Wednesday, January 29, 2014

UK Guardian continues to deny US EPA science which states Obama power plant regulations on CO2 emissions will have no effect on CO2 emissions

1/28/14, "State of the Union: Obama expected to move forward with climate plan," UK Guardian, Suzanne Goldenberg

"Campaigners are looking to Barack Obama to expand his use of executive powers to deliver action on climate change in Tuesday night's State of the Union address....defending his decision to direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants....

The core of Obama's climate plan remains the EPA's proposed rules for power plants, the largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions....Obama was widely expected to use the spotlight on Tuesday night to try to get the public behind the new power plant rules, that are at the core of his climate plan."...



EPA text from Federal Register  9/20/13 (pp 343, 346) says its rule limiting CO2 emissions in new power plants will have no effect on CO2 emissions:

Sept. 20, 2013, Environmental Protection Agency, “Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units Proposed Rule.” Submitted “for publication in the Federal Register” page 343, “X. “Impacts of the Proposed Action”
p. 346, E. “What are the economic and employment impacts?  

The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes, energy impacts, monetized benefits, costs, or economic impacts by 2022. The owners of newly built electric generating units will likely choose technologies that meet these standards even in the absence of this proposal due to existing economic conditions as normal business practice. Likewise, the EPA believes this rule will not have any impacts on the price of electricity, employment or labor markets, or the U.S. economy.

As previously stated, the EPA does not anticipate that the power industry will incur compliance costs as a result of this proposal and we do not anticipate any notable CO2 emission changes resulting from the rule. Therefore, there are no direct monetized climate benefits in terms of CO2 emission reductions associated with this rulemaking. However, by clarifying that in the future, new coal-fired power plants will be required to meet a particular performance standard, this rulemaking reduces uncertainty and may enhance the prospects for new coal-fired generation and the deployment of CCS, and thereby promote energy diversity.” (end page 346)

Change in global CO2 US v China, 2005 to 2011, energy related, US EIA (US Energy Dept.), WSJ, April 2013

4/18/13, "Rise in U.S. Gas Production Fuels Unexpected Plunge in Emissions," WSJ, Russell Gold

"U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions have fallen dramatically in recent years, in large part because the country is making more electricity with natural gas instead of coal."...


6/10/13, 2012 US CO2 continues to drop. Chart from IEA report, China continues to rise. (Above chart is thru 2011) :


1/29/13, "China Uses Nearly as Much Coal as Rest of World Combined, EIA Says," Wall St. Journal, Cassandra Sweet


Suzanne doesn't report:

In 2012 alone Mr. Obama took $18.5 billion out of the US economy in CO2 regulations:


"The vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations."
4/22/13, "Costs of New Regulations issued in 2012 Dwarf those of previous years, according to OMB Report," Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University


Suzanne denies or ignores that massive US federal climate "action" to fight human induced global atmospheric change including reduction of CO2
and  transfer of taxpayer money to "solar and renewable energy" has been ongoing since at least 1980 and mandated since 1990:

"U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990"
  • "reducing energy consumption through conservation and energy efficiency;
  • promoting the use of solar and renewable energy sources which reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere;
  • developing replacements for chlorofluorocarbons, halons, and other ozone-depleting substances which exhibit a significantly reduced potential for depleting stratospheric ozone;
  • promoting the conservation of forest resources which help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere;
  • assisting developing countries in ecological pest management practices and in the proper use of agricultural, and industrial chemicals;...
"Title 1...Section 101

"Although significant Federal global change research efforts are underway, an effective Federal research program will require efficient interagency coordination, and coordination with the research activities of State, private, and international entities.

b) PURPOSE.--The purpose of this title is to provide for development and coordination of a comprehensive and integrated United States research program which will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change....


The President, through the Council, shall establish a Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences. The Committee shall carry out Council functions under section 401 of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6651) relating to global change research, for the purpose of increasing the overall effectiveness and productivity of Federal global change research efforts. 

(b) MEMBERSHIP.--The Committee shall consist of at least one representative from--
  1. the National Science Foundation;
  2. the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
  3. the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce;
  4. the Environmental Protection Agency;
  5. the Department of Energy;
  6. the Department of State;
  7. the Department of Defense; 
  8. the Department of the Interior;
  9. the Department of Agriculture;
  10. the Department of Transportation;
  11. the Office of Management and Budget;
  12. the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
  13. the Council on Environmental Quality;
  14. the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health; and
  15. such other agencies and departments of the United States as the President or the Chairman of the Council considers appropriate.
  16. Such representatives shall be high ranking officials of their agency or department, wherever possible the head of the portion of that agency or department that is most relevant to the purpose of the title described in section 101(b)....

    cooperate with the Secretary of State in--

    (A) providing representation at international meetings and conferences on global change research in which the United States participates; and
    (B) coordinating the Federal activities of the United States with programs of other nations and with international global change research activities such as the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program;...

Such information shall include, but need not be limited to, results of scientific research and development on technologies useful for...

4. promoting the conservation of forest resources which help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere;...

Approved November 16, 1990."


Findings from report commissioned by Rep. Henry Waxman:
A May 2013 CBO report commissioned by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) states US on its own has little effect on global climate:

p. 14: "Acting on its own, the United States could have only a modest effect on the amount of warming."

The report says that without significant reductions from countries like China and India (page 14, left column), that further US CO2 reductions:

p. 14, "would be offset by increases in emissions overseas—."...


May 2013 CBO report,"Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment"


CO2 and the planet clearly aren't the point of the multi-trillion dollar 'climate' industry:

"It makes little sense for advanced countries to take on policies that hurt their own economic growth if environmental benefits are unattainable. Western countries are digging ditches, only to see them filled up by emerging countries following up from behind."...

5/8/13, "Jack Mintz: Canada unfairly Gored," Financial Post opinion 


11/29/12, 134 scientists write to UN Sec. Gen., ask him to desist from blaming climate disasters on global warming that hasn't happened: "Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years."


In 2012 alone, 

No comments: