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
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: http://eng-cs.syr.edu/cleanair
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is it possible to sue the Green movement for misrepresentation? C02 is not a pollutant.
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.
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.
Driscoll – “strong carbon standards” … WTF !
Let the waling begin.
It’s a lovely day, so it is.
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.
Oh really? I am suprised anyone has the temerity to revive the “wave of the Future” theme, considering it was the fascists who last pushed that trope. Or was it the communists? Claiming modernity in and of itself is basically nihilist.
And just what would a Taffy know about such things, boyo?
” and the rest of the world will get a substantial boost from Mr.Trump’s actions”
Yes Gareth, hopefully the WHOLE WORLD will get a boost from Trump’s actions.
If he can break the anti-science of the AGW-scam in the USA, the world can get down to real progress again.
Curious that the PIIGS seem to have dived in at the shallow end. That may explain why their young people are desperately trying to get work in UK.
Fascinating how socialists assume that they actually know what they are talking about.
From the guy who demonstrated so thoroughly that you don’t know what an ad hominem is, that’s funny.
I’m not a socialist – so therefore I understand what I’m talking about!
LOL! You just stepped into it big time! The 2 have nothing to do with each other! You can be a socialist and know what you are talking about, and you can not be a socialist and NOT know what you are talking about!
In your case the latter applies. You need to think more and write less.
Was I talking to you?
The trolls are attempting to use sarcasm; it is a great day indeed! Thank you President Trump.
Don’t knock the Brownnie! I made a living manufacturing film for that wonderful camera:)
&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2FMariaHierbabuen%2Fcarteleria-kodak%2F&docid=TsDjPBQ_bLjUeM&tbnid=diTRAKwZ_ab3mM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjIhOqQpPrSAhXKq1QKHT_IAZU4ZBAzCEAoPDA8..i&w=519&h=700&bih=950&biw=1920&q=kodak%20brownie%20ads%201950s&ved=0ahUKEwjIhOqQpPrSAhXKq1QKHT_IAZU4ZBAzCEAoPDA8&iact=mrc&uact=8
Ooops. I even posted the wrong camera!?!
As Gilda used to say “Never Mind.”
Emily Latella! Not to be confused with Roseanne Rosannadanna. 😉
hypocrisy much gareth ,your lot revived windmills.
Trump’s action is the biggest relief since the Relief of Mafeking.
And no fair re-claiming those claiming those who were already claimed to have died from smoking (first hand or second hand) or asbestos!
The only thing “threatened” are the big money entities that have been abusing(and using) ordinary American’s finances.
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.
Science.
Spend some time in china .
So life expectancy was longer before we started burning coal?
http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/imgs_c/6/visible/1/201703290220-00.png
(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)
So the only difference was the coal was free in one place and it wasn’t somewhere else????
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.
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.
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!
Thanks
(Even so, a fabulous blog!)
Try “readers mode” if available on your browser. Helps me…Firefox.
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.
Not to mention the Herculean might of the global climate criminal enterprise.
Lie to yourself, we love laughing at that [snip]
“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]
There are, in China.
There were in the US and UK
Wait a minute… is WUWT supporting a move to allow non- CO2 gases and particulates?
Music to my ears! [snip]
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,
1+
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.
If you thought I was joking about reeducation camps;
https://thinkprogress.org/the-alliance-for-climate-education-begins-ambitious-campaign-to-educate-americas-youth-about-climate-3347efa72d28
On the agenda for years now.
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:
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a
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: http://sedac.ipcc-data.org/ddc/ar5_scenario_process/index.html).
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.
Regards,
MCR
Thank you President Trump
Its a good step in the right direction.
Meanwhile
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?
Geoff
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?
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.
Well I’ll modify my question to ‘in the next 4 years of th eTrump administration’
Or perhaps he’ll get re-elected -so ‘in the next 8 years’
I would still say ‘none’ in next 4 years.
Probably not. It will take time for the new nat gas power stations to increase the demand for nat gas enough, combined with the reduced demand for coal, for the cost curves to reverse again.
Ok, fair enough… it takes time to ramp up gas (much longer than solar, grid storage or wind mind)
So how many coal jobs, power plants, etc in next 4 years?
answer still none.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2017/03/trump_s_executive_order_won_t_bring_back_coal_jobs_regulations_aren_t_what.html?wpisrc=burger_bar
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,
MCR
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.
Mmmm, it’s still not all gold that shines. EPA Endangerment finding of CO2 still stands: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/28/politico-pruitt-takes-fire-conservatives-climate-showdown/
Waiting for Gorsuch to dump it.
The end of Obama’s Clean Power Plan means we’re doomed!
Michael Moore Loses It (Again): Warns Of “Extinction Of Human Life Due To Donald Trump”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-29/michael-moore-loses-it-again-warns-extinction-human-life-due-donald-trump
Moore has lost it so many times, that he can’t find it anymore.
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……
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”?;
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/stock-chart
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;
http://etfdb.com/etf/TAN/
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;
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/27/delingpole-scott-pruitt-is-failing-to-drain-the-swamp-at-the-epa/
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.
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!”