The GOP won't stop Obama because they owe him big time for helping them defeat the Tea Party in 2012:
6/6/13, "Obama administration raises the ‘social cost’ of CO2," Daily Caller, Michael Bastasch
"In a little-noticed move, the White House raised the “social cost
” estimate for carbon dioxide emissions all federal agencies must use when formulating regulations.
The White House Office of Management and Budget
raised the social cost of carbon — a monetary estimate of the damages
caused by carbon emissions — from $21 per metric ton to $35 per metric
ton, which some experts say could allow the White House to move forward
with greenhouse gas limits on power plants.
“The big regulatory action that they’re looking at — that would
certainly would be the most costly and have the biggest impact on the
economy — are the rules for new and existing power plants,” Jeff
Holmstead, air quality chief at the Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush, told the Hill.
“It certainly gives them a justification to be more aggressive than they otherwise would be,” Holmstead added.
If the social cost of carbon is raised, it is more likely that the costs of imposing emissions limits on power plants would be lower than the claimed benefits.
“I think the White House is clearly now saying there is a much higher
social cost from greenhouse gas emissions than previously acknowledged.
That means it really puts the heat on the EPA to move soon and
aggressively,” Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, told the
Hill.
“The White House will look very weak-kneed and foolish if it doesn’t
do something about existing power plants, based on this new analysis,”
O’Donnell added.
The administration’s pending emissions limits have been challenged by
states and industry who argue that the new regulations would cause more
coal plants to shut down and increase energy costs.
The rule would effectively ban the construction of coal plants by
limiting emissions to 1,000 pounds-per-megawatt-hour — which can only be
met by combined-cycle power plants that are powered by natural gas.
Coal plants must use carbon capture and sequestration technology in
order to comply, which the industry claims is not commercially viable.
“The new regulations attempt to force standards on coal emissions
that would not only be incredibly expensive, but impossible to achieve
even with advanced technology,” said West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe
Manchin. “Even worse, there would be no benefit from these new
regulations.”
Earlier this year, the administration missed the deadline to finalize
the new greenhouse gas rules for new power plants, and the final rule
is still pending." via Mark Levin
==============================
The whole point of regulating CO2 was based on the idea or hypothesis that it caused global warming. Unfortunately, that hasn't worked out. The overwhelming scientific consensus says the planet completely stopped warming 15 to 17 years ago:
2/22/13, UN IPCC chief Pachauri says there’s been no warming for 17 yrs. The Australian
1/18/13, UK Met Office says no warming since 1998, Der Spiegel (chart below, Met Office)
1/18/13, Met Office sees no warming in sight until at least the end of 2017: “The British Met Office forecast even more recently that the temperature interval could continue at a high level until the end of 2017 – despite the rapidly increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Then global warming would pause 20 years.” …Der Spiegel
1/18/13, NASA says no warming for 15 yrs. Der Spiegel
======================================
“Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years.”…
12/11/12, 134 scientists in letter to UN Sec. Gen., ask him to stop alarmist speech in light of 16 yrs. with no global warming, includes NOAA citation:
“The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.”…(2nd parag. fr. end of letter). “Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years.”…
==================================
3/30/13, NASA, James Hansen, “5 year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade” (The Economist)
5/26/13, Lord Stern says “global warming ‘fairly flat’ for 10 years, UK Telegraph
3/30/13, Ed Hawkins, University of Reading, UK, “Temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections
derived from 20 climate models. (see chart). If they remain flat, they
will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.” The Economist, Chart showing no warming since 1998:
Chart, Univ. of Reading UK from The Economist
=========================
.
Even if warming hadn't stopped, US CO2 has plunged while global CO2 has increased.
6/4/12, "Climate change stunner: USA leads world in CO2 cuts since 2006," Vancouver Observer, Saxifrage
"Not only that, but as my top chart shows, US CO2 emissions are falling even faster than what President Obama pledged in the global Copenhagen Accord."... Here is the biggest shocker of all: the average American’s CO2 emissions are down to levels not seen since 1964 --over half a century ago. …Coal is the number two source of CO2 for
Americans. Today the average American burns an amount similar to what
they did in 1955, and even less than they did in the 1940s. …It is
exactly America’s historical role of biggest and dirtiest that
makes their sharp decline in CO2 pollution so noteworthy and potentially game changing at the global level.”...
===============================
Goldman Sachs created the so-called carbon market:
7/02/09, "The Great American Bubble Machine: How Goldman Sachs has Engineered Every Major Market Manipulation Since the Great Depression," Rolling Stone, by Matt Taibbi
"A groundbreaking new commodities bubble,
The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman,
If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices
will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game.
It will be rigged in advance."...
.
===============================
.
8/16/12, “AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low,” AP, Kevin Begos
.
“In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years."...
================================
News of US CO2 plunge has been described as:
=================================
Unfortunately, the following about "the social cost of carbon" isn't based on current science:
"The social cost of carbon may be the most important number you’ve
never heard of."
2/24/2010, "What is the social cost of carbon?" Grist, Frank Anderson
"The social cost of carbon may be the most important number you’ve
never heard of. U.S. climate legislation is stalled in Congress, but in
the meantime, the Obama administration is trying to fill the gap by
considering climate impacts in the regulatory process: from the tailpipe
emissions limits and gas mileage standards unveiled April 1, to
energy-efficiency standards for many types of residential appliances and
commercial equipment.
.
This is important work; U.S. action to reduce greenhouse-gas
emissions is long overdue, and it’s crucial in the global picture, both
because of our large share of total emissions, and because of our
ability to influence other nations. But it’s also important to do this
right, and a look at how the administration has handled the social cost
of carbon (SCC) raises some serious concerns.
The SCC is the estimated price of the damages caused by each ton of
carbon dioxide (CO2) released into the atmosphere. In cost-benefit
analysis of government regulations, it’s a sort of volume dial: The
higher the SCC, the more stringent the standards — if it’s $5, say, only
regulations that cost less than $5 to implement would be deemed
worthwhile; if it’s $500, the demands imposed on polluters could be
correspondingly greater. (With no price on carbon emissions at all, of
course, the effective price is $0, and no reductions are “worthwhile.”)"...
======================
China's CO2 has skyrocketed. US CO2 could go to zero and it would have no effect on global CO2--but it doesn't cause warming anyway! This is a massive crime against the poor and middle class which has enriched millionaires and billionaires. The GOP won't stop it because they owe Obama for helping them beat the Tea Party:
Obama re-election helped GOP House Speaker Boehner: NPR
12/8/12, "Once Boxed-In, Boehner May Finally Be Master Of The House," NPR, Frank James
"In a paradoxical way, Obama's re-election victory coupled with
congressional Democrats adding to their numbers may have helped Boehner.
Some of those wins came at the expense of the Tea Party, the
conservative movement whose affiliated House members have been very
willing to stand up to Boehner.
In recent weeks, Boehner...has gotten his entire leadership team to sign his tax-raising,
fiscal-cliff counteroffer....
Despite complaints from conservative activists and bloggers, however, Boehner remains the most powerful Republican in Washington."
========================
Fossil fuel billionaire-backed Bill McKibben advocates for the group "21 Hours" and a 21 hour work week. McKibben and his business partner, fossil fuel billionaire David Rockefeller, are remaking the US without the mess of elections:
On June 8, 2012, Bill McKibben spoke at a conference put on by the New Economics Foundation. The Foundation seeks "to achieve social justice globally" (p. 6) by making a 21 hour work week standard. They say economic growth must be reduced to save the planet and increase equality:
"21 Hours," by the New Economics Foundation, "Why a shorter working week can help us all to flourish in the 21st century"
p. 2, "The vision"
"Moving towards much shorter hours of paid work (21 hrs. per wk.) offers a new route out of the multiple crises we face today. Many of us are consuming well beyond our economic means and
well beyond the limits of the natural environment, yet in ways that
fail to improve our well-being – and meanwhile many others suffer
poverty and hunger. Continuing economic growth in high-income countries will make it impossible to achieve urgent carbon reduction targets."...
========================
To defray costs of alleged CO2 induced droughts and flood damage alleged to be caused by microwave ovens and other items,
Obama adds carbon penalty or tax:
Update, 6/12/13, "Obama Quietly Raises 'Carbon Price' as Costs to Climate Increase," Bloomberg, Drajem
"Buried in a little-noticed rule on microwave ovens is a change in the U.S. government’s accounting for carbon emissions that could have wide-ranging implications for everything from power plants to the Keystone XL pipeline.
The
increase of the so-called social cost of carbon, to $38 a metric ton in
2015 from $23.80, adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh
costs and benefits of proposed regulations. The figure is meant to
approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and
diminished crops.
With the change, government actions
that lead to cuts in emissions -- anything from new mileage standards
to clean-energy loans -- will appear more valuable in its cost-benefit
analyses. On the flip side, environmentalists urge that it be used to
judge projects that could lead to more carbon pollution, such as TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone pipeline or coal-mining by companies such as Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) on public lands, which would be viewed as more costly.
“As
we learn that climate damage is worse and worse, there is no direction
they could go but up,” Laurie Johnson, chief economist for climate at
the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview. Johnson says the administration should go further; she estimates the carbon cost could be as much as $266 a ton.
Even supporters questioned the way the administration slipped the
policy out without first opening it for public comment. The change was
buried in an afternoon announcement on May 31 about efficiency standards
for microwave ovens, a rule not seen as groundbreaking.
“This is a very strange way to make policy about something this important,” Frank Ackerman, an economist at Tufts University
who published a book about the economics of global warming, said in an
interview. The Obama administration “hasn’t always leveled with us about
what is happening behind closed doors.”
Industry representatives are equally puzzled.
“It’s a pretty important move. To do this without any outside participation is bizarre,” said Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer at
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP (1222L)
representing coal-dependent power producers and other industry groups.
A
legal challenge to the determination would be difficult, but could be
tried by itself or in a challenge to a specific rulemaking that uses the
cost, he said.
The administration first arrived at this calculation in 2010
using “leading expert models” and updated it “applying the same methods
and assumptions,” Office of Management and Budget spokeswoman Ari
Isaacman Astles said in an e-mail.
The Economic Report of the
President in March said
the administration would update estimates “as
new scientific and economic analysis become available.”
The
administration’s new carbon cost is key to a wide range of policies,
which get subject to cost-benefit analysis in the rulemaking process or
at OMB. Obama is considering more energy efficiency standards for
everything from buildings to vending machines.
In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency is late on issuing rules to cap greenhouse-gas emissions from new power plants,
a standard that would preclude the construction of new coal-fired power
plants that don’t have expensive carbon-capture technology. Lobbyists
representing companies such as
American Electric Power Co. (AEP) and
Southern Co. (SO) have urged the EPA to scale back that plan.
In each of these cases, the carbon costs would help determine if the administration would act, and how far to go.
For example, the administration’s vehicle fuel-efficiency standards
would cost industry $350 billion over the next 40 years, while benefits
in
energy security,
less congestion and lower pollution totaled
$278 billion, according to a
regulatory analysis using the prior carbon cost estimates cited in a
paper by administration economists. It’s only by including
the $177
billion in benefits from less carbon dioxide that the rules provide a
net benefit to the country, according to the
paper by
Michael Greenstone, now an
economics professor at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The government-wide assessment should be used by Obama in deciding whether to approve TransCanada (TRP)’s Keystone pipeline from the oil sands of
Alberta to refiners along the Gulf of Mexico or by Interior Department in deciding leases for coal mining on public lands, according to environmental activists.
According to the EPA,
Keystone could lead to 935 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide
emissions over 50 years, putting the cost according to this latest
calculation at more than $37 billion.
This calculation is under dispute,
as the State Department says in its own analysis that the pipeline
won’t lead to additional production of
oil sands.
“We recommend using monetized estimates of the social cost of the
(greenhouse gas) emissions from a barrel of oil sands crude compared to
average U.S. crude,” the EPA said in its submission to the State
Department. It made a similar request in 2011, and the State Department
didn’t include it in its draft assessment.
And if Obama approves
the pipeline, the higher carbon-cost estimate could to be a part of any
lawsuit challenging the decision, according to Bill Snape, senior
counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity.
“It won’t be a game changer, but it would help” in any legal challenge, he said.
The increase in the estimate is being cheered by environmentalists as one small sign that President Barack Obama
is going to make good on a pledge from his inaugural address to tackle
global warming in the face of opposition from Republicans in Congress.
“Four
months ago, President Obama spoke of our obligation to combat climate
change, saying failure to do so would betray our children and future
generations,” filmmaker Robert Redford said in a statement released by NRDC yesterday. “I just hope he has the courage of his convictions.”" via Tom Nelson
.
No comments:
Post a Comment