And, the wailing begins over Trump killing Obama’s overreaching climate regs

From SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY and the “department of lost funding” comes this gloomy prediction.

Trump Action on Clean Power Plan threatens air quality, health, and economic benefits

The Trump Administration is expected to release signed an executive order on Tuesday March 28, 2017, directing the EPA to roll back the Clean Power Plan.

In response, Dr. Charles Driscoll, Distinguished Professor of Environmental Systems Engineering at Syracuse University & member of the National Academy of Engineering, made this statement:

“Our research shows that a power plant standard like the Clean Power Plan could save thousands of lives in communities across the United States every year. The health gains from a standard like the Clean Power Plan yield net economic benefits that would far outweigh the costs. The economic benefits tend to be greatest in highly populated areas near or downwind from coal-fired power plants that experience a shift to cleaner sources with the standards. If we overturn the Clean Power Plan we will forfeit important health benefits and undermine the longstanding American tradition of energy innovation and clean air progress, at a time when we need it most.”

Dr. Driscoll led a 2015 study on air quality and health benefits of carbon standards similar to the Clean Power Plan, published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Dr. Driscoll and colleagues showed that strong carbon standards provide widespread clean air and health benefits throughout the United States. They calculated state-by-state air quality and health outcomes, and determined the greatest health gains occur in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, and New York.

Dr. Driscoll is available to comment on the clean air, health, and ecosystem consequences of the anticipated Trump Administration executive order on rolling back the Clean Power Plan.



For more information:

Driscoll, CT, Buonocore, JB, Levy, JI, Lambert, KF, Burtraw B, Reid, SB, Fakhraei, H, Schwartz, J. 2015. US Power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits. Nature Climate Change. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2598.

Buonocore, JB, Lambert, KF, Burtraw, D, Sekar, S, Driscoll, CT. 2016. An Analysis of Costs and Health Co-benefits for a U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standard. Plos One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156308.

Project Website:

The claim: “Our research shows that a power plant standard like the Clean Power Plan could save thousands of lives in communities across the United States every year”.

Might be credible if there were some death certificates that said: died of lung failure/lung disease due to power plant emissions.

I challenge any of the paid ecochondriacs to show me just one.

219 thoughts on “And, the wailing begins over Trump killing Obama’s overreaching climate regs

    • Trump Action on Clean Power Plan threatens air quality, health, and economic benefits

      BS. the CCP was not about “air quality” or health. As for economic benefits it was based on a heavily inflated “social cost of carbon”. You can’t have it both ways.

      • Greg March 28, 2017 at 12:13 pm
        Oh wait, maybe making energy prices “sky rocket” was one of his economic benefits.

        You mean like to those who ran things like Solyndra? Solyndra went bankrupt, its CEO’s didn’t.

      • Oh yeah, want to jerk all the howler-monkeys in line, cite “health” which is the new secular Virtue. Never mind that nobody on Earth ever got asthma or a heart attack from CO2! The actual FACTS, documented in endless detail from legitimate meta-analysis by the Cochrane Collaboration and others, show that actual morbidity and mortality outcomes are largely out of our hands. They are DIRECTLY caused by the intersection of socio-economic status with genetics, full-stop. Also known as, “poverty causes ill health” which is what the trillion-dollar medical, pharma, “fitness” and diet industries don’t want you to know. One thing it sure as shootin’ ISN’T caused by is Global Warming!

      • Dr. Driscoll and colleagues showed that strong carbon standards provide widespread clean air and health benefits throughout the United States.“. No mention of Carbon Dioxide standards.

      • Let them cry.
        I look at it this way:
        If China needs a few decades to develop their economy before de-carbonising, the US needs at least 8 years of restoring and remediating its economy before we look again at the observations and decide whether or not to strive to reduce the source of the greening of the planet.

    • Yay!

      [excerpt of my post on August 14, 2016]

      As a Canadian, I think I have the right to make a brief comment on your election – my justification is the War of 1812, where you burned Toronto and we burned the White House. Nobody here likes Toronto, so we still think we got the better of that deal. 🙂

      For most countries, I suggest that the question of a Hillary vs a Donald would come down to “who gets energy right (Donald), and who gets it utterly wrong (Hillary).”

      Cheap, reliable abundant energy is the lifeblood of society, and our very cheap fossil fuel energy should provide our two countries with an overwhelming economic advantage, IF the greens would stop sabotaging our economies.

      Since the USA is a global power, there are more issues than just the domestic economy – I don’t think you need any more foreign wars for a long while, except to exterminate terrorist gangs. So you might ask yourself who is more likely to start a needless foreign war that will further bankrupt your treasury.

      The USA should stick to token “weekender” invasions like Grenada. You might consider Quebec – they’re nearby, they’ve been acting up for quite a while, and you’ve already done Toronto.

      Best regards, Allan

    • Indeed it is a great day for America. The Court had already put a stay on the CPP as being over-reach. This should add another nail to the coffin of the CPP.

    • I love the audacity, though. “Hey, we can engineer the environment! Sky’s the limit, chaps, what with Climate Change and all, hey? Grant money galore. Say, we’ll all retire rich, rich rich!”

      • You might think they would find the engineering of human adaptation to climate a more lucrative field of study, if it were not for the present orientation of the climate science paradigm.

      • Unfortunately, people in group-think echo chambers eventually come to believe their delusions. Especially those educated beyond their intelligence. They all have one thing in common–none of them can balance their own checkbooks, and ALL of them are parasites on other people’s money.

      • Brian – I originally read that as “Grant money AlGore” Dyslexia can’t be blamed either…

  1. Since the doomsters are heading straight to mortality tactics, how about some explanation of the sharp rise in opioid deaths in the U.S. made possible with lethargic public health response and funded with health insurance?

    • Don’t forget about the tons of illegal Heroin coming across the southern border. I am getting tired of funerals for 20 somethings who overdosed on these illicit drugs. Most never used a prescription opioid before they started the heroin. Three in the last year and a half in my circle of people.

      • stephana, I am so sorry for you and your friends, thanks for sharing and getting the word out. The bottom line is the new “Synthetic Heroin” is deadly. Only education can help, so get the word out. Don’t take drugs. I hope your circle of friends can take these tragedies and learn from them and become a force to educate and save lives.

      • IOW we need in effect a moat as well as a wall.

        Illegal aliens and trafficked humans enter by foot over the ground or across the river, but many if not most of the drugs enter via tunnels. Some are escorted in by machine gun-wielding cartel soldiers, driving human mules, or inside dead “sleeping” babies, but these routes can’t compete with the volume shipped underground.

      • Building the wall down to the water table would only help if the wall is made of something that is impossible to tunnel through. Normal concrete and rebar would only slow them down a little.

      • Tunneling below the water table is possible, just more expensive. Need something water tight to seal the walls and a few pumps.

      • Yes the Brunels managed it under the Thames 1825-43 although Isambard was nearly killed when the Thames burst in.

      • A traditional wall or fence may not be the best way to secure the border. Working with a tamping bar over the last few weeks gave me an idea for an alternative.

        Tapered rods driven down almost to bedrock and following the contour of the land, like giant metal golf tees spaced close together. Each rod is zinc-coated steel with a hollow middle, which is filled with brightly colored chalk dust. If cut through by tunnelers, the chalk spills out. Compromised rods will ring hollow when struck, and the dust itself will cover the tunnelers and is difficult to remove completely. So border patrols can detect tunneling attempts and locate the exits, which can either be sealed or staked out to intercept the next group of smugglers. The chalk tagging will make it easier to spot nighttime border runners who come through. Afterwards, the modular design allows compromised rods to be quickly removed and replaced.

        Instead of trying to prevent breaches (an impossibility), this design assumes that the barrier WILL be breached, and concentrates instead on detection and repair. I’m no engineer, so it’s likely I’ve neglected some aspect, but the general concept seems solid.

      • dred, add some glow in the dark powder to your chalk, then put a series of black lights along commonly used entrance corridors.

  2. “And, the wailing begins”
    Some wailing here too, about the endangerment finding. From Politico today:

    But Pruitt, with the backing of several White House aides, argued in closed-door meetings that the legal hurdles to overturning the finding were massive, and the administration would be setting itself up for a lengthy court battle.

    A cadre of conservative climate skeptics are fuming about the decision — expressing their concern to Trump administration officials and arguing Pruitt is setting himself up to run for governor or the Senate. They hope the White House, perhaps senior adviser Stephen Bannon, will intervene and encourage the president to overturn the endangerment finding.

    I see that David Schnare has stormed off in a huff.

    • ..Ummm, do you not understand what a “TRANSITION TEAM” is…? …

      “The job of the appointments team is to identify and vet candidates for all these positions.”

      Once that position is filled…THEY MOVE ON !!! D’OH !!

      Maybe you should learn what “Closed door meetings” are also……..
      Anyone guessing what they said inside the meet is just spewing gossip !

    • ..You are right, POLITICO is wailing, but you and they fail fail to show any QUOTES from your targets. !!

      • “you and they fail fail to show any QUOTES from your targets. “
        Well, here’s David Schnare, quoting from an email he wrote to E&E:

        “”The backstory to my resignation is extremely complex. I will be writing about it myself. It is a story not about me, but about a much more interesting set of events involving misuse of federal funds, failure to honor oaths of office, and a lack of loyalty to the President,” Schnare said.”

        Doesn’t sound like just discovering the transition is over.

        Here is Delingpole, in Breitbart:

        Delingpole, who first reported that Pruitt advocated against reopening the endangerment finding, even suggested that the EPA administrator should resign.

        “But what President Trump needs now more than ever are administrators with the political will to do the right thing — which is, after all, the reason so many Americans voted for him,” he wrote. “If Scott Pruitt is not up to that task, then maybe it’s about time he did the decent thing and handed over the reins to someone who is.”

      • Sorry Nicky, no where in the POLITICO article YOU showed had those quotes !
        As per your second “Quote”, sounds like he is trying to get rich from writing a book !

        As for your third and forth NEW quotes, disagreements happen in politics !!

      • “Sorry Nicky, no where in the POLITICO article YOU showed had those quotes !”
        My “stormed off in a huff” link had the Schnare quote. He’s pretty huffy. Enough to write to a news outlet about it.

    • I believe Pruitt is taking the prudent course in not challenging the Endangerment finding at this point – overturning something like that is going to take years of careful preparation. Even with the best evidence built up, any decision like that is going to get shot down at every level of the court system, until you get to SCOTUS. (time to admit that yes, our federal court system is totally political by now) And a long nasty court fight could totally distract from all of the other things that are being done.

      Just think about what a legal mess the first travel restriction got Trump into. Every decision that is made today has got to take that level of opposition into account.

    • Well, if a battle is necessary, so be it. That’s why we elected this president – we wanted this fight.

    • Nick.

      Hair splitting mate. I suspect the best tactic for the CAGW sympathiser is to lay low until the dust settles. The gnashing of teeth and hand wringing is not doing you guys any favours.

    • “From Politico today”

      Consider the source. Politico is a leftwing rag.

      Methinks too much is being read into Pruitt’s position that legal hurdles were in the cards if the finding was overturned. Pruitt suggested Congress was the place to kill the finding but I don’t see that mentioned anywhere here.

      • “Consider the source.”
        There are two key quotes. One is from Delingpole writing in Breitbart. The other is Schnare, writing an email to E&E. I linked to the originals for both.

        Politico has professional journalists and they back up what they say.

    • But, Lord, it takes miles and miles of track to do a 180. Got to keep turning right at all costs, though. Ponder where we’d be in four years if Hill had won the election. Cold sweat here just thinking how close we came.

  3. Didn’t Willis debunk some of the purported coal-plant downwind-pollution claims (re mercury)?

    • Might be credible if there were some death certificates that said: died of lung failure/lung disease due to power plant emissions.

      I challenge any of the paid ecochondriacs to show me just one.

      You fail to realize that these are not “real” deaths in the sense of one being struck by an 18 wheeler. These are hypothetical deaths, similar to the ones attributed to second hand smoke. It takes a lifetime of smoking to (possibly) develop lung cancer, but the mere smell of second-hand smoke at one ten thousandth the concentration is lethal. Same thing here. Just go a few miles downwind of a coal-fired plant, and you see people keeling over like tenpins. Terrible!

      • I have to agree. I worked in a coal-fired plant and operated a1940’s vintage pulverized coal power station in the late 70’s, during my early career. The percentage of people I worked with back then who are still healthy today (with age factored in) is about the same as the percentage at my next job, the university from which I retired (and my family and social circles). I got fly ash blown in my face for 6 years (in my 20’s) unclogging dust collector and precipitator hoppers with a sledgehammer and iron rods. My mercury levels are no higher than normal at 60. My job would have been less hazardous if the fly ash had not been collected and allowed to fertilize the downwind corn fields, but the EPA had already replaced scientists with activists and shunned the current scepticism of alarmism and possible benefits, citing the then currently popular acid rain meme.

      • After the EPA required our plant to burn Wyoming Anthracite instead of Local Illinois Bituminous, the workers were exposed to numerous coal-mill fires and more background radioactivity than the operators of the company’s nuclear plants were allowed by the NRC (although we never were monitored). All this to deprive the corn of the sulfur it was accustomed to receiving.

      • Most of the “studies” you read about in the news every day can be dismissed out-of-hand as “junk science.”
        Because they aren’t “science” at all, they are data-runs where existing sets of numbers are re-shuffled in an attempt to match them to some pre-determined desired “association.” By that method, living in a wood-frame house causes hair loss, apartment dwellers die of “indoor air pollution,” and living in a rural county makes your teeth all fall out. The idea that “association” is not “causality” is completely lacking in American education today–I believe by design. Anyone can literally claim anything–and they do.

      • Speaking of which; finding the ONE, that is.

        Has CNN and their bunch of talking bobble heads, found that person yet who says the Russians told him to vote for Donald Trump for President ??

        It can’t be all that difficult.

        There are only 435 voters you need to subpoena; namely all the members of the College of Cardinals.

        Excuse me for that slip of the tongue; I meant the Electoral college.


        The NSA must know how each one of them voted. They don’t have to out himer via the controlled leak channel; just pay himer enough to go and tell CNN themself.

  4. I could hear green heads exploding all over the country when the pen hit the paper.

    Then there is some math on the endangerment finding coming round the corner from last week.

    Nick, can you dissect the equations for us in the latter part of Monckton’s presentation?

      • Steve Case,
        Maybe you and commeiBob can find a version that blends both Trump killing the Obo’s regs with the news the that the one of his old pals (who had a lot to do with Penn State’s “investigation” of his research) has recently been convicted of charges related to his “covering up” for Sandusky.

        If I’m not mistaken, didn’t the basis of “The Mann’s” lawsuit against Mark Setyn have something to do with a comparison to the robustness of “the looking into” Sandusky’s actions and “the looking into” Mann’s actions”?

    • “Nick, can you dissect the equations for us”
      Hopefully. he’ll write it out properly at some stage. It’s very hard to do from talk and slides. He was writing a series here, which seems to overlap with the talk. Then he stopped, saying that he couldn’t say any more because it might prejudice publication.

      • Agree. I have watched the talk three times, stop motioned to jot the equations. Found only one possible slight of hand noted just below. The Bode math appears OK from what is on the slides.

      • I’ll bet the Bode math does not have the phase conditions in it.

        Most ” op amp ” modeled systems; other than those operating only at nearly DC, already have at least 90 degrees of phase shift between the in and the out.

        So virtually all AC systems would not obey the DC design math.

        But then the climate system is not an op amp anyway.


      • “So virtually all AC systems would not obey the DC design math.”
        What Monckton, and many others, seem unable to come to terms with is that his system is inherently a DC model. It has no timing information, or at least didn’t when presented here. So all the talk about Bode plots, phase etc is irrelevant.

      • Nick,
        The bigger problems with the Bode model are twofold. The first 2 paragraphs of Bode’s book list the assumptions and preconditions behind the analysis, two of which are grossly violated.

        First, the Bode model assumes that the input and output are linearly related to each other and since the input is a delta forcing in W/m^2 and the output is a delta T in degrees, where W/m^2 is proportional to T^4, this precondition is not met. The IPCC asserts ‘approximate linearity’ which is also not true across the range of T found on the planet.

        Second is that the Bode model assumes the existence of an implicit, infinite source of Joules to power the gain. This can not the Sun which is also the input (the Sun delivers W/m^2 of forcing to the input). Consider an op-amp with the input and power supply pin connected together. Do you really believe that such a system can deliver more output power than is being delivered to the input/power supply pin?

        What happens when the power supply is limited is that the gain (sensitivity) is significantly reduced. In an audio amplifier, this is called clipping where the realized gain is reduced, the output becomes non linearly related to the input and under these conditions, the Bode equations no longer work. This is the exact nature of the distortion Hansen/Schlesinger introduced to climate science when they bastardized the Bode model to make it fit the CAGW narrative.

      • co2isnotevil March 28, 2017 at 7:08 pm

        … The bigger problems with the Bode model are twofold …

        My buddy’s thesis advisor once complained that students would use any formula no matter how inappropriate. Sadly I’ve discovered that the problem carries on to the PhD level.

      • It occurs to me that some might demand examples of the misuse of mathematics at the PhD level. Statistics is particularly prone to misuse. example

      • “Misuse”
        Sections in that link I’d recommend to locals include
        4.7 Proof of the null hypothesis
        4.8 Confusing statistical significance with practical significance

      • Nick,

        From proof of the null hypothesis.

        “This does not prove the defendant’s innocence, but only that there is not proof enough for a guilty verdict.”

        For the case of climate science, the defendant is CO2. There’s certainly not enough proof that CO2 emissions are harmful to the planet, the biosphere and especially man and if anything, the skeptical position has far more solid proof.

        Regarding statistical vs. practical significance.

        Statistically, CO2 has little significance relative to temperature. It’s a case of coincidence, not causality. Was it the Industrial Revolution that brought on a more favorable climate, or was it a more favorable climate that was responsible for the Industrial Revolution? The later is the null hypothesis as much of the post LIA warming occurred before CO2 emissions were significant.

        Practically, CO2 is at the base of the food chain, without which, we wouldn’t even be here, thus increasing CO2 is necessarily good for the biosphere, especially considering that most plant life evolved when CO2 levels were far higher. Practically, inexpensive energy produced by fossil fuels is the main reason mankind’s technology has advanced so far so quickly, without which the computer you use to post CAGW rhetoric would not exist.

      • George,
        Modern op amps have the same AC and DC transfer function until they run out of bandwidth when the AC phase delay needs to be accounted for. Nominally, the phase delay is 0 degrees for the + input and 180 degrees for the – input. But you are right that the climate is not an op amp, or even an amplifier for that matter, and Bode’s analysis has absolutely no correspondence to the climate system.

        Bode’s linear feedback amplifier analysis is basically a small signal AC analysis, as it was based on vacuum tube amplifiers whose DC transfer function sets the operating point while the AC transfer function established the gain. Not that it was impossible to build DC amplifiers out of tubes and Tektronix did this routinely for early tube based oscilloscopes. You just need + and – supplies, as opposed to + and ground, and set the operating point to 0V.

    • Not Nick, but longtime readers know I have IMO tangled successfully with Monckton’s math before. His new talk about finding irrefutable errors to knock down the consensus really boils down to two important ideas supported by two important math errors. Most important is what is (at 95% confidence level) the maximum possible ECS? Brought sufficiently low, the precautionary principle (Taleb black swan argument) does not apply anymore and the alarm is cancelled. Less important theoretically but more relevant for policy is the likely ECS, which a suitable (min 5%) discount rate informs a low SCC from which adaptive rather than mitigative policy decisions then flow.
      There have been previous efforts to constrain the high tail of ECS. Annan and Hargreaves 2011 paper used informed Baysian priors to estimate max ~6 (most likely 1.9). Still max CAGW territory. Lewis and Curry 2014 used observational energy budgets to estimate a max from 4.05 to 5.4 (depending on time frames) with most likely ~1.65; still the max is CAGW territory. Monckton’s talk threw in ice cores at Mean 3.3C +/- 3C; still CAGW territory. I thought that slide just a distraction.
      Now the math errors.
      Happer 2015 saying the CO2 no feedbacks doubling sensitivity is not the canonical 1.16C, but rather 40% less ~0.7C because the 1.6 picosecond delay is overlooked. I have tried in vain to verify this by finding Happer’s talk and reading it. For now lets take Monckton’s word for Happer. That correction, using the rest of the IPCC simple feedback equation unchanged, gives a maximum 3.2 and a likely 2.1. This is useful, because maximum possible 3.2 starts to cancel the alarm, and the likely value significantly lowers SCC.

      Then Monckton reworks the IPCC feedbacks portion into the correct nonlinear rather than additive form (from the 10th edition Bode 1955) to show the amplification feedback is smaller than the IPCC form implies (the ‘right/wrong) slides. Note there is an apparent slight of hand by first lowering the cenral estimate from 3 to 2.25, a nonmathematical assertion telated to Charney 1988 and unproven. My own view is that with Lindzens cannonical no feedbacks 1.16, the AR4 ECS central estimate 3C gives a net Bode f 0.63, not 2.25C/Bode net f 0.485. At any rate, as published in my post at CE on his irreducibly simple equation, Bode f is likely ~0.25 based on observational considerations about water vapor and feedbacks. So I agree with Monckton’s mathematical conclusion if not his exact parameterization. Resultbis max 2.7, likely 2.3. Sort of Happerish, good not great.
      But put the two together, and is max 1.9. Cancel CAGW. And likely is 1.6C, which is essentially Lewis and Curry 2014. Much to like about this convergence. But the real key is contraining the possible high end ECS to below 2 rather than 4.5.
      I suspect Constraints will be a very important paper when it comes out.

  5. And of course those who freeze to death due to not being able to afford to heat their place or power outages due to plants shutting down with no viable replacements – What study do they fall under?

    Just silence from the alarmists.

      • They are still deaths. So now we have the Pigs teaching the sheep to bleat “All lives are equal, some lives are more equal”?

        George Orwell pegged it.

    • “What study do they fall under?”

      How’s about…

      What is the quickest and most efficient way to de-populate the earth.

      Isn’t that the over arching goal?

      • It is if you refer to the Sierra Club’s manifesto. Depopulate humans, that is. You know, to save the earth for the nobler species.

      • Notice how the greens never include themselves as being among the humans who need to be eliminated.

      • Mark, you got that right. But I always felt that those who advocate such things (such as depopulation) should get int the front of the line; you know, as good examples.

    • And what about those whose livelihoods for palm oil plantations are cleared for insane green energy? They do not freeze, but starve. So far, it has always been the case that a warmer world has brought great benefits to life on Earth. Quite apart from the plant food CO2. Why do the Apocalypse disciples want us to hold on to the level of the small ice age? And I recommend the most interesting top POST in WUWT for this level. So clear is nothing more, and it seems that it takes a non-scientist like Trump to open up the eyes of many people what is really going on.

    • It would be perfectly FINE with the Great Blue-Green Bubble if everyone not a member of their chosen Elect became extinct forthwith. Then they could turn all their Love and Empathy on each other while they slurp their vegan smoothies. They can all wear burkhas, so no one has to be triggered by anyone white, male, carnivorous, or gainfully employed. . . the Government is Mommy, rocking their cradle forever.

  6. Oh, those poor little Babies. The main reason why they are upset is because they, along with others, will no longer have the Government titty to suck, like in the past. Of course, they aren’t going to mention that, oh no! What they are doing is come up with every possible negative effect, no matter how improbable. And it is placed before all else, including what really has them flummoxed: the nipple they are sucking on, from which everybody else is paying.

    I was not a big fan of Trump, and in fact I had to hold my nose before voting for him. But he continues to pleasantly surprise me. And this is yet one of many.

  7. Trump’s Executive order (EO) just begins a long process that returns the CPP and the SCC study back to review within the agency. The the Soros-Steyer funded Green Blob will fight and litigate in courts and with their MSM lapdogs’ propaganda machine.

    The Congressional GOP needs to send environmental rollback legislation to Trump to sign to prevent the Left shopping for sympathetic, activist Federal judges (as they did with his visa-immigration bans).

    • The good news is that SCOTUS had already stayed CCP, so we seem to have a legal foot in the door first, and hold the whip hand. With Gorsuch soon to join SCOTUS, and reportedly another vacancy coming this summer, things just could work out if cooler heads prevail in Trump’s team.

      • MarkW,

        Source? Gosh, rumors abound, from those with high connections, like Ted Cruz. But there’s no one on the record, sorry pal. Get back to me in the fall, and we can talk over a beer.

      • I want to believe it, however I’ll keep my optimism in check until there is something more to go on.

  8. Don’t your coal fired electricity plants in the US have scrubbers? If there is still any particulate matter left, pave your gravel roads. Actually I would rather you did not, it adds to UHI.

    • My understanding is they all have, we just tore down the Marysville power plant that had been mothballed for decades. That was one of the original Thomas Edison era plants. I’m surprised that the DTE, aka Detroit Edison Company wasn’t forced to keep it as a historic monument.

      • I remember the Detroit Edison Company well. One hot summer night in the early 70’s, I slept in a screened in porch in a rented house in Windsor. Across the river from Detroit. I and everyone outside and the whole city of Windsor work up covered in soot. Strange, those things don’t happen anymore. Also strange that in the cooling period it was 104 F in downtown Windsor. I wonder if it gets that hot anymore in the new warm period.

      • My car ends up covered in soot, every time it rains in Silicon Valley.

        No coal burners near by or even far by.

        It’s either diesel trucks etc. or road rubber.


    • Zero emissions is the new goal, don’t you know? And that includes “dangerous pollutant” CO2.

    • The power Sooner power plant in Oklahoma has scrubbers. The fly ash is sold for soil stabilizing under roads and the bottom ash (glassy residue) is spread on the dirt roads.

    • And simultaneously legalize and encourage vaping as a replacement.
      (Vaping’s availability as a fallback means that tobacco prohibition is feasible.)

    • Trouble with cigarettes, is they just don’t kill people fast enough; like before they get to breeding age.


      • It does tend to kill them before they have a chance to draw much Social Security.
        More left for me.

    • O.M.G. ! You’ve found a video of Griff (and whoever the hot chick is) !! ROTFLMAO ….Thanks, I needed that !

      • Butch and Javert and george,

        Meet social justice warrior Cora Segal or (Miriam) or anthropomorphism of Roz of Monsters Inc.

        See Paul Joseph Watson’s youtube channel for a full amusing expose on the potty-mouthed screaming university graduates. Title “What a Social Justice Warrior (SJW) Looks Like”

        She is also typical of what we as CAGW skeptics have to deal with in the green activists. same same same

    • Paul

      I saw this video a while back, and the not-so-pent-up anger and intolerant virtue-signaling from this red-faced, 250+ pound mound of quaking flesh is just stunning. I’m guessing this is a totally unaccomplished & unqualified kool-aid drinker reacting to society refusing to grant her/it(?) any shred of credibility.

      Pet trolls like Griff (when he isn’t attacking women) are useful for their unintended humor content, but if this is where our children and their participation medals & useless-but-expensive college degrees are taking us, I ain’t going.


      • I’ve never attacked any women.

        In fact I believe I’ve called out misogyny when it has atypically found its way into these comments.

        In fact isn’t calling that lady what you did attacking women?

  9. Prediction: There will not be another coal-fired plant built in this country, regardless of whether a new rulemaking exercise eliminates any of the EPA regulations (a new rule-making must occur if the existing rules are to be replaced/eliminated – it’s not just a stroke of the pen).

    • No more coal? Why not? Do people really believe this carbon pollution/footprint nonsense?

      Although the link between climate change and human activity has been and is still advocated in our schools, science institutions and media as fact, it is not. Wisdom eventually will dictate.

      An untested hypothesis does not justify action (carbon tax, funding wind/solar power) to combat “man-made” climate change. In comparison to the 4 previous interglacial peaks it is has to be asked why the current one is colder. The sun, eccentricity and the planet’s wobbling tilted spin in combination with ocean currents, air mass movement, clouds and albedo are the dominant climate drivers.

      The atmospheric heat gain from the high altitude absorption/emission of IR energy by the fossil-fuel CO2 molecule is not in question, the heat gain’s significance is, as there is no evidence of it. At a less than decadal annual parts per million pace CO2 levels will continue to increase, perhaps even decrease….so what? (IMHO). Thermal (coal and natural gas), hydro-electric and nuclear power are currently the only means to maintaining base load power to the electrical grid, coal as well as being the safest is affordable, reliable and abundant. The toxic issues of carbon combustion are solvable problems. For most of the third world it is the only power supply solution.

      As we all know, or should know, CO2 is not toxic, along with its very slight warming effect it is plant food. Higher CO2 levels increase a plant’s root size and improves its water retention abilities (less stomata per unit area), thus enabling greater crop yields to feed our super abundant population.

      Here in Ontario the situation is rather strange. In spite of the uncertainties surrounding the issue our educated and political class actually believe the carbon pollution/footprint nonsense. Everyone wants to save the world, and for the elites that means being on board the good ship AGW….and they are not going away, as the current warm period, if anything like the last, likely has quite a few more decades before hitting its peak.

      So yeah, you could be right Joe.

      • Natural gas pipelines that supply power plants have security risks. Coal fired plants can have coal storage for 90 days or more.

        If the gas supply pipeline goes down, the electric power is gone until repairs can be made.

      • Ah, I see. Since you’re the one making bold predictions, ball’s in your court. Tells us, how long will it be before another coal-fired generator is built in this country?

      • It’s a bold prediction to say that never is too long a time frame?
        The switch back to coal will come when coal becomes cheaper than than nat gas.
        Will it happen? Yes
        When will it happen? Heck if I know.

  10. Don’t start celebrating yet. As Pat Michaels pointed out in his ICCC12 address, if we don’t vacate the EPA’s endangerment finding this executive order will be halted in the courts. We’re going about this bass ackwards.

    • I don’t think so. The endangerment finding just sets up the playing field for things like the CPP. It is still within the president’s power to send it back to the bullpen along with it’s friend, SCC. That gives us time to work on getting the entire game cancelled, which is something that only Congress can do.

    • What’s the source of that map? There’s no coal-fired generator on the WA/ID border that I am aware of.

      • From the location on the map, the dot appears to correlate with the Clearwater Paper Mill in Lewiston, Idaho. I worked on the installation of a new black liquor recovery boiler project back in 1986-1987 (Gotterverken technology) – and there was not a coal fired power generation plant in sight back then.

        Something new, perhaps????

        I doubt it though..puts the whole shebang into the realm of ‘fake news’ or at least ‘inaccurate map’.



      • Michael C. Roberts,

        The very last thing Clearwater (nee Potlatch) needs there is a coal-fired generator! They have bio-fuel to spare for that on site. My father worked there for 35 years, as have countless relatives and acquaintances, as I grew up in Lewiston. Incidentally, much of what appears in that photo is gone now, since they decommissioned and razed the big “kraft process” pulp and paper lines. All that remains is a big tissue mill and ancillary facilities.

      • PS Not to mention the elephant in the room – several nearby big hydroelectric dams, and abundant, cheap electrical power. I’m sure they generate some power on site burning bio waste, but they surely rely on the grid for 99% of the stable electricity required.

    • RWT, go to Ferc and look up the entire list by age/capacity. Since 1995 the average retirement age of old coal has been 48 years. The present installed base on your chart has an average age of 42 years. About 1/3 of the capacity on that chart will be retired by ~2025. Despite Trump and Pruitt, unlikely more coal capacity will be built in the next couple of decades. CCGT has a cost <~ $1500/kw, takes 2.5 years to install, and has a thermal efficiency of 61%. The only newish USC coal plant in the US is Turk. Cost $3000/kw, took 4 years to erect, and has 42% thermal efficiency. On a pure fuel cost basis, natural gas is cheaper than USC coal at any price below ~$8/mbtu. It is presently <$3. Game over for a few decades at least. Between Permian, Marcellus, and Utica, US has vast shale gas TRR.

  11. The sorta reassuring thing is that Trump has done some rather deceptive actions in the recent past. What I am thinking of was his meeting with Al Gore, who left the meeting in other than high indignation. What is being done is enough to cause green heads to explode, so Delingpole and a few maximalists among our commenters are freaking out a bit early.

  12. I hope the US courts haven’t been too subverted by subjective airy fairy ‘social justice’ activist judges. The rational temporary ban on immigration from the most dangerous regimes and failed states was an eye opener for me. The idea that so far, terrorist acts haven’t come from there to the US is poor logic. Terrorists from there have been welcomed into Europe and they took the easy way to kill infidels. I find Democrats make very selective use of the Precautionary Principle.

  13. One way to redirect the EPA and the question of endangerment is to pass legislation that all EPA regs and rules have to be backed by empirical evidence and research funded outside of the EPA sphere. Additionaly, that the only models allowed are mathematical, physical and the like that without numeriacl complexity can be used as is to make predictions and who’s background exists in the literature. Eliminating entirely climate models. A model such as van der Waals equaiton, or gravity are just fine. But a massive system of partial differential equations that require a block box to use no.

    • Isn’t a “cost vs benefit” analysis rule already in place? Agencies have been thumbing their noses at it for eight years, since O’Bummer refused to enforce it.

      • If the EPA didn’t follow it’s own rules then doesn’t that provide a huge opening to vacate any EPA findings and regulations during this period?

      • MarkW, that’s one aspect for the ongoing multi-state class action lawsuit against EPA, on behalf of which SCOTUS stayed the CCP.

  14. There they go again, confusing and conflating real air pollution with their fake “carbon pollution”. Just one of many tactics the Climate Liars like to use.

  15. Hey anything is possible if the right politicians are in cahoots with the right greasy politicians and bureaucrats.
    The Sierra Club and their radical activists masquerading as public servants manipulated the 3 west coast states to remove hydro power from being considered renewal in order to concoct a phony need for more wind and solar renewable energy to justify more subsidies and line the pocket so their crony friends in the green biz.

  16. The claims of the researchers, like those from the EPA, linking emissions to early mortality, are largely based on the false linear-no threshold model of toxicity which states that any substance with measurable toxicity (as defined by injury, illness or death) at a specific concentration, is similarly and proportionately toxic at any lower level above zero. An absurd but appropriate analogy would be to strap100 people’s feet to the floor of a large tank and then gradually add water. In the real world, when water exceeds the height of the shortest individuals they will drown and above the level of the tallest, all will drown. This is the normal and scientifically verifiable pattern of toxicity, where there is no toxicity till a critical threshold is reached and then toxicity rapidly increase till a level where maximum toxicity is reached. Graphically the dose response curve forms a sigmoid.

    Those who support the linear-no threshold model would claim that if 10 out 100 of people drown in water 5 feet deep then 2 out of hundred would drown in water one foot deep and twenty out of a hundred would drown in water 10 feet deep. The model is equally absurd when applied to poisons, air pollution, radiation, and infectious agents, but it has been immensely useful to charlatans who want more regulation, more power and the ability to claim virtuously to be saving human lives, the environment, endangered species or Gaia from certain destruction.

  17. The only people to suffer is the international criminal enterprise defrauding the American people with schemes that force demonstrably ineffective energy systems on American taxpayers.

  18. Driscoll – “strong carbon standards” … WTF !
    Let the waling begin.

    It’s a lovely day, so it is.

  19. Fantastic news! They will be dancing in the aisles in China, and the rest of the world will get a substantial boost from Mr.Trump’s actions. Apparently he is going to challenge the new fangled digital media industry next by resuscitating a Kodak Brownie camera for all students.
    Go Donald! It’s great to know that it’s not only the UK who are stupid enough to remove themselves from the economic version of the Darwinian genetic pool.

  20. The claim: “Our research shows that a power plant standard like the Clean Power Plan could save thousands of lives in communities across the United States every year”.

    Might be credible if there were some death certificates that said: died of lung failure/lung disease due to power plant emissions.

    I challenge any of the paid ecochondriacs to show me just one.

    And no fair re-claiming those claiming those who were already claimed to have died from smoking (first hand or second hand) or asbestos!

  21. The only thing “threatened” are the big money entities that have been abusing(and using) ordinary American’s finances.

  22. It should be noted in these claims of mass poisoning due to power station/diesel emissions, that they are all calculated in inner cities. And whilst I live in one of the worst areas in the South East of the UK for air pollution, why should everyone in the rest of the UK/US/rest of the world suffer massive energy price hikes/blackouts etc. for the sake of city dwellers.

    The West is overrun with minority pressure groups who satisfy their needs, not the needs of the majority.

    I have the choice of living where I do, in the full knowledge it’s air is polluted. I do so because job prospects are better here than in the styks, I am quite capable of moving back up to Scotland to buy a house in the fresh air. But I won’t, until I retire.

    We all run risks, go to the city and run the risk of pollution, violence, traffic, nosey neighbours, nightclubs, drugs etc. or pollution. Don’t, and you run the risk of living a quiet life.

    But don’t expect people in the country to share the same values or fears just because city dwellers, and their inevitable minority pressure groups, deem to tell the rest of the world what to do.

    If you live in a polluted environment, on an estuary, because trade there has been great for thousands of years, suck it up when the tide comes in and washes you all away.

    Not that it will in our lifetime, our children’s lifetime, or our Grand children’s/Great Grand children’s lifetimes.

    • Good post. The Greens here in Germany always go out of their way to push their agenda. This is also the case in Baden-Württemberg, where the Minister of Transportation had the intention of leaving old diesel cars only in North Baden and not in the capital Stuttgart, because the fine dust load in North Baden cities such as Mannheim, Karlsruhe and Heidelberg is much lower than in Stuttgart. He even said all the old diesel engines were to be sold to Nordbaden. They always take the greatest strain, and then they seek a cause for their regulation, which is the best way to intervene in the lives of men. At the same time, Stuttgart has always had a very high degree of fine strain, presumably since the Middle Ages. For it was built in a valley without entrances. But meanwhile the people have recognized this. The Greens are moving out of an increasing number of country parliaments or are shriveled into the marginal note.

      • Hans-Georg says, “They always take the greatest strain, and then they seek a cause for their regulation, which is the best way to intervene in the lives of men.”

        Yes the reasoning is similar here in the US, where environmentalists never tire of using the Los Angeles basin smog as a stern warning to the pick-up owners of the Great Plains and Mountain states!

        LA is surrounded by mountains — like a bowl shape. Wind does not blow through, but a good rain sometimes scrubs the air.

        That reminds me, we get an average rainfall of [every day] here, so my CO2 is certainly pushing up daisies and possibly forming cave systems, not trapping outgoing LWR.

    • Annnnnd who lives in the inner cities? LARGE concentrations of The Poor. See my post above, the most legitimate and reproducible meta-analyses by the Cochrane Collaboration and others show direct, incontrovertible evidence that POVERTY is the greatest indicator of morbidity and mortality in a population.
      The reasons are many and varied, including the stresses occasioned by broken families, violence and fear of violence, addiction behaviors, depression, sexual habits, poor diet, smoking, the list is long. Pollution is a possible factor, but is impossible to break out of the cauldron of socio-economic adverse circumstances.

    • Wrong.
      The primary data comes from a study over 30 years of two prefectures in china. One of which had free coal. The other had no coal.

      The null was that coal didn’t shorten life.

      It was a busted null.


      Spend some time in china .

        (approximately now)
        Note that it’s very hard to see eastern China or India under the filthy blanket of particulates.
        Now go look at the relatively pristine air over the United States, Steve.

        Then find a contemporary study showing the deaths caused by burning coal in the United States, where scrubbers have been employed since the 70’s, not a study from China, which gets a free pass on particulate pollution from the anti-European climate cult.
        China is buying up Australian coal – but that’s okay, so long as Australians don’t burn it in modern plants with scrubbers.

      • No citation?

        clearly coal power plants in/around urban areas cause deaths/respiratory problems given any sort of winter temp inversion (e.g. London 1950s)

      • I love the way Griff ignores all evidence that doesn’t support his religious convictions.
        1950 was prior to modern scrubbers, as is most of China.

  23. Jackwagon yacky yack. Cry me a river of BS Dr whatever holder of the Double Eagle third class. Your study was manufactured crap so all gain that we ignore it. I would reply more respectfully but you haven’t earned it. Get your hand outta my pocket.

  24. Sorry to be picky, but would the blog designer consider making clearer the distinction between editor’s comments and cited excerpts? For example here, italicise and possibly also indent the quote from Syracuse uni. When first scanning this post I became aware that I was reading the editor’s comments only because of their tone and attitude!
    (Even so, a fabulous blog!)

  25. I don’t think Trump will do much more on climate. I doubt he pulls out of Paris. I think Tillerson, his daughter and son-in-law will hold sway.

  26. “Might be credible if there were some death certificates that said: died of lung failure/lung disease due to power plant emissions.”

    Might be credible if you knew the actual facts.

    [Too funny! Typical Mosher drive-by comment, says I don’t know the facts, but fails to refute properly by referencing any. BTW, I grew up ina town on the Ohio river near TWO coal power plants, and there was never any incidence of excessive lung issues due to them. Try spending some time in the midwest where power is generated and peoples lives were actually improved by that power. – Anthony]

  27. It’s a good start by Trump/Pruitt, but not enough. The whole point of the CO2 endangerment finding was to put it beyond an elected government’s ability to change. And a later administration could be even worse than than recent ones, using more fake evidence again from the corrupted EPA, abetted again by activist “scientists” within other Federal agencies. Trump/Pruitt need to have a plan for the future that is based on assuming that the endangerment finding will not be overturned in the coming decade.

    The green blob is well resourced and playing a long game . It is a pity that those well-resourced industries most affected by the ‘green’ assault apparently just sat on their hands for so long, despite what the green team constantly alleges. Those corporations abandoned many legal obligations to their shareholders and moral obligations to customers, politicians, voters, and all non-voting citizens. They’ve been given a second chance for maybe four years. Let’s hope they up their game.

    • Michael,


      Trump is hand waving at his base anti-climate fraud voters. Paris and the Endangerment finding go to the throat of the blob. That and real defunding of the academic fraud layers where it all incubated from the 60′ onward.

      He needs a good economy that includes 100’s of thousands of climate scam jobs at the moment. That might be on his mind for going slow. The action window politically is always closing from the moment you are elected. If not now on the big pillars of climate change “actions” then when? Maybe never is my conclusion.

      The softening of air regs is a plus but clearly not the heart of the problem. I’m always disappointed at the minimal expectations of the imagined “skeptical” climate community and their inability to connect the dots to the scale of the totalitarian climate movement. It’s all over these boards. Meanwhile at ThinkProgess they’re planning internment and reeducation camps on their next rise to political power. The contrast couldn’t be starker.

    • I would think the administration is bit gun-shy about now, after having been preempted on a few issues where all of the potential outcomes of administrative actions were not well thought-out prior to issuance. As they should be.

      The CO2 Endangerment Finding, is an EPA-internally produced document that provides the basis for the Clean Power Plan (CPP), as far as I can tell. The Supreme Court merely determined that, should EPA find CO2 an endangerment to the public, that they could (and did, the CPP) write regulations to control it as a criteria pollutant under existing EPA authorizations, see:

      Hence, the trumped-up Endangerment Finding, with the Social Cost of Carbon thrown in as justification along with the ‘science’ (sic) of our friend in international CO2 hoodwinking, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC (See:

      In my somewhat simple approach to the issue, it seems it may be merely easier to apply this maxim going forward:

      ‘I (the EPA) brought you (the endangerment finding and it’s bastard stepchild, the CPP) into this world, and I (the new EPA) can take you out’.

      As I as well as others on this fantastic site have written previously, no court decision is needed as they already have that decision in-hand, that is the EPA which can decide on the recalculated Benefits or Endangerment. Apply new evidence as justification. Work within the EPA itself, to reevaluate the Endangerment level (or lack thereof) of release of CO2, backed by an accurate and more realistically developed Review of the Costs and Benefits of Carbon Dioxide Release.

      Once that is issued, the CPP will not be needed, at least for CO2. And it can be pulled from consideration as a Federal rule.



  28. Thank you President Trump
    Its a good step in the right direction.

    Bank of International Settlements (BIS) has their teeth sunk into the Paris treaty. If you want to be in the G20 club you have to play by their rules. The greedy controllers of the world have already counted the 90T $$$. Meanwhile the Chinaman continues to build the world biggest power transmission line to Europe.

    If only 5% of the masses stood up together.

    • Knute,
      Thus far, free enterprise has been rather less visible than many might have expected, given they have interests to protect. One of their major duties.
      Years ago my employer and competitors were much more active. Then after retirement 15 or so years ago, the mood seemed to change to a more subservient one. Corporations seemed scared to take on City Hall. Challenges seemed to shift tp behind closed doors, with minimal publicity.
      It is possible that corporations are still protective of their interests but less visibly. I hope this is the case because much depends on it, like the pecking order of who really controls who.
      What do other readers here think?
      Have we passed the tipping point beyond which, on average, corporations will not now challenge CAGW because they have secumbed to the indoctrination?

  29. So let me get this right. My grandmother born circa 1894 died circa 1974 could possibly have lived longer, but for lifelong exposure to a coal fire in the living room?

  30. so – how many new coal mines are we expecting after this?

    how many of those on federal lands?

    how many new coal power plants are we expecting to be started?

    how many coal mining jobs does this save?
    how many new coal mining jobs?

    (I expect the answer to all of the above is ‘none’)

    • Depends on what time period you are talking about.
      As always, Griff tries to simplify everything down to the point where he/she/it can understand it, and in the process leaves out everything meaningful.

    • Griffy – Please, define ‘new’ coal mines. Usually, the viable mine locations have already been in production for quite a long time, but have under recent intense political and regulatory pressures over the last 8 years or so been idled, shut down, or gone bankrupt.

      The relatively inexpensive price of Natural Gas (NG) is what has been filling the power production void after the near-death of coal power, at least here in the USA. But as others have stated, that scenario may not last for much longer, who really knows where the price of NG will go?

      It appears that you have a belief that it is/will be cost-ineffective to reopen idled coal mines, along with reemploying those miners needed to produce the product. You also throw out a straw man, asking how many ‘new’ mines would be open, knowing full well existing mines would be brought back into production vs. new mining operations, as the existing mine sites have ample available coal left to mine – without opening new locations. As soon as the demand for that unencumbered energy source manifests itself – either by international demand, or through domestic – the mines will produce again. Once unencumbered by the punitive Clean Power Plan rules.

      As far as new mines on federal lands, maybe not new coal mines – but $$ from leasing federal lands for all types of speculative exploitation (did I just hear a bunch of left-leaning heads exploding after reading that last word?) of available oil, gas, and/or rare earth may just provide enough federal dollars to upgrade the USA infrastructure. Wouldn’t that be just grand? Whaddya think there, Griffy-baby?

      Also, the real world operates on accurate cost-benefit analyses. New coal-fired power generation plants will come on-line as soon as those numbers pencil out. Also, mothballed plants may be retrofitted to whatever new standards are in effect. When? There are many that frequent this site that work daily on these issues (think PlanningEngineer, Rud Istvan, etc.). I have read their submissions on these subjects here at WUWT. You should try reading them as well. The light bulb may appear above your cranium……but I would think if you were to become ‘one of us’ you wouldn’t get your ‘Troll Money By-The -Word”.

      Respectfully submitted,

      Yours in WUWT,

      I remain,


      • I’ll play! There are 6 coal mining sites that were shutdown under Obozo that are going to be going back into shipping coal beginning April 3rd here in western Pennsylvania, 2 coalfired electric generation plants that were idled under Obozo are coming back online May 1st. Very fitting, May 1st, Death of Communism Day. West Virginia has 4 coal mining operations which have started back into shipping just this week. Add to these the heavy equipment suppliers, mechanics, welders and truckers that are getting operations up and running throughout the region and hiring in the coal and ancillary industries is booming right along. And then there is the Evil Marcellus Shale and attendant pipeline and processor/compressor construction that griffie and the socialist [snip] can’t shutdown. It is a great day For America and the Human Race.

        Now we just need to push forward the genetic research into eradicating the mental defects which create socialism. Wipe that out and humanity can take its next evolutionary step forward, leaving griffie and its kind to die off.

    • Doesn’t matter, Griff. It’s throwing off the yoke of EPA overreach that counts. If for some reason coal becomes more economical than natural gas again, we’re all set. The overarching goals are debunking and eventually reversing the “CO2 is pollution” rulemaking which is insane, and therefore dangerous.

      • I submit that Michael Moore couldn’t lose himself in any way, shape, or form as he has enough accumulated mass to have accreted his own satellites, staring adoringly at him….or something like that……

  31. The key question is if Trump is going to pander as he did on healthcare. Why haven’t we announced on the endangerment finding and Paris exit?

    Tillerson is a weakness also, if Exxon double talk is the model the green and climate scam will back at our throats in no time.

    Sure the role back is positive but can easily be reversed with election results. The entire junk science structure has to be dismantled. Go look at Tesla’s stock chart and ask if they are worried about their $7500 per car federal subside to fight “climate change”?;

    Big green seem unbothered by actual climate fraud reforms. Swamp growing not contracting. Go look at the Solar scammers next, not much change there since the election;

    It was a bad year for solar stocks last year but stable since the election. Conclusion? Climate scam alive and well and the risk of Trump appeasement to greens baked into market expectations. Delingpole always worth reading;

    • Tesla is on a roll with not one but two grid scale storage units rolled out in Us in last month – in California and Hawaii

      • Would any of it exist if the long term outlook of deep government subsides to green investment seemed in doubt?

        It isn’t just about short term results but deep price and government support expectations. The market is telling us the Trump actions on the green blob will be superficial.

        Tesla’s $7500 per car subside seems quite safe at the moment. Green pork going no where but to swamp creatures.

  32. It’s an article of faith among warmists that Man affects both weather and climate, but only in catastrophic ways. It’s also an article of faith that Man has the ability to control weather and climate, and make them Paradise, but only if we give billions and billions of dollars to the statists and allow them to control every aspect of our lives with laws, rules and regulations.

    Nature and the weather and the climate don’t listen to or obey any of this. Today’s warmists must be descended from people who once saw and never understood the bumper sticker “Stop Continental Drift!” and thought, “Hmmm, good idea, why aren’t we funding that!”

Comments are closed.