On Tuesday at Georgetown University, Obama unilaterally declared war on coal and the U.S. economy, directing the Environmental Protection Agency to set limits on how much carbon electric power plants may emit.
He said he is doing this because “science, accumulated and reviewed over decades, tells us that our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on all of humankind.”
He said the 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years, Arctic ice is shrinking, New York Harbor is a foot higher than a century ago, 2012 was the warmest year in our history. “These are facts.”
He proclaimed there is no doubt. It is set in stone. No uncertainty whatsoever: “So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science — of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements — has put all that to rest. Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest. They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.”
Well, maybe there is a little doubt. A couple of days ago in an interview in Spiegel, Hans von Storch, a German climate scientist and empathic believer in the presence of anthropogenic planet warming, conceded that almost all the climate change models had predicted temperatures would rise 0.45 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 10 years, but instead the increase in the past 15 years was just 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit — almost zero.
This is a fact.
“If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models,” von Storch said. “A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”
Asked what could be wrong with the models, von Storch, replied, “There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”
So, those 97 percent of scientists might have been wrong, according one of the 97 percent.
Yet Obama shouts damn the costs and orders the EPA to push on, by passing Congress.
Sen. Dean Heller put out a statement Tuesday afternoon addressing the cost aspect of Obama’s unilateral move:
“Middle-class families across Nevada and this entire nation have already been forced to tighten their belts, and the last thing they need is to feel the squeeze of higher energy prices. Now, the President is using his executive orders to institute what amounts to a new tax on the American people, which would crush job growth and make life even more difficult for Nevadans. Instead of pursuing a far-left agenda with a new national energy tax, President Obama should focus on a comprehensive energy policy that allows us to develop our own resources, as well as find ways to develop renewable resources efficiently and affordably.”
Renewables cost double and triple what coal and natural gas cost to produce electricity, and there is no technology in sight to reduce the cost.
The cost-benefit ratio should be recalculated based on facts, not on flawed models and consensus.
Also Tuesday afternoon, I got an email from Barack. We’re on a first-name basis, you know.
I told Congress in February that if they didn’t take action to fight climate change, then I would.
Today, I announced a plan of action to make good on that promise.
My administration is taking steps to cut carbon pollution, prepare our nation for the unavoidable impact of climate change, and put America’s best and brightest to work to solve this issue on a global scale.
One thing we know is we’ll face a well-organized and well-financed opposition by the special interests that profit from keeping things the way they are — and there are members of Congress who fundamentally deny the science on this issue.
But we cannot stand by any longer.
I need to know you’ll fight alongside me. Say you will.
Over the next few months and years, I’m going to need the millions of OFA supporters who understand that we have a responsibility to future generations to fight climate change to join me, and be a force of change in your communities.
We owe it to our children and grandchildren to take action — and now is the time.
Today, I’m here to tell you I am committed to doing my part.
Say you’ll do yours:
What climate change, Barack?
For good measure, the folks at the Heritage Foundation report what glorious achievement this nation could achieve if we went to the extreme, far beyond what the president is dictating:
“But let’s pretend we were able to stop emitting all carbon immediately. Forget the electricity to cool our homes in the summer months. Shut down the power plants. Stop driving our cars. No talking. The Science and Public Policy Institute found that the global temperature would decrease by 0.17 degrees Celsius—by 2100. These regulations are all pain no gain.”
Read the interview.
I posted something, in part, very similar on this site just the other day. This is all theory and is being found to have major errors in assumptions all the time.
He even details the vengeful response to his own earlier statements.
Anthropocentric or not, the cause matters little, if at all, at this point.
Even if it ever had a chance, mitigation will do nothing at all now and humans should be using every tool at our disposal to adapt to the changing climate.
Do you deny the President’s statement that 12 of the warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 15 years? Amazing how that is possible when you claim that global warming is over!
Why weren’t you panicking when the earth was warming much faster than the models predicted in the ’90’s? Because you knew that sudden aberrations are usually self-correcting.
Climate has unpredictable ups and downs upon which the overall warming is superimposed. Climate models are merely our crude attenmpt to predict the future. Like economist’s forecasts, no one with any brains claims them to be immutable (especially in regard to an 8, not 16…or 20 year aberration. Your tendency to exaggerate compromises your veracity). We had a much longer aberration from 1942-1978. The cause of today’s may be the same, but is unknown. If so, we may see warming stay slow for another decade or two, only to accelerate again. You guys are so fixated on current events that you ignore the historical record.
As I’ve said over and over. Climate change is not a certain apocalypse; it is a sunstantial risk. If we’re lucky, it’ll be like Y2K. If we’re extremely unlucky, the end of civilization is possible (No, I’m not ready to panic, but the possibility exists). Cheap insurance is the best way to minimize risk in this case.
Solar panels and windmills will have no effect on climate change.
Because they are warmer by incredibly small amounts.
Mitigation is hugely expensive provides minimal results.
That’s right, our Constitutional Republic was founded upon the ideal that if the legislative branch refuses to act as some desire, the president can just do as he/she pleases to get it done. What a great country…
Sieg Heil, Baby!
Not since King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta.
So I guess a fossil fuel tax must be really expensive even if you’re not quite sure how. Is saving fuel expensive? How about driving something other than a monster truck? Also expensive? We’ve had four wars primarily because of these giant vehicles, but you don’t seem to think that’s expensive at all. And you think the guy with the high mileage car should pay the same for the next war as the guy with the gas guzzler. I like user fees better. If you cause a problem, you should pay to fix it.
So the discussion is no longer about theoretical causes of climate change, Rincon?
Four wars because of gas guzzlers?
To use an old analogy the old pugilist Harry Reid will understand, the Obama style is to sucker punch us every freaking day with a new issue. On this crap he is saying, “Go ahead and dwell on Benghazi, the IRS, Edward ‘the leaker’ Snowden, the failing economy, and other such petty matters, I’m saving the globe.” He’s also going to visit South Africa, at great expense of money and carbon based fuel, he can’t wait for wind and panel power to travel there because Nelson Mandela can’t wait. Maybe he will last long enough, if Obama and Mandela meet it will be the photo op of all photo ops for Obama. It will be labeled as passing the baton of leadership, except that Mandela did it FOR his countrymen, as opposed to doing it TO his countrymen.
Rincon, I’m not counting four official wars, pls elucidate…
Excellent observation: “It will be labeled as passing the baton of leadership, except that Mandela did it FOR his countrymen, as opposed to doing it TO his countrymen.”
Plus Mandela’s life is an open book and he suffered mightily for his beliefs. He had an innate dignity that no current politician, regardless of nation, race, or religion, whatever, can ever hope to attain. He wasn’t perfect, no man is, an example is he unleashed his wife Winnie upon the world, who can forget that the Clinton’s welcomed her lovingly and royally despite her uncivilized behavior. Nevertheless, Mandela recovered from her, dignity and honor intact, as he did imprisonment, history will record him among the greats.
Wars are never official anymore, Winston. Get with the times 🙂 The wars include the Gulf War (the west paid for both sides), the War in Iraq (ditto), the War in Afghanistan, and the War on Terror (OK. that one’s a little bit of a stretch, but it’s still very costly).
Getting off foreign oil would have required perhaps 20% more mileage and 15% more oil production by the U.S. This was easily achievable. Consider that we could have saved 8-10% of our mileage merely by using manual transmissions. That’s from a study done by Consumer Reports on 8 or 9 models.
The rest of the efficiency would have been simple if people just settled for a slightly smaller monster truck, etc. For example, my old Explorer got 21 mpg. I traded it in for a Mazda 3 and a small trailer – 21 vs 38 mpg and I only occasionally use the trailer.
If gas was taxed rather than subsidized, lots of people would find that life without a Tahoe is possible. Heck,I grew up in a family of 5 and our cars were a Mercury Comet and then a Ford Maverick and we didn’t feel deprived. We would have considered even a small minivan to be an absurd luxury. Today, that Minivan would just be unacceptable, unacceptable I tell you. If we stop subsidizing and perhaps put a reasonable tax on gasoline, I suspect lots of people would find that Minivan to be just fine for their 1 or 2 kids. We would save the lives of a lot of soldiers, as well.
So its about social engineering then. Got it.
How much oil do we import from Afghanistan?
We’re presently engaging in social engineering with income tax. A fossil fuel (or oil)tax is a user fee. If everyone drove a vehicle with good mileage and with a little increased production, these wars could have been avoided. Why then would we charge Bubba with his 8 mpg monster truck the same amount for these wars as a Prius owner? He who generates the problem should pay for it. Bubba generated a far greater share of this problem, so he should pay a greater share of the cost.
Since 9/11 caused the Afghanistan War, since al qaeda was financed primarily by oil money and because U.S. interventionist policies have long kindled resentment in the Arab world, I say 9/11 and therefore Afghanistan, would have been very unlikely if we hadn’t paid gobs of money to Bin Laden and his ilk
Bad comparison, the 8mpg vehicle does pay more than the Prius.
The challenge you have with going smaller and less capable is people do not want that. We still want to tow our boats, atv’s and travel trailers. What is needed is a fully capable alternative fuel vehicle that costs about the same as the gas fueled vehicles we have right now. Only with something like that will you see willing, even enthusiastic, adoption of such vehicles.
Trying to force people to use less by having less only gets major resistance.
I know what society those chuckleheads in DC live in…. UTOPIA (with our money, of course)
What society do you live in, Rinny, that money just grows on trees??
People MUST have felt the same way about King Louie XIV (the total disconnect with reality), back in his day, and look at all the great artwork and museums we got from THAT generation!
Wake up. We’re TOO BROKE to be this devoid of reality. OK?
Save the planet? Please, stop insulting our intelligence.
“Bad comparison, the 8mpg vehicle does pay more than the Prius.” From Wikipedia: “The federal gasoline tax raised $25 billion on gasoline in 2006”
So let’s see…. even if Bubba paid 100% of all gas taxes, which he doesn’t, it would only take him 200 years to pay for the $5 trillion cost of all 4 “wars”. That doesn’t count the next war, which is all but inevitable without a change in our myopic foreign policy. Sorry Steve. His gas taxes are trifling compared to the costs he has generated.
I’m still waiting for a better idea, or do you think we should just keep dumping money into Arab pockets?
“Wake up. We’re TOO BROKE to be this devoid of reality. OK? Save the planet? Please, stop insulting our intelligence.”
We’re too broke to be spending money on stupid-ass wars! I’m not talking about saving the planet. I’m talking about saving our budget and American lives. No other nation feels compelled to spend trillions on foreign military adventures. Why do we? One major reason. Bubba wants his monster truck.
Exactly. The prius pays less than the hummer, which pays less than the big rig. If infrastructure is to be a community effort, it should be totally community. Everyone should pay exactly the same amount into all the roads. As much as is truly needed. No added fees. This has as much chance as your statement calling for use fees based on the costs involved with vehicle size. I say the big rig owners would be the first to hang you from the nearest tree, covered in tar and feathers if they ever found it was your idea, if mine were to prevail the prius owners would join together and….wait, I think those people are against capital punishment….nah, they would tar and feather me too, they are human after all.
The balance we strike now actually causes the least trouble and alternative fuel vehicles currently escape with almost no “contribution” to roads.
If ever something comes along that answers your hopes, while fulfilling mine, all of us will see a completely new way of paying for the roads on which these vehicles will be driven.
When it comes to oil, the import export market is far more complex than you think.
From this link none of the wars you mention would have had any effect on imported oil.
Its difficult to determine if the US could actually get off imported oil but we do produced the lions share used here.
Here is the top level FAQ
We could type for the next decade and never finish digging into this stuff.
My rule of thumb. If it does what I require of it and costs me less then its good for the environment and the economy. Things which fulfill those requirements are good for the people and the country.
Sorry, Rincon. I read those stats a bit wrong. We actually import a bit more than 50% of what we produce.
Its the refined products where we became a bit of an exporter.
Like I said, this stuff gets real muddy, real fast.
Good information Steve. Thanks. As you saw, we use almost twice as much oil as China, which is number 2. It’s hard to imagine why it’s sooo hard for us to trim consumption by 15 or 20%.
The oil markets are complex, but also simple. Oil seeks its own level. It certainly won’t starve the Arabs if we stop importing oil. The advantage is that we would no longer have a need to go to war every few years in the mideast. It would also help our trade balance immensely.
You never said. Do you support the same foreign policy that got us into 4 mideast conflicts in the last 20 years?
Try the last 70 years.
If there is anything totally bi partisan it’s the foreign policy this country has been involved in since we “won” that war…..WWII the war that made the USA the planet’s police department.
OR did you not realize this country is the latest empire to begin its process of decline well before its people discover the fact?
So what is your better way?
Did I say I had one in my back pocket?
Tis a natural order, it’s happened many times over in history. Every empire rots from the inside and falls. We are next. Good thing is most places remain and are not wiped out by their own downfall, bad thing is this country is so full of itself we could fall very hard.
Better way? This is the only way, humans are……human for lack of a more descriptive word.
Go with the wind, its where we all go anyway. Pick your battles along the way and hope you can tack in a reasonably good direction.
Meanwhile solar panels and windmills will do nothing to effect global climate change.
Unfortunately, our Orwellian Perpetual War Paradigm has been operating pretty consistently since 1914.
“In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” – James Madison
“The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.” – George Washington
Do we have too much fondness for a particular country in the M.E., which blinds us and perhaps even enslaves us?
The Founders were so prescient.
Here’s an interesting commentary by Pastor Chuck Baldwin, 2008 Constitution Party presidential candidate.
Sounds like we agree that in general, America should avoid any more mideast conflicts. Our only disagreement is that I think we should stop donating money to Arabs and that we should not get caught in the next oil crisis with our pants down. You would rather wing it. America is with you. We rarely tackle a problem until it attains crisis proportions.
In order to assure that the USD would be the world’s reserve currency and the only currency used to purchase petroleum for decades, Kissinger cut a deal with OPEC in 1973 to allow them to fake the shortages and double (triple)(quadruple) the price. It was decided that we would continue to be “dependent” on their oil, no matter the supposed goal of the DOE to make us independent.
The only time there is a problem is when an oil-producing nation decides to not use petro-dollars and changes to a different currency, like Iraq and Iran, then it hits the fan.
So how was this information leaked out and confirmed? I’m also trying to remember if there was any probable substitute for the dollar in the ’70’s. Nothing else comes to mind.
I assume that we reneged on the deal when the western countries, including us, decreased our use of oil, which, along with Arab cheating, caused the price of oil to crash and stay low for 20 years.
[…] “law” to prevent climate change by unilaterally declaring war on coal. As he said in a letter to me and a few other of his closest […]