with backward looking and silo thinking, with no heed paid to the rapidly expanding convergence of energy, technology and wireless telecommunications. In the case of the above convergence, there is no consideration for the rapidly expanding need for electricity, big data and wireless broadband to allow significantly more energy efficiency, better environmentalism and economic development in all 50 states;
• The CPP has a serious lack of transparency, whereby much of the information remains undisclosed. Much of the grant money provided by the EPA for health and emissions studies (Harvard, Syracuse, George Mason et al) is essentially undeclared;
• The significant input provided by large environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the NRDC is largely buried in the footnotes or hidden in private emails;
• Finally, as Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard and the Wall Street Journal point out, the constitutionality of Clean Power Plan and its new found powers violate the separation of powers and the long standing principle of cooperative federalism between the states and the federal government.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When you lose Tribe….
================
First you start with ~200 countries
190 of them get paid…
…10 pay
Then you vote….
It’s democracy you know……..
Am I right in thinking that the US’ CO2 emissions reduction is largely achieved by the use of fossil fuels (natgas)? [Note: I resent the word “emissions” being used to mean only CO2 emissions]
That was my understanding too. Also the US started from a much higher per capital level.
Yep.
reckon a lot of shutdown industry and people losing jobs and vehicles might also make up some of the absence in use too?
Indeed. I thought that the best ever recorded ‘saving’ of CO2 was by Germany, when it absorbed East Germany and promptly shut down all its industry…
Britain losing most of its manufacturing to China also produced impressive CO2 savings….
A lot of us Boomers are retiring and driving less. Before I retired three years ago, I was driving about 40,000 miles per year. Now I drive about 20-30 miles per week.
and the issue that pisses me off the most is that the advent of fracced Nat Gas was done mostly on private leases. The feds and their BS policies had nothing to to do with the reduction in GHG;’s
And the second thing that pisses me off is it was done on mostly private leases, and state governments (I mean you, New York with the Atty Gnrl that goes after Exxon) have enacted bans on development, even on private property. IANL, but I always wondered if there was a “takings” issue here,
If South Korea absorbs North Korea, they will cut their CO2 by close to 1/2. North Korea is the model the IPCC really wants for everyone, but not for themselves.
and the issue that annoys me off the most is that the advent of fracced Nat Gas was done mostly on private leases. The feds and their BS policies had nothing to to do with the reduction in GHG;’s
Heh, got stuck in the middle.
ARW, yes, you are right about the fracking of NG with its environmental benefits and its US energy renaissance.
Also efficiency improvements.
By the way, research covering up to 2000 shows that North America is a net carbon dioxide sink, due to forest and field growth. The Japanese carbon dioxide monitoring satellite confirmed this ongoing after 2000.
Paleoclimatic reconstructions covering the last 600 million years indicate that the Earth has had much higher CO2 levels than present, it is the current levels that are anomalous. And previous levels exceeded Dr. Hansen’s “tripping point” by a factor of three to four, if you take the bottom of the error bar. And the “hothouse” mode of climate is more common than not. During which the polar regions were either temperate-warm or temperate-cool. No run-away greenhouse effect.
As we’ve discussed here before, Venus just has a lot more atmosphere than Earth does, it is both deeper and denser, so the blanket effect is naturally much greater.
CO2 is not an emission. It is part of the carbon cycle.
Blech. Gina McCarthy and the EPA propaganda machine.
China and India..
Suck it up, petal ! 🙂
And Turkey,
and Poland
And soon, South Africa and several other African countries, (with China’s help)
PLENTY of CO2 for all ! 🙂
Don’t forget Vietnam and Brazil – which have given up on new coal power plants.
SA’s coal plants still haven’t completed and its going renewable and maybe even new nuclear.
If you listed all the places which have given up on coal and where it is declining you’d have a very long list….
griff~ if they are going nuclear then they are STILL going against what radicalized environmentalism wants. And you know that.
And if they are going renewable, well, let’s see how well they do in the dead of winter. In the midst of a days-long storm.
Griff, where do you get your “facts?” Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? My news feed this morning says Vietnam is planning to increase its coal power plants from 19 to 31 by 2020.
Don’t forget South East Asia, Andy!
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/iea-southeast-asias-fossil-fuel-boom-to-last-for-decades/
Aren’t we at war with them?
“China and India..”
These countries plus several others are making the products that American industry used to make. Americans still buy products so we have just moved the site of manufacture to a location we don’t have to look at. And it makes our emissions look so much lower!
It is much like the left-lib-wienies who are so proud to drive an electric car which they say does not pollute. But all the left-lib did was move the location of the electricity generation off to some other location. I like the idea of electric cars, after all Dr. Dr. Porsche’s first major designed car was an electric. But I don’t want to subsidize someone else driving an electric car and claiming moral superiority after they used the government to loot the common people.
Correct. We offshored much of our industrial base not to mention other important functions. This has many disastrous downsides aside from our immense and deadly trade deficit.
No, the US is not at war with them; as always the enemy is within.
It began when the brown Trojan horse was manoeuvred into the White House.
The only “brown Trojan horse” I know of that is in the White House is this one:
.
.
.
http://scottwalkerwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/20010716-3.jpg
Mark : “It is much like the left-lib-wienies who are so proud to drive an electric car which they say does not pollute. But all the left-lib did was move the location of the electricity generation off to some other location.”
Not only the generation of the electricity. They never talk of the pollution created by the manufacturing process, let alone the “recycling” of the cars, their batteries etc, after these “clean” cars are done.
Whenever I start with that subject in a conversation it doesn’t take long for me to stand alone with nobody to talk to.
I think Mr. Tim Ball’s comment is over the line and should be removed by mod
Our esteemed Mr. Kerry famously said that the western nations could take all of their CO2 to ZERO and it would not be enough to head off CAGW, due to the increasing developing world emissions. Why are we doing this again? Please remind me.
Unalienable rights are annoying to Pharaohs, as I recall . .
Regarding “The CPP places complete faith in the advancement of technology responding to political dictates instead of the marketplace”: I am old enough to remember that America’s automotive industry was dragged kicking and screaming into putting airbags in cars.
Weren’t airbags introduced in the US as a reaction against proposals for mandatory seat belts?
No, IIRC.
And now we have exploding air bags to fear. Your government at work.
JimB, I once had an air bag explode in front of my face. It happened about 20 milliseconds after the front end of my car hit a Jersey barrier. No need to fear them.
Richard Baguley
You were fortunate you were saved. However, the NTSA admits at least 238 deaths due to exploding (different from deploying) air bags.
The issue causing concern (aka fear) is not so much the airbag concept, it’s the engineering & manufacturing quality control.
I got my seat belts at an auto supply store before they were ever installed by the Auto manufacturer. And just as was the case for seatbelts in vehicles, it was the Insurers that were pushing for the air bags. The Insurers wanted air bags to increase their profits. And I know of no Auto insurer that offered an auto owner a lower rate if your vehicle had air bags thus enticing them to buy autos with air bags. If they had, the owners would have pushed the manufactures for air bags.
I had an auto policy with a discount for having an air bag.
I remember when our parents got seatbelts installed front and back in our new 1955 Olds 98 . They were dealer installed but holes had to be drilled thru the floor to anchor them and they were a considerable extra cost .
The idea of police arresting and fining people for not using them grates my Libertarian soul . We have been reduced to a nanny police state ruled by a duopoly sham democracy .
US manufacturers didn’t do so well with airbags for awhile during initial implementation, and it didn’t help that idiot people were relying on airbags without buckling their seatbelts. The US law requiring them in the front seat was passed in 1991 but not applicable until 1997. They were a common and desired feature, so I’m not sure why the US auto industry would have been “kicking and screaming.”
Safety became huge in the 1980s (one reason the otherwise boring Volvos were everywhere…and once safety became commonplace, they seemingly disappeared). It was the fancy Euro carmakers like BMW and Mercedes with anti-lock brakes and/or airbags. Both were desirable and trendy features and generally gave you a discount with auto insurance. The marketplace gave airbags a huge push into political dictation.
the marketplace
Given that the European luxury cars were already installing air bags and disk brakes; it didn’t take long for America’s big three to start installing air bags into the luxury lead sleds.
The biggest hang-up, everyone had about airbags in cars, were the costs. Airbag installation increased the price of new cars. Just adding them to a car’s option list didn’t work as most buyers refused the cost.
Seat belts were required long before air bags.
The majority of greenhouse gas emissions in the world today are H2O and not CO2 emissions. The CPP does nothing to reduce the world’s H2O emissions and hence very little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over all. The vast majority of heat trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere is really held by the non-greenhouse gases because they are such poor LWIR radiators. These gases capture heat energy via conduction and convection but then do not give the heat energy up via radiation the way that greenhouse gases do. Heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere.. The CPP does nothing to reduce the non-greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and hence, nothing to reduce heat trapping by gases. The CPP can have no effect on climate.
“The majority of greenhouse gas emissions in the world today are H2O and not CO2 emissions. ”
That is a pretty uninformed comment. Water vapour condenses and just returns to be part of the water cycle in the state it was before it was used by industry. Unless you have evidence to show that the extra WV stays in the vapour state where it acts as a GHG ( which you don’t ) you are talking nonsense.
It depends on what you definition of “is” is. Water emission from industrial power generation and transportation uses is in vapor form.
Greg Goodman, and just what the ell does “industry” have to do with the 2.0% (20,000 ppm) to 3.5% (35,000 ppm) of H20 vapor that is always resident in the near-earth atmosphere of the Temperate Zone (except where deserts are situate) ……. or the 3.5% (35,000 ppm) to 4% (40,000 ppm) of H20 vapor that is always resident in the near-earth atmosphere of the Tropical and Sub-Tropical Zones?
And Greg G, you do know what “humidity is, ….. don’tja?
Water doesn’t have to remain in the vapor state to stay in the atmosphere. Clouds are either liquid or or solid (ice) aerosols. It captures IR in all states. In fact, liwater and ice have a greater greenhouse effect than vapor
Regarding Samuel C. Cogar’s “the 2.0% (20,000 ppm) to 3.5% (35,000 ppm) of H20 vapor that is always resident in the near-earth atmosphere of the Temperate Zone (except where deserts are situate) ……. or the 3.5% (35,000 ppm) to 4% (40,000 ppm) of H20 vapor that is always resident in the near-earth atmosphere of the Tropical and Sub-Tropical Zones?”:
2% water vapor by volume, the way CO2 is measured to be ~400 PPM, (about 1.25% by weight) is the vapor pressure of water at 17.7 degrees C. Global average surface temperature is less than that, and average relative humidity in the temperate zone or the world as a whole is a lot less than 100%.
Global atmosphere average water vapor is about .4-.41% by volume.
When we are talking about greenhouse gas emissions we are talking about sources of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. Far more H2O from evaporation from the surface of the oceans enters the atmosphere than CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.
Regarding Donald L. Klipstein comment of:
HA, “2% of H2O vapor verses 400 ppm of CO2” is exactly the way that the partisan CAGW’ers make statements that are intended to confuse and amaze the gullible public into believing their “junk science” claims.
Real scientists and other knowledgeable honest people would have stated the above either one (1) of two (2) ways, to wit:
or
02.0000% verses 0.0400%, ….. or ….. 20,000 ppm verses 400 ppm
And, ….. Donald L. Klipstein – October 9, 2016 at 10:22 am , …… also stated, to wit:
Donald L, who the ell cares about “Global atmosphere averages” of entities that may, might or can be found in earth’s atmosphere …… other than those persons who are scamming, thinking and/or believing they have found some super, duper, stupendously scientifically factual info/data that proves the “religious beliefs” they are touting to anyone that will listen?
Donald L, do you know what the yearly “Global atmosphere average of in-flight aircraft is? ”, …… and iffen you did know what that “yearly global average” was, ….. who the ell cares?
Your global atmosphere averages of …… “0.4-0.41% for H2O vapor” …. don’t interest me one iota, but actual percentages or ppm quantities of atmospheric gases, especially H2O vapor and CO2, are of great interest to me. And for your information, ….. to wit:
The surface on clear days emits IR to outer space through the “atmospheric window” which is about 25% of that leaving the surface. Clouds also do, and if high enough, a large percentage because there is less water vapor above them. CO2 only absorbs about 25% of the IR mostly in the 15 to 18 micron wavelength range.
These types of posts tend to remind me of at least two things.
First, no one has ever come forward and proven that CO2 does warm the surface of the planet. We have a lot of “well what else can it be” but no proof. We also have various demonstrations of evidence that show that “climate sensitivity” (to CO2) is darn near zero even if it is not absolute zero as I believe.
Second, I am reminded that plants do better at much, much higher CO2 levels. One would suspect that those who believe in evolution would realize that looks to mean that CO2 has been much higher in the past and that it is good for plant life. CO2 is also good for humans also. Certain endocrinologists claim that higher levels of CO2 is good for us on a hormonal basis. I don’t know if that is true, but humans in submarines and other cramped situations do very well with much higher levels of CO2.
Besides the above, one must accept that outlawing cheap energy is going to kill economies and civilizations. I have often wondered if killing off people is the ultimate aim of many of these alarmists. I was told in the 70’s at university that the earth could not support more than 1 Billion humans maximum in the long run and that we had to reduce the population. I think many
idiotacademics still believe that even if they will not say it publicly. My question has always been, “who gets to pick the 6 plus Billion souls who must be killed?”‘My question has always been, “who gets to pick the 6 plus Billion souls who must be killed?” ‘
That’s what Agenda 21 is for.
Agenda 21 as you cite it is an irrational conspiracy theory
I agree that you are irrational and like to believe in conspiracy theories, such as ‘big oil.’
Griff, is that what makes it not real for you?
Don’t play stupid, here. Agenda 21 is a UN document that you can be reading two minutes after Googling it. It has been replaced with Agenda 2030, however. It seems the U.N. has decided to hurry it up. The laugh is that the proponents of Agenda 2030 claim “we are determined to end poverty and hunger in the world.” All purely socialist governments do is increase both. Have a look at Venezuela.
Many U.S. cities have adopted parts of Agenda 21, already, the increasing number of bike paths being a big one. Another is city beautification that is so popular in smaller cities across our country. Yuma, AZ, even received a grant to paint a mural across it’s three water tanks sitting on a hill by Interstate 10. We also have some very attractive boulevards around town with more being built with your tax money, Griff. It doesn’t stop there.
Nobody needs to kill anyone to reduce the population. Just have average birth rate less than 2 children per woman.
Most Western countries have birthrates below 2.0 per woman, including the US, except for uncontrolled immigration.
‘We also have some very attractive boulevards around town with more being built with your tax money, Griff.’
Griff is likely not paying American taxes.
I suspect my first comment on your question got limboed due to certain content. Anyway, rest assured that many of those academics and a large percentage of poorly-educated AGW alarmists and SJWs are hoping they are on the short list.
Who gets to pick? Why, Hillary Clinton and her cabal. They’ll start with the deplorables.
The major problem with “lukewarmers” is that they will get labeled “deniers” as soon as they fail to be cheerleaders for the radical greens. The green movement is ideological, not scientific, and tends to get content free in its arguments.
Tom,
Stephen Heins accepts the underlying assumptions of the CAGWs but is nit-picking the details. I think he is still in the CAGW camp and won’t fall into tribal disrepute yet. IMO
Luke warmers are already labeled as deniers. If you are disagree with any aspect of CAGW agenda, no matter how minor or mild the disagreement may be, you are a denier. There is no middle ground as far as the Watermelons are concerned.
James Hanson was labeled a denier when he said that we couldn’t decarbonise with just Renewables and needed Nuclear as well.
Like with any truly intolerant religion, the Climate Faithful will turn on anyone who shows the slightest hint of heresy. CAGW must be swallowed whole. Pointing out even a minor flaw in the faith opens up the whole thing to question, and we all know it won’t stand up to questioning for long.
Concur.
“most of us are stuck between to the “alarmist” and the “denier” narratives. The “luke warmers,” as we are called, suspect that the climate change discussion is far from over.”
“Most of”? Hmm.
Um, to the “alarmists”, anyone not in agreement is a “denier” and for the most part they have defined the labels.
I’m of the opinion that a “denier” is one who does not agree that the contribution to a changing climate by human activities is sufficient enough that if curtailed there would be any appreciable difference.
The real crowd that’s in denial are the defenders of the incoherent models who further complicate their distortions of physical cause-and-effect hoping nobody knows enough to apply Occam’s razor anymore.
If anyone thinks the DC circuit is going to stop anything the USEPA wants to do they are dreaming. And with the SCOTUS split 4-4 and soon to be 5-4 leftist there is no hope there.
Be realistic: This fight is lost. The only hope is that the left will overreach, as they so often do, and do so much damage to the economy that the voters will rebel. But with the media, the entertainment industry and academia firmly in the tank I’m not optimistic about that either.
I’m encouraging my grandkids to learn Chinese. I think it’s their turn to rule the world as the West abdicates.
I fear this election will just be a census of how many are hypnotized by the media and how many still think for themselves.
+ many Pop
Agreed! This is the real tipping point.
The EPA has no real oversight, other than the President. And the laws passed by previous Congresses make it the judge, jury and executioner of what is a pollutant and what the remedy should be. Further, there is no mandate to provide cost justification for regulations. Totally insane, appointed dictatorship by bureaucrats.
Could the USA EPA be dissolved by a sitting elected federal government and relevant authority devolved to the individual states as constitutional representatives of the citizens living in their environment? As for any cross – state issues regarding claims concerning water & air the federal judiciary system retains it’s right of juristiction to deal with issues between states.
What a depressing video. The lady’s pitch reminds me of this one.
That video is great, and I loved the Trump Ad before it.
….most of us are stuck between to the “alarmist” and the “denier” narratives. The “luke warmers,” …
Make no mistake whatever you call yourself, unless you wholeheartedly believe both in catastrophic warming and agree with their “solutions”, to a warmist you are just another wicked denier. The absolutism of a denier is just another warmist myth, most of them are reasonable just like you.
And as always “as if carbon output” really means anything.
Don’t forget this is a “science.” Labels don’t matter, the data and truth is what matters. The Flat Earthers once ruled the day. The Eugenisists once ruled the day. The Earth was the center of the solar system once ruled the day. Misguided and uninformed opinions don’t determine the truth. In a real science the scientific method determines the truth.
1) Test the variation of temperature over the Holocene. The Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods were all warmer, and had lower CO2. The variation of temperature over the past 50 and 150 years are well within the norm of the entire Holocene.
2) The only “evidence” the Alarmists have are computer models. 100% of the IPCC models failed to demonstrate a causative relation with CO2 and Temperature, 100%. 100% of them overestimated temperature increase demonstrating an institutional bias of epic proportions. The skewing of model returns towards the stated desired effect should give any unbiased and reasonable scientist pause.
3) The oceans are warming. IR between 13 and 15µ won’t warm water. The warming of the oceans, and resulting strong El Ninos are evidence more visible/warming light is reaching the oceans. CO2 has nothing to do with the Oceans warming or El Ninos, and those drive the temperature of the atmosphere.
4) O3 is the most potent GHG in the stratosphere. Efforts to reduce the Ozone Hole has presumably resulted in more O3. Even with more O3, there is no tropical hotspot noted. People don’t seem to mind intentionally increasing the GHG O3, but claim increasing the GHG CO2 would have a negative impact? How do we know that the increase in O3 isn’t causing the warming?
5) CO2 has a logarithmic decay regarding absorption. Changes in CO2 from a level of 400ppm are basically meaningless. The fact that the IPCC models clearly detail a linear relationship between CO2 and Temperature proves they are either ignorant of this fact or simply want to produce the desired answer regardless of the physics.
6) Nothing man/Government has done has altered the rate of change in atmospheric CO2. Noting man/Government can do will alter that rate of change. The Oceans determine the level of atmospheric CO2, and unless we can stop the oceans from warming, CO2 will continue to go higher. It is simply Henry’s Law in action.
7) Does anyone really believe that electing Hillary will end Hurricanes? Just what is she going to do to stop Hurricanes? We can’t stop the oceans from warming or cooling. Controlling CO2 won’t impact Hurricanes, in fact a lesser temperature gradient will weaken Hurricanes. The very fact that a politician can convince people that they will “heal the earth, stop the temperatures and sea levels from rising” and now control Hurricanes proves what we have an unbelievably ignorant and gullible electorate that can be convinced of anything and that is extremely dangerous. Ignorant and gullible voters destroy societies, just study the classical age of Greece that peaked with the killing of Socrates, ostracism of Thermistoclease and defeat by the Spartans. Rome faired no better.
8) Wind and Solar will never meet our energy needs. Never. Cleaner and more effective energy sources will be developed long before Wind and Solar will ever produce significant levels of reliable energy. Hydrogen, Cold Fusion, Safe Nuclear Power, BioDiesel, Renewable Diesel, The Fischer-Tropsch Process and countless other methods are certain to provide better alternatives than wind and solar. Unfortunately, we focus on the 2 that are certain to fail.
How does CO2 cause any of the problems She pointed out? CO2 is plant food. We exhale CO2, how could it possible cause health problems? None of what she says makes any sense? There is zero chance any changes we make will alter the rate of change of CO2. This is simply a Quixotic venture on an epic scales. The “Global Final Solution” is the quote people should pay attention to. This is all about forming a global enemy to unite the world against. It is all about global governance. The number of lies, distortions and deceptions in that video are mindblowing. We will only be as great as our leadership, the the EPA represents an epic level of failed leadership.
Stephen Heins,
It is good of you to nit-pick the EPA plan. Nit-picking is good.
There, however; should not even be a plan. Your entire post assumes human beings have influence over something that is completely beyond human control. I think your effort to comprehend the EPA plan was a wasted effort.
Since the last ice age, the earth has been warming, all by itself, regardless of the level of human population.
You need to step back and think about making war with the details of a fantasy.
The EPA is implementing a plan for social engineering directed at wealth transfer and population control.
So…you’ve been hoodwinked.
Paul, no not hoodwinked. I am just trying to present a counter-argument to the EPA’s overreach and the major errors in their assumptions in the Clean Power Plan. Actually, I may be one of the few people who has read all 5,000 of the plan with its 3 iterations and some 15,000 pages of CPP analysis, so I had match my policy wonkishness against the EPA and its advocates.
Best, Steve
“Since the last ice age, the earth has been warming, all by itself,”
Well no actually. Apart from a couple of very minor bumps it has generally been on a gentle downward slope since the Holocene optimum. That tells me there could be something else going on now. Whether the human fingerprints are important, well, the next couple of years of ice extent are going to be telling.
The quantifiable results of spending these trillions of dollars and disrupting countless lives on this war on CO2? An absolutely immeasurable impact on atmospheric CO2, absolutely zero impact other than a group of sanctimonious liberals can make themselves believe they are superior.
https://cdn1.lockerdome.com/uploads/d7cd20a660ac6b9c0ae8d0b10a9d04dcf43b5f60e82115b32ae8910a4d7864f4_large
I was making a similar point the other day with regard to wind turbines/windfarms.
There can be no case for wind given that the only reason for adopting wind is a reduction in CO2, but because of the non despatchable and intermittent nature of wind, which requires backup by conventional fossil powered generation, there is no significant reduction in CO2 emissions.
Renewables merely increase the price of energy and lead to grid instability. Whilst I do not consider that CO2 is a problem, if they do not reduce CO2 by any significant margin they are a failure and this ought to be obvious to any politician.
What is the point of pursuing a policy (and throwing huge subsidies at it) if it does not result in a worthwhile reduction in CO2? Politicians have lost all sense of reasoning.
It is about controlling the economy, not protecting the environment. Communists (and other socialists) turned to environmentalism after Communism collapsed.
There’s something wacky about this article. Just to look at the above single sentence:
(1) What broad-based scientific discussions? It was assumed at the Paris outset what the “truth” should be.
(2) What are these “denier narratives” that some substantial but unspecified portion of “most” are stuck on? This is a direct and dishonest attack upon most of us here.
There is some evidence of proper analysis in the rest, but what the agenda really is here, I am not sure.
No ask and no agenda. Just a counter argument against the overreach of the Clean Power plan.
The space program speeded up the development of integrated circuits. One of the main reasons we beat the Soviets to the moon is that we had better computers.
The thing was that all the technology was in place. We had German rocket scientists ‘recruited’ after WW2. The integrated circuit had already been invented. No breakthroughs were required.
Folks who don’t understand technology use the space program as evidence that government money will cause technology to advance. They are wrong.
If a breakthrough is required, no amount of government money will speed up the process. Breakthroughs are a result of serendipity and prepared minds. Government bureaucracy is the mortal enemy of those things.
Stephen Heins – thanks for posting Gina McCarthy’s video explanation of the virtues and promise of the EPA Clean Power Plan. How depressing! She appears to have completely mastered the art of Doublethink.
Tom, I think that Anthony Watts was kind enough to add it to my piece.
SpaceX, Amazon and Virgin are the best examples. They used a fraction of the money the Gov’t did to put a man in space, and eventually will make space travel accessible to everyone.
Well they had quite a head start thanks to all of the legwork done before them…plus advantages of using technologies and material advancements the gov’t didn’t have 5 decades ago.
Michael Jankowski
NASA could use this same leverage from the past…however, they don’t. They are stuck in the “this is the way er used to do it” business.
Building blocks, emissions credit swapping, aggregation of EGUs, flexibility and autonomy in meeting the state’s goals all lip stick on the Federalist pig attempting to disguise its overreach. The states should take the initiative and EPA at its word and manipulate its EGUs as needed to meet their performance standard. WECC, ERCOT and the western states should get together and manipulate both existing and new generation to achieve their aggregate performance standards. Once the numbers fall chances are the impact on coal would be minor, certainly not fatal.
California with a lot of NG could swap with Utah allowing Intermountain, Huntington, Hunter, et al. to press on with little real change. Colorado and Nebraska trade with Wyoming and the Dakotas. Vermont has no coal fired EGU’s, but it does have other FF EGUs and should have a standard like every other state it could use to play in the credit swapping game.
Different standards for different states violates the equal protection clause. There should be one lb CO2/MWh standard which achieves the national goal of a 32% reduction and applied to ALL including Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam. All states with EGUs start with the same number of lb CO2/MWh chips which they can then trade, swap, sell, negotiate to achieve the national goal.
And what is the Clean Power Plan supposed to accomplish? A 32% reduction in CO2 output from US power generation (not just coal). The US is responsible for about 16% of the world’s CO2 output. Power generation represents about 31% of US CO2 production. Therefore – 16% * 31% * 32% = 1.6%. CPP will reduce the global C2 output by 1.6%. China and India will cancel that out with their next dozen coal fired power plants.
As Carl Sagan observed, we have been bamboozled, hustled, conned by those wishing to steal and waste our money and rob us of our liberties. Hardly a new agenda.
And there are discussions on the internet that China is going to build power plants and transmission lines to sell electricity to the EU!
This is the material benefit of spending trillions of dollars and disrupting countless lives, and immeasurable impact on the rate of change of atmospheric CO2. All that effort had zero impact on CO2, zero. Imagine all the good that could have been done with all that money. What a complete joke the EPA and Climate Change spending is. What an expensive wasteful joke.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/mauna_loa_co2.gif
Again, If the Climate Change Plan was about reducing CO2 we would have 10-20 Nuclear Power Plants under construction in the USA just like China does. Yet China is also breaking ground on two Coal fired power plants every week. Proof that the AGW religion is not true.
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/07/13/china-keeps-building-coal-plants-despite-new-overcapacity-policy/
For all those who like to mention China’s ‘one new coal fired power plant every ten days’ or some amplified version of the meme, please realise that old plants that are inefficient and polluting are being replaced. It is not as if they are increasing the total number of plants at that rate.
Also note that many of these plants are used for highly efficient district heating in winter, the same as the many former Soviet Union cities in central Asia. In virtually all of those cities the district heating systems, all coal fired, are being expanded as rapidly as can be afforded. An example is the new 380 MW station in eastern Ulaanbaatar and the Chinese-built expanded station in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.
Some of these stations are replacements, often larger, of existing less efficient units from the Soviet Era.
Crispin,
Granted many of the new plants in China are replacements for smaller, more polluting plants.
But in the context of EPA policy versus China’s policy, what’s your point?
I for one would be very happy if the EPA encouraged replacement of older coal plants where supported by the economics. Certainly not Hillary’s position that her policies will shut down coal mines and put a lot of miners out of work (Oops, she forgot which were her public vs private positions).
The important point to me is that the Chinese, with better climate science than the West and 300 million people living in coastal areas, are completely indifferent to the dangers of global warming. Now why is that?
“Crispin in Waterloo” ” ‘one new coal fired power plant every ten days’ or some amplified version of the meme,” I would also suggest that you look at some of the better projections of the amount of coal that China (and India) are projected to burn over the next 20 years before they do anything whatsoever to reduce CO2 emissions. Regardless of how efficient, the amount of coal burnt is going to triple or quadruple the CO2 emissions from producing power for energy/heat, whatever. In ten years the depressed prices in NG will end, there will be none of the newer Enhanced Ultra Super Critical coal fired plants in the USA (which produce about the same amount of CO2 as a CCTG) per MWH. and electricity prices will double again. Keep in mind that the Paris agreement has Per Capita restrictions. China is going up in population and the USA is about level. Thus they get to make even more if/when they kick in. Then they are only “targets” and there are no actions that can be taken if they do not meet the “targets” other than shaming them into compliance. What is the USA going to do when all of our hard goods come from China and India to shame them? Stop buying from them? This deal is better for China that the Nuke deal was for Iran. They get paid to make the cake and eat it too.
About time you got a newer graph isn’t it?
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2016/08/31/brief-reprieve-from-400-ppm-era-may-be-thanks-to-a-hurricane/
Official recognition that changing SST causes changes in atm CO2.
co2islife:
At the risk of being tedious, I would like to point out AGAIN that there can never have been any .warming due to greenhouse gasses.
Right, so there is warming, it is caused by human CO2 emissions, but that’s ok ’cause its a good thing?
co2islife:
At the risk of being tedious, I would like to point out AGAIN that there can never have been any warming due to CO2 or other greenhouse gasses
Warming HAS occurred, but it has been due to EPA-driven reductions in anthropogenic SO2 emissions.
Between 1870 and 2016 there have been 2 depressions and 28 business recessions. ALL are coincident with temporary increases in average global temperatures and ERSST
sea surface temperatures.
This warming is due to fewer SO2 emissions into the atmosphere due to decreased industrial activity during business slowdowns. The resultant cleaner air allows sunshine to strike the earth with greater intensity, causing surface warming.
Since unintentional reductions in SO2 emissions causes global warming, it is a scientific fact that the intentional reductions due to Clean Air efforts will also cause warming.
The amount of this warming is so large that it accounts for ALL of the temperature rise that has occurred. to date (apart from temporary El Nino warmings)
Thus, all efforts to control CO2 emissions will have NO climatic effect and will be a complete waste of money.
To avoid future increases in average global temperatures, all efforts to further reduce SO2 emissions must be halted AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
co2islife:
You are completely correct. CO2 has never caused any warming, it is all caused by EPA-driven reductions in SO2 emissions.
The EPA also forgot to include and consider that longer lives means longer periods of illness, disability, suffering, etc. which also means more health care expenses, higher insurance costs, and decreased satisfaction with life in older age. More expensive lingering diseases are afflicting those in late life and cost much more to cure. Remember a study about ten years ago where healthcare costs went up with the decrease in percentage of smokers in several studies in the EU. There seems to be several reports on this topic on the internet this week.
As a lifelong smoker I’ve always contended that I’m actually economically better for society because I’ll pay much more taxes over my lifetime and will probably die earlier and suddenly thus saving the government money over the long term. More taxes coming in for them and less social security checks going out.
But once assisted dying (killing) gets a foothold here it’s only a matter of a few generations that the government will have brainwashed people into willingly taking their own lives at a certain age because they will become unproductive and a drain on society. Star Trek TNG had an episode where an entire planet was like that and I’m convinced that’s the end game with doctor assisted dying, no matter how sympathetic the cause might be at this time.
The story of Logan’s Run explored that idea long before Star Trek copied it.
Margaret Thatcher also was cynical enough to commission a study on exactly that aspect of smoking: was it cheaper to have people smoke and treat them for cancer or have them healthy and need to pay them a pension.
Children of the Corn was in a similar vein, albeit a religious one in a rural Nebraska town…turn 18 and become an adult, and it’s time to die.
What? Those of us who are not “luke-warmers” are “deniers,” equivalent to “alarmists” in our scientific dishonesty or incompetence? The likelihood and danger going forward is now and always has been GLOBAL COOLING, not an alarming amount of warming or a luke amount of warming.
That view does not come from denying any science. It comes from the well-established theory and evidence that water vapor feedbacks are most likely negative: that they dampen rather than amplify temperature forcings. If net feedbacks are not actually negative then they almost certainly are, at the very largest, quite small.
From there it follows that late 20th century warming cannot have been mostly caused by increased CO2. The most likely alternative explanation is the high-level of solar activity from the 1920s through the end of the 20th century. If that is the case then the rational expectation going forward, now that solar activity seems to have dropped into a period of profound quiescence, is for global cooling.
It is commonplace in many debates for those who take a middle path to express the lazy conceit that both extremes must be in error, but reason and evidence are unaffected by the range of human opinion.