Trump to sign “energy independence” executive order today, killing Obama climate regs

President Donald Trump will issue a sweeping “energy independence” executive order today to dismantle signature global warming policies put in place by the Obama administration.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt told ABC News Trump would issue the order tomorrow to make “sure that we have a pro-growth and pro-environment approach to how we do regulation in this country.”

“The executive order is going to address the past administration’s effort to kill jobs across this country through the Clean Power Plan,” Pruitt told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos of the “energy independence” executive order on Sunday.

Trump promised to eliminate “job-killing” energy regulations during his campaign, specifically rolling back an EPA regulation limiting greenhouse gas emissions on power plants — the Clean Power Plan (CPP).

The upcoming order goes even farther than axing the CPP, according to Bloomberg’s Jennifer Dlouhy, who got a sneak peek at Tuesday’s order. Here’s what it does:

  • Orders EPA to review and “if appropriate” work to repeal or revise the CPP.
  • Rescinds the Interior Department’s moratorium on new coal mining leases on federal lands.
  • Repeals an Obama-era guidance on how federal agencies should take global warming into account when doing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) permitting reviews.
  • Disbands a federal working group that developed the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) estimate used to justify onerous global warming regulations. The SCC will also be thrown out.

Dlouhy reports Trump’s order revokes “six specific directives from his predecessor, including Obama’s broad strategy for paring emissions of methane released from oil and gas operations.”

Trump will also rescind “Obama directives targeted for repeal include one on climate change and national security, as well as a pair of directives from June 2013 that laid out his climate plans,” Dlouhy reported.

While most of Trump’s order can immediately take effect, repealing the CPP will have to go through a lengthy process that could take months or years.

Environmentalists have also vowed to sue the Trump administration to defend the CPP. They’ll likely be joined by Democratic state attorneys general.

Republished with permission from The Daily Caller


You can watch this historic event live at 2PM EDT/11AM PDT here

 

Advertisements

122 thoughts on “Trump to sign “energy independence” executive order today, killing Obama climate regs

      • CNN’s coverage is starting to remind me of that old Arnold Schwarzenegger move, ‘The Running Man’, when the narrator is introducing the ‘runners’, all with the gore-crow movie-preview tones: “and later, she cheated on College exams, had sexual relations with two, sometimes THREE different men in a year.”

        Just anything they can throw at the wall and hope it sticks.

      • Phillip,
        Worse than that, this particular article was written by a political correspondent who covers Democratic politics who knows squat about science.

      • We used to understand this – then science when backwards for several decades,

        Proof:

        Circa the 1960’s, comedian Shelley Berman said:

        “No matter how mean, or cruel, or sinful you have been, every time you breathe out, you make a little flower happy.”

        :-)

      • Well the statist at Huffington post are driven to drink as well….
        Spun, triggered, and confused…”what restroom do I use now, oh god, the world is ending, peace, love- blow up the white house, hate, no, no, peace, Gollem- Smeagoll, which restroom do I use? The oceans are rising, islands tipping over, 300 mph hurricanes, hate-hate, no peace love, which restroom do I use. Damm it, hey woman bring me a cold beer and put on those fish net stockings and some Woodstock tunes”.

  1. What about the CO2 endangerment finding? That’s the one that declares, roughly, that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. I guess that makes me a bad person, I have been known to breathe out lots of the terrible substance.

    Tony.

    • I don’t know if the president has the power to order the EPA to rescind that finding.
      He should be able to force the EPA to form a new commission and to re-examine it’s earlier finding.

      • The process to rescind a finding is the same as the process used to create a finding, including the period for public comment, etc., etc. It can take a while, and there are plenty of states that will want to sue, (like NY and CA). But the thing about the endangerment finding as published by the former Admin is that it relies on a political foundation, (IPCC), rather than a scientific one, (i.e., comments from real scientists), and so The COurt, with Gorsuch joining the bench, will simply defer to the Trump administration.

        The real solution is to get an act through Congress to state, explicitly, that CO2 is not to be considered a pollutant within the scope of the Clean Air Act

    • I’ve spewed the most CO2 when yelling at what an idiot Obama and his unscientific EPA were.

    • Can’t Scott Pruitt do that on his own hook? It seems to me that The Donald has to undo Obama’s executive orders but the CO2 finding wasn’t one of those. IANAL

    • James Delingpole asserts that this HUGE FAIL (i.e., not at least ordering review of the junk-science-based CO2 endangerment “finding” and, then, repeal once findings support it — which it is clear already that they would)
      is because
      Pruitt is basically a self-serving weasel
      (Note: Trump enabled him by wimping out by not ordering him to do it):

      …. Since taking on the position, though, {Pruitt’s} appetite for doing what he was appointed to do appears to have diminished somewhat. True, his credentials as a climate sceptic are not much in doubt. Yes, he might even agree with President Trump that there’s a swamp out there that sorely needs draining. The problem is, insiders explain, is that the future of the EPA is of far less interest to Pruitt than his prospects of becoming either one of Oklahoma’s next senators or its next governor.

      “Pruitt wants to keep himself in the middle of the road so he can get himself elected,” one of my sources explains.
      “He’s not interested in managing the agency;
      he’s interested in running for the senate; and
      though of course he’s committed to the conservative cause,
      he’s more committed to himself.”

      (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/27/delingpole-scott-pruitt-is-failing-to-drain-the-swamp-at-the-epa/ )

      @ Pruitt: If you disagree with Mr. Delingpole’s assessment, prove him wrong by your actions.

      ***************************************************************

      ON THE OTHER HAND —-

      Mr. Pruitt may only want the cover of Congress being the “bad cop,” v. a v. the junk science CO2 endangerment “finding,” i.e., Pruitt may still be fully committed to repealing it. This article gives much reassurance that he will not enforce it:

      … {Pruitt} wants Congress to weigh in on whether CO2 is a harmful pollutant that should be regulated. ***

      “Nowhere in the continuum, nowhere in the equation, has Congress spoken. The legislative branch has not addressed this issue at all,” Pruitt told CNBC.

      He said the Supreme Court’s decision should not have been viewed as permission for the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

      Pruitt has previously said the EPA should not regulate CO2 without a law passed by Congress authorizing it to do so. ….

      As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt and another dozen attorney generals unsuccessfully challenged the endangerment finding in a federal appeals court.

      “The mask is off. After obscuring his true views during his Senate confirmation hearings, Scott Pruitt has outed himself as a pure climate d e n i e r,” said David Doniger, director of the climate program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. ,,,,

      (http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/epa-chief-says-congress-should-weigh-whether-carbon-dioxide-is-a-pollutant/ )

      ***********************************************

      Conclusion: From the testimony and actions as a state attorney general of Pruitt and the testimony of hostile witnesses such as Mr. Doniger, it appears that while Delingpole may be correct about Pruitt wanting to take a middle-of-the-road, “get myself elected” stance, he is willing to fully cooperate in blocking enforcement of the bogus CO2 “finding” and just wants Congress to take the heat. Still a weasel (i.e., a self-serving coward, not willing to simply do what is right — he HAS the authority to review that CO2 “finding,” for there is ample evidence it was improperly determined), but, a good weasel. Heh.

      ****************************************************

      Bottom line: Trump let us down, here. Why?? Only speculation about that, so far.

      • Pruitt made his name fighting the EPA in his home state. I doubt it would play well at home if he were to do nothing now that he can make a difference. Voters have shown that right now they don’t want middle-of-the-roaders, and Republicans have always (Dole, McCain, Romney) lost when they try to move center.

      • RWTurner and DJHawkins: That’s great to hear! Thank you for sharing. Let’s hope Mr. Delingpole was largely mistaken there.

        Dear Gloomy cEeyoreBob:

        Cheer up! :) All will be well. It’s just a matter of time.

        Since you apparently missed them, here are the two songs I posted for you a few days ago — again. :)

        (I’m the little girl sitting directly behind Mr. Sinatra — and, Bobby, I’m SURE you were that slightly skeptical kid with the wonderful grin just to his left :) — that kid is still in there somewhere: listen to him!!)
        “High Hopes”

        (youtube)

        And!

        Let’s join with Mr. Francisco at the top of the thread and

        “Accentuate the Positive” — sung by Peggy Lee

        (youtube)

        Truth is WINNING (it always does, in the end)!

        #(:))

        ************************************

        @ anyone getting a bit down these days — reflect on this amazing fact:

        TRUMP WON.

        Selah.

        Good things, MORE good things, are ahead!

      • Stephen Rasey makes a very good point here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/28/trump-to-sign-energy-independence-executive-order-today-killing-obama-climate-regs/#comment-2462332 which I overlooked —

        to prevent another envirostalinist administration from easily dragging out the human CO2 “endangerment” gun again, Pruitt is wise to push for Congress to pass legislation against that junk science “finding.”

        (in the meantime, not enforcing it gets the job done….. for now…..)

      • Glad you enjoyed those, cBob. Thanks for letting me know and thank you for your cheerful little ditty.

    • The problem is that these people have no problem butchering anything they see fit as long as it serves their purpose, and that includes language, i.e. ocean acidification, carbon pollution, etc. Under the general definition of pollution, everything is pollution. Water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, they’re all potentially harmful and poisonous in the right concentrations. The EPA could simply give ‘pollution’ a more precise definition, e.g. the substances harmfulness outweighs its benefits at naturally occurring historical concentrations, and voila, CO2 is no longer a pollutant.

      • Drinking water in large quantities will kill,
        Not drinking water will kill,
        EPA ( maybe Vodka )

    • The EPA would have to go through a formal process to rescind the bogus endangerment finding. They would have to be able to demonstrate that the rescission was not “arbitrary and capricious”… Which kind of sucks, because Lisa Jackson’s bogus endangerment finding was the poster child for “arbitrary and capricious.”

      The EPA could base the rescission on three very solid arguments:

      1) The total failure of the climate models. CO2-driven models forecast far more warming than has actually occurred.
      2) The recent observation-derived climate sensitivity estimates. TCR ~1.3 C, ECS <2 C.
      3) The application of a realistic discount rate of at least 7% to the social cost of carbon (SCC).

      • Actually, if the standard of review is, indeed, “arbitrary and capricious,” it is a low standard to meet (the lowest, in fact). That is, only if Pruitt’s review had essentially nothing to support it (and there is MUCH evidence, I have a lot listed in my memorandum about this topic) would it be struck down as “arbitrary and capricious.”

        The next level of review is “rational basis” — it would pass that level of review easily, also.

        Finally, even under “strict scrutiny,” the highest level of review, I think a review of the HORRIBLY ULTRA VIRES, UNSUPPORTED, EPA “finding” about CO2 would pass “strict scrutiny,” also.

        So! Good news! All it takes is the will and we can get it done!

      • This would take a while. Trump hasn’t been in 100 days yet. Draining a swamp does not occur overnight, yet a slow drain is apparently considered a “betrayal”. Perhaps a more realistic view of how long swamp-draining takes is in order.

      • In case what you meant by standard of review was what Pruitt, et al. have to meet in a judicial review of the ultra vires EPA “finding,” here is some background reading (just FYI, not aimed at you, Mr. Middleton — just in case your comment raised more questions than it answered for some people):

        II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
        [See also III. Clean Air Act at B.]

        1. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §706
        “The reviewing court shall – (1) compel agency action … [OR]
        (2) … set aside agency action … found to be –
        (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law

        2. Chevron 2-Prong Review of Agency Rulemaking

        The threshold test is whether Congress directly addressed the precise matter; if so, end of inquiry – follow Congress’ specific mandate. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 { } (1984).

        {Note: That is why Pruitt wants Congress to act, here.}

        If not, then:

        – Explicit, statute-required, agency discretion is controlling unless “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Chevron at 843-44.
        – Implicit agency discretion is controlling unless unreasonable. Id. ***

        (2) CAA {Clean Air Act} on Science to Be Fully Considered

        “Air quality criteria for an air pollutant shall accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge… .” 42 U.S.C. 85 §7408(a)(2).

        Comment: As a result of the EPA Administrator’s excluding from record much valid, well-respected, widely held, scientific analysis: 1) the record was grossly biased and incomplete; and 2) therefore, the CO2 rule was not promulgated in a rational, careful (i.e., non-negligent) manner. …

        ***
        4) Massachusetts v. EPA “endangerment” standard

         CAA {Clean Air Act} §7521(a)(1) authorizes regulation of vehicle emissions that may “endanger public health or welfare” including a GHG if it creates an “endangerment.” Massachusettsv. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 498 (2007) –Petitioner Utility Air Reg. Group Brief at 11)
         After Massachusetts, EPA decided that “GHG” emissions of motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably {(me) NOT reasonable – HERE IS WHERE FAILS RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW (= , thus, arbitrary and capricious and counter to evidence, too)} be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” per CAA §7521(a)(1). JA at 793, 821.

        EPA never found that motor vehicle “GHG” emissions affect, much less, significantly pollute, ambient air quality. (Utility Air Brief at 11) The EPA merely decided that such emissions affect global climate (Utility brief at 12) based on NO mechanism, just pure speculation…. ***

        B. CO2 as a Pollutant Lacks Rational Basis — Best Science

        …. 4. CO2 Science ….

        3) The EPA declared:

         that “[c]urrent and projected levels of ambient concentrations”of GHG’s (“GHG” defined by EPA in its tailoring rule as being dominated by CO2, JA* 290) do not cause adverse effects locally or regionally. JA at 1145. [Source: Petitioner Utility Air Regulatory Group brief, reported online by American Bar Assoc.] ***

        ***

        TWO MAIN ARGUMENTS against EPA Endangerment v. a v. GHG

        1. {No observation-based science} — “… the three “lines of evidence” from the administrative record that EPA relied on do not support the conclusion that manmade greenhouse gas emissions have caused climate warming… each line of evidence is demonstrably invalid.” Scientists Amici Brief at 4-5.
        — EPA’s 3 Lines of Evidence – Invalid – Just Plain Wrong – [likely SCOTUS say “that is Congress’ problem to solve”?]
        a. “Hot spot” – not observed in earth temperature data. [See Scientists Brief at 9-13]
        b. Unusual and dangerously high temperatures over last 50 years — not observed in best earth temperature data available [See Scientists Brief at 13- 16]
        c. IPCC Models – failed (CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.) — unfit for purpose – worse-than-useless simulations [Scientists Brief at 5 and at 16-20 – omits mentioning models’ failure to HINDcast]; See EPA record at 74 Fed. Reg. 66518 (2009).]
         EPA’S conclusion is, thus, invalid.

        2. Arbitrary and Capricious – NO RATIONAL BASIS [See See Scientists Brief at 6-7, and 22- ]

        – “EPA refused to examine “relevant data,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513 (2009) (quoting Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Assn. of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)), and made other procedural errors. Scientists Brief at 6. “Because evidence EPA had available to it contradicts EPA’s ultimate conclusion,” Scientists at 6-7, “EPA’s Endangerment Finding is not “rational,” but arbitrary and capricious. Fox, 556 U.S., at 516.” Scientists Brief at 6.

        Clean Air Act 42 USC 85 §7607(d)(9)

        – “(9) In the case of review of any action of the Administrator to which this subsection applies, the court may reverse any such action found to be-
        – (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;

        ***

        Evidence of Illegal Rulemaking Process

        Clean Air Act 42 USC 85 §7607(d)(5)

        “(5) In promulgating a rule to which this subsection applies: (i) the Administrator shall allow any person to submit written comments, data, or documentary information;

         “EPA’s own Inspector General, in a procedural review issued in September 2011[Procedural Review of EPA’s Greenhouse Gases Endangerment Finding Data Quality Processes, Report No. 11-P-0702, at 36 (Sept. 26, 2011) at: epa.gov/oig/reports/2011/20110926-11-P-07 02.pdf]

        faulted EPA for procedural deficiencies including the refusal to use the Scientific Advisory Board process.” Scientists Brief at 22. “In particular, the Inspector General criticized EPA for failing to follow all recommended steps for an external peer review by independent experts. See Inspector General’s Report, at 36.” Scientists at 23.

        ***

        3. Conclusion – “In short, EPA’s process was far less rigorous than it should and could have been. And the [C]ourt of [A]ppeals erred in failing to recognize the deficiencies in it.” Scientists at 24.

        ************************************************************

        Note: The above discussion is largely about judicial review. The EPA can revisit its own policies. We are in a new era, now. Before, we could not look to the EPA to do anything rational about human CO2, given the administration’s bent for pseudo science-based regulation designed to create artificial market share for its enviroprofiteer cronies. NOW, we need not rely on the judiciary to rescue our economy from bogus rule making. That is, much of the above discussion is moot at this time (i.e., just FYI).

      • Dear Mr. Middleton,

        I think I mis-read your comment and want beg your pardon (for the first comment, which was not a response to what you intended to say, if I’m not mistaken (again — blush)).

        Hoping my second comment did your comment justice,

        Janice

      • As I recall, in order for the Administrator of the EPA to shoehorn CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, the EPA had to disregard maximum amounts of emissions per source. If Congress intended CO2 to be a pollutant, then by the parameters of the law, nearly everything would need a permit or exemption.

        For starters, establishing GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles would by definition make CO2 a CAA-regulated air pollutant. As such, CO2 would automatically be “subject to regulation” under the Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program. Under the CAA, any firm that plans to build a new “major stationry source,” or modify an existing source in a way that would significantly increase emissions, must first obtain a PSD permit from EPA or a state environmental agency.

        A PSD source is “major” if it is in one of 28 listed categories and has a potential to emit 100 tons per year (TPY) of a CAA-regulated air pollutant, or if it is any other type of establishment and has a potential to emit 250 TPY.

        And there’s the rub. Whereas only large industrial facilities have a potential to emit 250 TPY of air contaminants such as sulfur dioxide or particulate matter, an immense number and variety of entities–office buildings, hotels, big box stores, enclosed malls, small manufacturing firms, even commercial kitchens–have a potential to emit 250 TPY of CO2. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study estimates that 1.2 million previously unregulated buildings and facilities actually emit 250 TPY of CO2. All would be vulnerable to new PSD regulation, controls, paperwork, and penalties.
        — source: CO2 Regulation under the Clean Air Act

        I believe that the EPA fudged/defended the action by unilaterally changing the threshold to something like 25,000 TPY. Whatever they did, that 250 TPY figure was a problem and it is still in the law as a Sword of Damocles the EPA could let fall on the commerce of the USA.

    • While the Supreme Court ruling allowed the EPA to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, it doesn’t require them to do so.

      • Agreed. SCOTUS deferred to the Administrator of the EPA judgement of what was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. By implication, that means the Current Administrator can change it.

        However, the current Administrator, should put the matter before Congress and get it established as LAW, not administrative fiat that can be change in the next administration.

    • I’ll bet that you are guilty of farting too, just like all those cows in California. Ughh, how could you.

      • Are you high in methane? (I really don’t know. Since bovine digestion and diet is very different from humans, I don’t know that the waste gases are the same.)

    • Anthony R

      I was training staff on the use of a combustion analyser last week and demonstrated that I could get my exhaled breath up to 5% CO2 by taking a deep one.

      You knew you were guilty, now you know how bad you might be.
      :)

      You can ‘green’ yourself by breathing less.

  2. Tomorrow ? The 29th ? What a day to remember, our Prime Minister should be issuing the Article 50 letter to the EU as well. Perhaps we should have a combined day of celebration !

  3. Rather than Obamacare I’d would have started with the silly renewable energy program cancellation, and save billions in not time. Look at the pitiful performance of a life-long offshore wind farm announced on this forum earlier:
    Cost, capital $ 23,000,000*
    Capacity, nameplate 4.9 MW (11 turbines of 0.45 MW each)
    Output, lifetime 1.1 MW
    CF, lifetime . 1.1/4.9 = 22 %
    Cost per output 23/1.1 = 21 $/W*
    Cost per capacity 23/4.9 = 4.7 $/W*
    * in 2017 dollars

    As to nuclear plants (clean and green), one would expect their capital cost decreasing overtime as it is common with every machinery entering repeated production. And indeed it is so in South Korea. Why not in the US? One reason – we feed ever growing armies of lawyers, politicians and regulators that make good living on driving the cost up.

    • Part of the problem with nuclear was that there was so little carryover from one plant to the next. A lot of this had to do with the ever changing regulations.

  4. Has anyone ever tried to do an honest accounting for the social cost of CO2? One that accurately includes all the positive as well as negative impacts?
    Personally I’m confident that the final number will show that CO2 on net is a benefit to the planet and to mankind. But it would be nice to be able to put some hard numbers to that belief.

    • Having a scientifically valid review that shows that CO2 is actually a net benefit would go along way to building public support for reversing the CO2 endangerment finding.

    • While I personally believe higher CO2 is net beneficial, I don’t think it’s possible to produce “hard numbers” at this point. The effects and interactions of CO2 are just too complex. Despite what the alarmists want us to believe, we’re barely off the starting block in our understanding of climate and the biosphere.

      • Well, the costs are slightly above zero and the benefits are everything we have and do. That ‘s a start.

    • There’s a fairly simple calculation one can accomplish on the back of a beer mat.

      Do the combined, empirically proven, negative effects of increased atmospheric CO2 rival the 14% increase in vegetation over the last 30 years, 70% of which is directly credited to increased atmospheric CO2, as reported by NASA themselves.

      No. Not even close.

  5. I wonder if Trump is saving the “Walk Away From Paris” for Earth Day? Will be very funny if he does!

    Popcorn plan is being formulated!

    Ha ha :-)

  6. The story is based on a Bloomberg story, so one cannot really tell what Trump intends, as the Bloomberg organization is decidedly not tight with the Republicans.

    • You’re right, Bloomberg’s interpretation of events should be questioned as well as interpretations of anti-Trumpers at Fox News.

      Fox has been running with the Fake News Washington Post headline all day today claiming Trump tried to quash a Justice Department Official from testifying before Congress. The story is obviously bogus, yet here Fox is running the headline as a banner and giving it the appearance of credibilty. Don’t ask me why they are lending credibility to a story that has demonstrably twisted the truth.

      Fox was usually pretty solid on the reporting, but Trump has turned a lot, well, not a lot, but too many, of these Fox News people off and you can tell it in their attitudes. So question the reporting you get from Fox News, too. When I see an anti-Trumper on Fox, I change the channel. I don’t watch much Fox News during the daytime on weekends for that reason, although the Fox and Friends early program is great, no anti-Trumpers there.

      People really need to question what they are reading today. Do not take most of it at face value, especially if it is detrimental to Trump or helpful of the Liberal/Left cause. In those cases, what you are mostly hearing and seeing are lies.

  7. I agree these actions are long overdue. I would also agree however with other commenters regarding the CO2 endangerment finding. It is a lynchpin in the whole global warming mythology, and one which many voters and legislators still believe to be true. It would be very helpful for the Trump administration to seek reversal of that finding in a very public, science-validated way so that anyone willing to listen to logical evidence can know why all the other moves to deregulate energy make sense and are, in fact, in the best interests of all but the rent seekers living off the new religion.

  8. The BBC also reported, showing a photo of steam being vented to the atmosphere. It wasn’t the usual taken-at-sunset-to-make-white-steam-look-like-black-smoke, but still gray and described as coming from coal-fired plant. Comments not yet allowed of course.

  9. I bet Anthony like typing those first three words: President Donald Trump.

    Here here!!

    I would like to know what virus exists in the “Deep State” such to confound Trump’s uprooting of Obama effect. You know, the bureaucrat people, committed to the Green religion who feel justified to be obstructionists. Who are they? Names please.

  10. Next on the agenda should be creating a law so that the self-proclaimed Lorax can no longer sue the government on behalf of their abstract idea of Gaia. These luddites are guilty of squandering tax coffers and hindering advancement of society, and should be in some dirt floored (so they can feel close to the Earth) prison somewhere rotting away.

  11. If the U.S. kills the Clean Power Plan, then I guess that means the U.S. cannot meet the obligations Obama agreed to in the Paris Agreement.

    • Or, is the U.S. converting to natural gas so quickly that we will meet the “obligation” anyway? We are already ahead of the game in reducing CO2 by converting to natural gas.

      • OTOH, if many of the new gas-power plants replace old nuclear plants, that will offset conversions of coal power plants to gas.

      • I did some calculations on that. About 1/3 of the remaining coal fleet is due to retire because of age by 2025. Replacement CCGT produces about 35% the CO2 emissions of old coal. Electricity generation is, per EPA, ~30% of emissions. So the shift to CCGT maybe cuts an additional 7-8%, far below Obummer’s foolish commitment.

      • @ristvan. I don’t want to subsidize coal production. But I do not want to burden it with unnecessary environmental or regulatory costs. Now that we are out of the coal-fired-steam engine world, the best use for coal is in base-load electrical generation where you can properly mitigate the particulate emissions.
        Natural Gas… well you CAN use that as a transportation fuel, unlike coal.

        I’m a free marketer. If the price of coal cannot compete with the price of natural gas, well then coal deposits will have to stay in the ground a few more decades. But I lived through the Ford-Carter days of gas supply cutbacks. If my life depends upon it, I still want a mountain of coal next to a power plant. And that means we keep the coal mines open.

      • SR;
        Only with a hi-pressure ‘gas’ tank. Don’t get side-swiped or T-boned — the shrapnel would endanger bystanders!

  12. The Progressives will just take this to some Progressive Federal judge who will create some new reason out of thin air (rather than the law) to overturn it.

  13. Today is the beginning of the end of falsified science, as has been practiced, preached and set forward by Hansen, Mann, Weaver, Gore, Suzuki et al, etc etc. History will record how a small band of activist scientists almost hijacked the scientific process while trying to set a global policy that would have demonized our use of fossil fuels, the energy source that has given birth to the modern world as we know it. Let us ensure that this never happens again, that a small clique of agenda driven scientific hacks and quacks, ever get to set any global agenda by deliberately misrepresenting and falsifying science to advance their goals.

  14. Can’t have the whole cake at once. This is a tasty slice with much more to come. Imagine if the election had gone the other way. We would be hungry. Thank You President Trump.

  15. D. J. Hawkins said:

    “Voters have shown that right now they don’t want middle-of-the-roaders, and Republicans have always (Dole, McCain, Romney) lost when they try to move center.”

    If you sit in the middle of the road, you are likely to get run over. The examples above support that point.

  16. As to meeting goals Obama agreed to under the Paris Climate Accord. Anyone wondering how the US is going to do that should speak with the one US citizen who agreed to it. He can explain what steps he plans to take. Good luck.

    • I heard someone say today that even if the Clean Power Plan were continued, that the U.S. wouldn’t be able to meet Obama’s committment to the Paris Agreement (about a 25 percent reduction from today’s CO2 levels by the year 2030).

  17. Well, we’ll see…

    Whatever happens the coal industry will not get revived and it is unlikely it will even do much to extend the life of remaining coal power plants.

    There are sufficient states to carry forward renewables roll out and there are an awful lot of court cases to get through before any of it sticks.

    • I love the way Griff just assumes that any trend that exists today will continue forever.
      When the demand for natural gas goes up enough, so will the price. As the demand for coal continues to drop, so will the price. At some point in the time, the two curves will cross again and coal powered plants will start to make a comeback.

      • This is the diluded vision of many climate zealots. this is why the period of cooling from 1950 to 1978 was going to usher in a “New Ice Age” and also why the warming from 1978 to 1998 was going to have catastrophic results by 2000, 2002, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2015, sometime soon and why the “Pause” had to be adjusted away at the onset of the Adjustocene

      • Well, yes…

        But by the point the gas goes up how many coal plants left?

        and given the lag to build a coal plant and declining cost of renewables, why build a coal plant?

        a gas hike will then be an incentive to more renewables

      • This declining cost of renewables exists almost entirely in your head.
        There’s still the problem of providing power for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind isn’t blowing. And no, batteries will not be a solution to that problem any time in the foreseeable future.
        They need an entirely new currently unknown technology to handle that problem.

    • Renewables …. Griff you are funny! With the exception of hydro electric your renewables are a sick joke …. and a very expensive joke.

      • It’s ironic – hydro is a very good source of energy if you have access to it, so naturally, here in the Northwest, it’s NOT considered ‘green’ and the primary political movement is to faze it out.
        The only one that actually works.

      • The point being Mark and Joel that countries keep seeing/setting new records in the amount of renewable energy they produce and the amount of demand this meets…

        The UK’s use of coal power has plummeted since last year (and no blackouts).

        There are still wind power projects equivalent to 1.5 times the current installed base in the pipeline. The National Grid is purchasing its first large scale amounts of grid storage, there are tidal schemes coming online and proposals for GWs worth of new interconnectors to share renewables across W Europe.

        So too in Germany, Spain, etc, etc across Europe.

        Now look at the US and the chances for renewables there and the probable decline of coal power there…

        This is NOT going to get overturned by the Trump declaration, is it?

  18. Aka the un-Jimmy Carter Independence Plan and the un-Voldemort, lunatic plan of Trump’s predecessor who must not be named.

  19. It will be fun watching the democrats try to explain why President Trump can’t unilaterally cancel the unilateral executive orders of President Obama.

    • It’s like disagreeing with a president is the highest form of patriotism when there is a Republican president, and a form of treason when there’s a Democrat president.

    • Interesting about the Mercers, Mr. Knights. Their actions (i.e., their investing heavily in both junk science promoters like BEST and in science realist groups like Heartland) say: “We just want to keep this controversy alive.”

      Apparently, they simply want to keep media/book/other communication view and or sales volumes UP (along with the ad sales based on those media sales).

      I’ve sensed this in some of the lukewarmer skeptics, at times. They care more about selling something or making money in some way off the AGW controversy itself than about getting the facts about human CO2 out there.

      Examples:

      — those selling battery (or energy storage) tech
      — those selling books or temperature data products
      — those making money or gaining publicity in other ways/for other reasons

  20. If healthcare is any indication, and I believe it is, one cannot expect meaningful leadership from DJT. He is a demagogue and a liar.
    He routinely fails and blames it on others. He routinely lies and dismisses it as the words of others.
    I’m not sure what anyone would expect from a man of very low character.
    This is the first election I did not vote, and I won’t vote in 2020 if he is a candidate.

    • So, you were for Hillary. That we know for sure. To not vote for Trump was to make it more likely that she would win. I’m assuming you were bright enough to realize that (that was not sarcastic).

      That is, you did not choose DJT as many did, as “the lesser of two evils.” Thus, you were FOR Hillary (again, I’m assuming you are not stupid).

      And that makes your criticism of him pretty meaningless.

      • It of course is not meaningless. He can’t even obtain a consensus in his own party. So far his administration is inept. I do hope he learns, but I don’t think he’s learned anything. Donald’s pride will prevent him from doing anything meaningful.
        Whenever his ego get hurt he lashes out, blames insults and demeans people.
        He’ll be like lucky to be able to get the Oval Office carpet cleaned in the next four years.

      • Before you know it, Trump will have managed to get both Obama and Hillary indicted for some of their crimes. Well, maybe not Obama, since Obama was probably smart enough not to leave his personal fingerprints on anything, but some of his minions should definitely be getting nervous. Hillary wasn’t that smart. She left fingerprints.

        Trump has also caused the MSM to practically self-destruct with their frenzied, blatant lying, and frantic efforts to pin something, anything, on Trump and deflect attention from the real issues like Obama administration corruption and law breaking.

        As for the Health Care law, the Republicans only needed about 15 more votes to get the bill passed in the House. It would have probably died in the Senate anyway. It was not the right bill. And the bill was certainly not handled properly and that’s not Trump’s fault. It’s not up to him to move the bill through the House in the proper way. I’m betting Trump is going to be a lot more handson in the future, as he sees what happens when he is hands off.

        I want to know more about the Kansas doctor that is offering medical insurance for $50 per month per adult and $10 per month per child, which pays *all* medical expenses you incur and does not include any deductibles. It does not cover catastrophic care, but they have a separate policy that covers that. The doctor said he was able to offer these low prices because he negotiated deals with various insurance companies. He also negotiated with drug companies and his costs are “pennies on the dollar” compared to the average drug prices. And this guy did all this under the current atmosphere of Obamacare. In other words, Obamacare was not an obstacle to him setting up this inexpensive health insurance plan.

        Sean Hannity of Fox News has been promoting this guy and his methods for a couple of months now, and now, the governor of Mississippi says he is going to try to implement something similar across his whole state. While we are waiting for Congress to get their act together, perhaps it would be worthwhile to explore this man’s alternative. Looks like it may happen in Mississippi.

      • Grant, Pop. vote, Trump lost the US by 2.9M, SoCal by 4.4M. I.e., he won the Rest of the US (including NY!) by 1.5M! Put that in your *** and ***** it!

  21. You can wait on the side of the road for a leader more to your liking. As for me, I’ll follow this one He’s going in the direction I was heading in.

    • He’s already blown what little political clout he had. Washington ain’t Wall Street and politicians are quickly realizing that he’s politically toxic.

      • And don’t get me started on the travel ban. I’ll-conceived, rushed, foolish, without any regard for the political, legal and real consequences. Your confidence is misplaced.

      • Why was the ban “I’ll conceived”? Yeah, I know you meant “ill conceived.”
        Doesn’t the United States have a right to control its borders?

        How come you didn’t complain when Obama was droning people to death in the 7 countries named by Trump?
        Why is the travel ban presented by the rabid left as some kind of horrible, racist, bigoted act, while Obama’s proud slaughter of innocent men, women and children was given a free pass?

        A temporary travel ban lasting about the same time it would take to travel to the United States prior to the invention of jetliners: how shocking and awful!

        Personal, I’d rather be banned from visiting a country than droned to death. I suspect most humans feel the same way – except the rabid left.

      • And it’s a moratorium, a temporary restriction. It’s a bilge pump to keep the boat afloat while you work out how to repair the leak. Calling it a ‘ban’ is disingenuous language that the fair-minded need to avoid.

    • A Republican president can do no right and a Democrat president can do no wrong, doncha know.

  22. . US President Donald Trump ordered on 28 March 2017 changes in Obama-era climate policy. The items broadly covered are emission rules for power plants , limits on methane leaks , a moratorium on coal leasing and the use of the social cost of carbon to guide Govt action. One news media view is that some of President Obama’s climate policies may prove harder to uproot than thought. Of precise relevance to the said announcement by President Trump on 28 March 2017 are the interesting predictions of this Vedic astrology writer in article – “ Astrological probable alerts for US in 2017” – submitted for publication last year in October and published in December 2016 issue of wisdom-magazine.com. The article can be reached by first going to the website of the said said magazine , then ticking on “ Articles Archives” followed by a further ticking on “ Heavens”. The following text applicable to the announcement made on 28 March 2017 is reproduced here from the article : “ The months of February- March 2017 look to be bringing to surface for US . . . . ambitious projects relating to power generation or nuclear energy may meet with delay. Also , take more care while handling chemicals or nuclear energy”. In substance , the prediction was that in February –March 2017 , energy resources having much to do with Obama-era climate change policy may undergo material changes , which could encounter delay or some opposing stances. And that appears likely. The point is to let readers know the accuracy of the prediction.

    • Dear Moderator,

      Please delete the above comment (kk at 6:18pm). Talking about astrology “predicting” anything is (to me) unhelpful at best and detrimental to getting the truth about science out at worst (actually, the worst would be if a child or young person reading this were led into dabbling in astrology).

      Thanks for considering my request.

      THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO TO KEEP THE WUWT SHIP AFLOAT!!

      Janice

      • Now now, Janice, advocating censorship, no matter how well-intentioned, is not the Way. :)

        Better a dozen ridiculous statements be uttered, than one profound statement be silenced, because it looked ridiculous at first glance.

      • Sorry, Mr. Nicolson, but when it comes to what I consider very wicked (here, astrology), I am for censorship.

        I also realize that this is not my site. So, there you go.

      • I doubt many people even bothered reading past the first sentence or two.
        Beyond the extreme formatting issues, the text itself was confusing and rambling.

  23. I really think Trump’s administration is going about this the wrong way. First they need to get some skeptical science facts out into the public view. They can then use that science to support their changes. Right now they are letting all their critics get away with claiming Trump is anti-science.

    Get some skeptics into NOAA and NASA and have them highlight satellite data instead of surface data. Put forward Dr. Gray’s hypothesis for negative feedback. There’s lots that could be done and could then be pointed to when the liberal press attacks them.

    • I gather there are about 5,000 sub-cabinet posts yet to be Senate-approved, with no nominees yet!

Comments are closed.