Editorial: EPA’s and Nevada’s clean power efforts cost much, fix nothing

Obama is trying to kill a gnat with an anvil.

He rhapsodized recently about his administration’s Clean Power Plan from the EPA, and preached about the urgency to curb global warming now because 2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record and ice caps are shrinking.

“Climate change is no longer just about the future that we’re predicting for our children or our grandchildren; it’s about the reality that we’re living with every day, right now,” he said.

Of course, Sen. Harry Reid shouted amen and used the plan to bash Republicans and the Koch brothers, per usual.

Reid Gardner power plant (Sun photo)

“It has been disappointing, but not surprising, to see Republicans’ knee-jerk opposition to addressing climate change,” Reid said in a statement. “It is all-the-more frustrating because they have no plan of their own. Instead, Republicans are clamoring to show special interests like the oil baron Koch brothers how far they’re willing to go to kill commonsense protections for our air and public health. … Republicans would leave our children and grandchildren to pay the devastating costs of climate change.

“Republicans have no solutions. They are afraid to acknowledge that climate change is a problem. It is a problem.”

Obama’s big solution is an executive fiat ordering states to cut carbon emissions from power plants by 32 percent by 2030, compared to 2005.

Pay no heed to the fact that 2014 was warmer than 2010 by just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C — or that the margin of error means there is only a 38 percent chance that this is true.

But he assured us his plan will curb global warming — that’s 0.018°C by 2100, using the global alarmists own model.

According to a Heritage Foundation analysis, Obama’s plan will result in a few costs by 2030:

— An average annual employment shortfall of nearly 300,000 jobs.
— A peak employment shortfall of more than 1 million jobs.
— A loss of more than $2.5 trillion (inflation-adjusted) in aggregate gross domestic product (GDP).
—A total income loss of more than $7,000 (inflation-adjusted) per person.

By the way, someone should tell the president polar ice has been growing since 2012.

Then there is the possibility that a little man-made warming might not be so bad since some scientists are predicting a subsidence of solar activity that could result in global cooling, even a mini-ice age.

But never let the facts get in the way of Obama’s mission to order the oceans to stop rising — just like King Canute, only Obama actually believes he can.

“And it’s easy to be cynical and to say climate change is the kind of challenge that’s just too big for humanity to solve. I am absolutely convinced that’s wrong,” said a self-assured Obama. “We can solve this thing.”

Do the math. U.S. fossil-fueled power plants account for only 6 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. Cutting 32 percent would reduce global output by only 2 percent. In 2012 global carbon emissions increased 2.1 percent. The U.S. decreased its emissions 3.7 percent, while China increased by 5.9 percent and India by 7.7 percent.

Obama has an expensive solution in search of a problem.

Fortunately, we suppose, Nevada has already jumped off this cliff. The state is closing down all of its coal-fired power plants.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), between 2005 and 2011 Nevada electric power plants cut carbon output by 33 percent. That was the most by any state and already exceeds the 32 percent criteria in Obama’s plan, though much of the credit for the cut was probably due to the recession.

By state law 25 percent of Nevada’s power must come from “clean” renewables by 2025. But like the EPA proposal, there is a price tag. One study estimates this renewable portfolio law will cost residential power users up to $130 a year and industrial power users up to $47,000 a year and cost up to 3,000 jobs.

Like we said, killing a gnat with an anvil. One that lands on us instead of the gnat.

A version of this editorial appeared this past week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record.

Advertisements

15 comments on “Editorial: EPA’s and Nevada’s clean power efforts cost much, fix nothing

  1. Rincon says:

    “Then there is the possibility that a little man-made warming might not be so bad since some scientists are predicting a subsidence of solar activity that could result in global cooling, even a mini-ice age.” As I’ve said, some scientist says what you want to hear and you’re all over it, but the hundreds of scientists that say what you don’t want to hear are all wrong.

    “Pay no heed to the fact that 2014 was warmer than 2010 by just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C — or that the margin of error means there is only a 38 percent chance that this is true.” 15 of the last 16 years are the warmest in the last 100 years, but of course, there’s no evidence the Earth is warming.

    “According to a Heritage Foundation analysis, Obama’s plan will result in a few costs by 2030:

    — An average annual employment shortfall of nearly 300,000 jobs.
    — A peak employment shortfall of more than 1 million jobs.
    — A loss of more than $2.5 trillion (inflation-adjusted) in aggregate gross domestic product (GDP).
    —A total income loss of more than $7,000 (inflation-adjusted) per person.”
    All kinds of scientists are wrong about global warming, but some schmuck from the Heritage Foundation is such a genius that his economics are above question, as if it was an exact science.

    “By the way, someone should tell the president polar ice has been growing since 2012.” The polar ice has been shrinking for 40 years, and it means nothing, but let it grow for 3 years and suddenly, that’s proof of no global warming.

    The lack of logic in the Conservative position is highlighted by the above statements. They are ideologues who are not reachable by any facts, so they must be overwhelmed by the Moderates and Liberals, which is happening as we speak. Because of Conservative refusal to reason, Liberals and Moderates will take only those actions that are not blocked by the Conservatives. Unfortunately, that leaves out some of the cheapest methods we have of dealing with it. Bickering increases costs, but we no longer understand compromise. So be it.

  2. Steve says:

    Ahhh, no.

    The problem is so many liberals are screaming that AGW is THE cause for all the warming.

    Reality is AGW contributes to climate change. The argument among climate scientists is just how much effect AGW has on climate.
    When posed with that question climate scientists are in complete dissaray.

    But liberals latch onto only their favorite scream fest, 97% of climate scientists acknowledge AGW is real! No shit, AGW is real, humans are a part of the climate!

  3. Rincon says:

    You differ from the average Conservative Steve. Most claim APG is a hoax. Those who don’t confidently assert that the effect of mankind is miniscule, despite having no more evidence for their view than the fire breathing Liberals do for theirs. It is a risk. No more, no less. Anyone who claims to know where this is going is arrogant. If we’re unlucky, we could find ourselves in a peck of trouble; if lucky, then it may amount to little. I believe where you and I disagree is that you feel adapting to whatever happens will be the best way to (not) respond, where I feel that cheap insurance can be had.

  4. nyp says:

    So you are saying that Nevada has already complied with the President’s Clean Power Plan, and the total cost in jobs (according to a right-wing source) is 3,000 jobs out of a total workforce of 1.4 million workers?

  5. Steve says:

    Politicians are taking the line that 97% of climate scientists are CERTAIN AGW is THE ONE and ONLY cause for climate change.
    This where that cheap insurance becomes impossible. Nothing short of perfection can be allowed. IF we trust those politicians.

    But facts are ugly things, 97% of climate scientists are right about AGW as a contributor to climate fluctuation. They just do not agree on what percentage AGW effects climate. Until they do have a solid consensus on THAT, any political effort will be moot.

    People aren’t all followers, that is why we have about a 50/50 split on this subject.

  6. Rincon says:

    We have a 50:50 split on this because the average person doesn’t understand science very well, cannot and does not independently evaluate the evidence and so, trusts those whose views they embrace. Liberals blindly trust liberal sources and Conservatives trust conservative sources. Moderates don’t know who to believe because neither tells the truth. If compromise was a reality, then all would agree that we have no way of being sure how much of the observed warming is manmade. Since the warming observed is substantial, it is more likely than not that we are indeed contributing significantly, but of course, those ignorant of the laws of probability (call them Conservatives for convenience) would refuse to believe that.

    As I’ve said, cheap insurance is available, but the Liberals want a Rolls Royce, the Conservatives want nothing at all, and neither will agree to buy a Chevy. They will end up with a Yugo that costs as much as a Mercedes, partially because we’ve had decades of neglecting the low hanging fruit and so will spend more to achieve the same greenhouse gas reduction. Only morons refuse compromise. Sad to say, morons are the ones running the country.

  7. Steve says:

    “the average person doesn’t understand science very well, ”

    no. the average person understands politics rather well. THAT is the reason.

    and politics is the reason there are no cheap insurance answers.

  8. Rincon says:

    We agree Steve, at least on that 🙂

  9. Athos says:

    Idiots. We live in a time where idiots are in positions of power bent on destroying our free society.
    Of course, the elite don’t care if they pay more in energy costs. They’re rich! That’s what makes them elite!
    Destroy the middle class with your voodoo science disaster stories and enslave the great unwashed, and rule forever.
    What am I missing here?

    Oh yeah. Get rich off the government test while you’re at it. That’s the ticket!

  10. nyp says:

    So good to see Athos again — the purest expression of the conservative Id.

    Hey Athos — I assume you are a Trump guy. Right?

  11. Rincon says:

    Glad to hear from you again. Where have you been?

    “Destroy the middle class with your voodoo science disaster stories and enslave the great unwashed, and rule forever.” Seems to me that the destruction of the middle class began with the Reagan administration when income inequality took off. Cutting income taxes on the rich in half couldn’t have had any impact, could it? And where are the voodoo science disaster stories from the ’80’s and ’90’s, while the middle class was in its relative decline?

  12. Athos says:

    I should have known you’d use a straw man argument, Rinny. When cutting against common sense (and basic survival instincts) that’s really all you have, isn’t it? However, “Reagan did it, too” along with “Bush did it, too” are not a defense against the theft ( or usurpation) of American citizens’ private property. I really don’t want to be a slave to the same idiots that gave us the new light bulbs and flush toilets.

  13. Athos says:

    petey, you old commie pinko, you! Trump sure hit it out of the park with his immigration fix-em up plan, didn’t he??

  14. Rincon says:

    I’ve created no straw man. I’m pointing out that you’re fretting over a flea while missing the elephant in the room. I’m talking about Conservatives whose policies have led to the ongoing disintegration of the middle class, while you’re obsessing about light bulbs. If it’s any help. I would never have banned the old bulbs. A small tax would have done the job while preserving individual choice. It does illustrate though, why conservative economic theory doesn’t always work in real life. It postulates a population that always acts rationally, while reality is much different. By conservative theory, those bulbs should have been a big hit right away. Didn’t happen.

  15. […] will be the keynote speaker at Monday’s confab. Like Reid, he also tends to omit a few facts when he tries to foment fervor for green […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s