News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Curbelo R-Fla. and Costello R-Pa. deny massive, ongoing "climate action" by US taxpayers: $586 million US taxpayer dollars daily, 365 days a year are diverted by the fed. government to the "climate" danger industry as of 2014, dollars that once went to hungry children, education, the poor. Curbelo and Costello must stop their denial and demand at least $100 million daily reduction of gluttonous climate spending at the expense of hungry children

Each day, 365 days a year, $586 million US taxpayer dollars are diverted by the federal government to alleged "climate" danger spending as of 2014. That's $21.4 billion for the year, per Congressional Research Service.

page 3, 2014 "Federal Climate Change" taxpayer funding requested:

$11.6 billion + 9.8 billion= $21.4 billion for the year. This doesn't include additional monies allocated by Congress, monies taken out of the economy via regulation (such as $18 billion removed from the economy in 2012 via costly new alleged environmental regulations), monies diverted by US states and regions, and federal monies not reported for miscellaneous reasons.


Sept. 13, 2013, "Federal Climate Change Funding from FY 2008 to FY 2014," Congressional Research Service

page 3: 

"The President’s request for FY2014 contains $11.6 billion for federal expenditures on programs. In the request, 23% would be for science (the U.S. Global Change Research Program or USGCRP), 68% for “clean energy” technology development and deployment, 8% for international assistance, and 1% for adapting to climate change. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also reports energy tax provisions that may reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would reduce tax revenues by $9.8 billion." [This added $9.8 billion removed from tax revenue via "energy tax provisions" isn't shown on chart below (from p. 3)].



4/22/2013, "Costs of New Regulations issued in 2012 dwarf those of previous years, according to OMB report," Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University


(chart from GWU)

2012's most costly regulations were issued by EPA:

One new regulation costs $10.8 billion annually (adds $1800 to the price of a new car). Another regulation costing $10 billion+ annually will increase electricity costs to consumers via added equipment requirements for electricity providers:

"Regulations of 2012"...

"The most costly regulations[10] were issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Topping the list were new automotive fuel-economy standards, issued jointly by the EPA and the Department of Transportation, which the EPA calculated will cost $10.8 billion annually. The bulk of this cost will fall on drivers, who will pay an estimated $1,800 more for a new vehicle.

Coming in a close second was the EPA’s so-called Utility MACT regulation[11] at more than $10 billion annually. This 210-page regulation requires utilities and other electricity generators that use fossil fuels to install the “maximum achievable control technology” (MACT) to limit emissions. So stringent are the standards that potentially dozens of coal-fired power plants will close, thereby undermining the reliability of the power grid and substantially raising the costs of electricity for consumers. The EPA is currently reconsidering the portion of this rule pertaining to new power plants, and has stayed its implementation of the rule for such facilities."...

May 1, 2013, "Red Tape Rising: Regulation in Obama’s First Term," Heritage Foundation, James Gattuso, Diance Katz



6/4/2012, "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.”...


US CO2 drops to 20 year low:

8/16/2012, "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, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.

Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide....

In a little-noticed technical report, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, a part of the Energy Department, said this month that energy related U.S. CO2 emissions for the first four months of this year fell to about 1992 levels. Energy emissions make up about 98 percent of the total. The Associated Press contacted environmental experts, scientists and utility companies and learned that virtually everyone believes the shift could have major long-term implications for U.S. energy policy....

Coal and energy use are still growing rapidly in other countries, particularly China, and CO2 levels globally are rising, not falling."... 


Desperately seeking "climate action"? You got it, thanks to George HW Bush and unlimited access to US taxpayer cash by the US political class. "Climate action" via US taxpayer dollars exploded in 1990 and has continued  (This chart, page 4, pdf, is an underestimate, doesn't include congressional appropriations):

"Note and Sources: The data shown here are funding disbursements by the White House U.S. Global Change Research Program and its predecessor, the National Climate Program, available at NCP 1988, 43; Climate Science Watch 2007; and Leggett, Lattanzio, and Bruner 2013. These data, however, do not represent congressional climate science funding appropriations to other government agencies. As we show later in a more detailed assessment of U.S. government climate science funding, the numbers here, especially those for more recent years, greatly underestimate the actual level of funding." pdf p. 4

Fall 2015, "Causes and Consequences of the Climate Science Boom,", Butos and McQuade

"Government policies and funding as well as the emergence of a scientific “Big Player” [UN IPCC] that has aggressively championed the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)1, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have together fomented a boom in climate science that began in the early 1990s and has grown markedly over the past decade."...

Image of Bush #1, "New World Order quotes" via You Tube



No comments:


Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.