EPA admits war on coal will do squat to aid environment

Of course not, because a cleaner earth is not what the EPA is after is it?

Via Daily Caller:

The Obama administration is effectively banning the construction of new coal-fired power plants, a move officials admit will have little to no impact on global warming.

“The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission change,” the agency writes in its proposal to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

“EPA knows there aren’t benefits,” Dan Simmons, director of regulatory and state affairs at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “EPA and environmentalists are being disingenuous when they claim this rule will have an impact on the climate or the environment.”

Meet the new Marxists, same as the old Marxists

 

John Kerry offers the perfect definition of a clueless, heartless climate change zealot

William Teach has the absolutely ideal fisking of one John Kerry

(NY Times) Secretary of State John Kerry urged India on Sunday to begin to address climate change by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases even as it attempts to bring electricity to tens of millions of its citizens now living without it.

“I do understand and fully sympathize with the notion that India’s paramount commitment to development and eradicating poverty is essential,” Mr. Kerry said in a speech at the start of a two-day visit. “But we have to recognize that a collective failure to meet our collective climate challenge would inhibit all countries’ dreams of growth and development.”

Um, wait, what? Did he just say that fighting Hotcoldwetdry is more important than lifting people out of poverty? Yes. Yes he did.

In an effort to prod the Indians to act, Mr. Kerry warned that climate change could cause India to endure excessive heat waves, prolonged droughts, intense flooding and shortages of food and water.

India, because of their geography, has been putting up with those pretty much since the Indian plate slammed into the Asian plate.

“The worst consequences of the climate crisis will confront people who are the least able to be able to cope with them,” he said.

But, if they build a few solar farms, wind turbine farms, and crops for ethanol (all which require massive amounts of land and defoliation), poor, starving people in India might get enough power to….well, they don’t actually have any appliances to need power, because they’re really poor. But, these kinds of 1st World measures will make people like John Kerry Feel Good about themselves.

Experts said at the time that such an effort would not be successful without the participation of India, where the use of refrigeration and air-conditioning is growing rapidly.

Well, some do have AC and refrigeration, which tend to be Good Things, especially that refrigeration, which allows food to be kept longer instead of spoiling. 1st Worlders like Kerry, who already have plenty of homes with AC and fridges, aren’t happy that 2nd/3rd worlders would like the same.

There is nothing to add, that is perfect! The elitist attitude, the cluelessness, the hypocrisy, it is all there

 

Is the Carbon Tax looming?

I can not think of anything that would hit our ailing economy any harder than a carbon tax, and don’t you know that Obama might have such a tax in mind

According to one former member of the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Clinton, President Obama may have plans to implement a carbon tax as soon as the fiscal cliff negotiations are settled. 

Forget the fact that Obama and his minions have repeatedly protested that they won’t press for a carbon tax, Paul Bledsoe writes:

… the economic advantages of a carbon tax are so manifest that it is still possible, once the fiscal cliff negotiations are finished and talks turn to a truly transformative tax reform deal, that leaders in Congress will begin to reconsider it, especially it if is marketed on economic grounds.

Bledsoe continues that even the oil companies support the idea:

In fact, major oil companies, who played a powerful role in killing cap and trade and oppose a gasoline tax, generally favor a carbon tax as part of overall tax reform, as do many others segments of corporate America. A carbon tax is also supported by many economists from both parties. Arthur Laffer, Gregory Mankiw, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin are just a few of the politically prominent Republican economists to speak favorably about a carbon fee.

He states that a tax on carbon is better for overall US economic growth than the mix of higher taxes on work and capital. And Bledsoe avers that the U.S. would be better off in other ways:Such a tax may prove effective in producing a more robust U.S. clean technology sector and reducing greenhouse gas emission (RFF estimates a 10 percent drop in emissions over business as usual by 2020 from a $25 a ton CO2 tax)—but its main selling points are fiscal and budget policy.

Boy, that sounds great huh? But wait for the rest of the story

No gain — There would be virtually no environmental benefits to unilateral greenhouse gas emission reductions by developed countries (whose GHG levels are already flat and slowly declining), while developing countries are pouring out virtually every kind of pollutant with joyous abandon. Some argue that we’ll get “co-benefits” from reducing other pollutants, such as particulates. Well, we already have highly effective (if economically damaging) regulations for conventional pollutants. If they’re not working, they should be fixed. Establishing a new set of controls based on ancillary benefits is not simply wasteful, it’s dishonest.

A carbon tax would also have limited impact: If $4-per-gallon gas won’t reduce consumer demand, how is adding another 10 cents, 50 cents, or dollar going to do so? Low carbon taxes won’t have a significant effect, and high carbon taxes won’t retain political support long enough to provide environmental benefits. That’s not surprising: Houses, cars, and energy-consuming appliances are long-term investments that can’t easily be changed when fuel prices fluctuate. Jobs are also not abandoned lightly, so commuting distances aren’t easily adjusted.

Plenty of pain — Studies continue to show that carbon taxes, through their influence on energy prices, would cause considerable harm.

They’re recessionary: High energy costs reduce economic productivity and are passed along to consumers in everything they buy, from medical treatments to food and clothing. In fact, research at the American Enterprise Institute suggests that half of the total spending consumers do on energy is invisible to them: Its costs are embedded in the things they buy and the services they use. The more things cost, the less people consume, which means less production, less economic growth, and fewer jobs.

They’re regressive:  Most analysis shows that energy taxes are highly regressive. After all, it’s not the rich people who are driving around old cars with poor mileage, living in old houses with poor insulation and inefficient appliances, or having limited career mobility and lengthy commutes from poor communities into wealthier communities where there are jobs.

They’re anti-competitive: Energy taxes also make countries less competitive when it comes to exports, particularly when they’re competing against countries that don’t impose comparable taxes. Carbon tax proponents argue that such things can be handled with border taxes on imported goods from non-carbon-priced regimes, but does anyone really believe that such activities will not set off innumerable trade wars?

They are bait-and-switch: If climate alarmists really thought that the goal was to get the price right, you’d hear them promising to remove all of the other regulations of carbon emissions if they got their carbon tax. They’d talk about repealing vehicle efficiency standards, appliance standards, technology standards, emission standards, unraveling regional trading systems, ending low-carbon energy subsidies, and more. But they don’t. Climate change alarmists, like Al Gore, have never been shy in admitting that they will not be content with a carbon tax and will still want additional layers of carbon suppression through cap-and-trade as well as regulation. This will result in rampant over-pricing of carbon emissions and energy.

Just remember this folks, despite the claims of the Left, taxes, like manure roll downhill! The poorer you are the harder you get hit! And this tax, if it came to be, would raise the prices of just about everything we buy, again, hitting the poorest the hardest.

The looming EPA power grab

Even if Romney wins Tuesday, Obama’s EPA is rushing to cripple the coal industry before the new year

Barack Obama’s EPA is rushing to push more job-killing regulations into place before the new year.

The Examiner reported:

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA.

More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.

The rush is a major sign of panic by environmentalists inside the Obama administration. If Obama wins, the EPA would have another four full years to implement their anti-fossil fuel agenda. But if Romney wins, regulators will have a very narrow window to enact a select few costly regulations that would then be very hard for a President Romney to undo.

Environmentalists at the EPA pulled this trick before in 2000 when the Clinton administration rushed out a finding that Mercury emissions from power plants were a growing public health threat pursuant to the Clean Air Act. That finding did not regulate power plants itself, but it did force the Bush administration to begin a lengthy regulatory process. The Obama EPA has estimated that this regulation alone will cost the U.S. economy $10.9 billion a year.

Obama’s new EPA regulations will cost the coal industry $180 billion and force electricity rates to skyrocket.

The most anti-American president in our history

 

Well that sucks!

 

Matt spoils the good feelings of those Green folks! Green cars, might be PC, but they are worse for the environment! Matt notes that whatever Liberalism sets out to do, the exact opposite results!

When it comes to green cars, I feel obligated to invoke Quinn’s First Law…

“Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it’s stated intent.”

You can’t argue it.  The “war on poverty” caused more poverty.  Since the onset of the Department of Education, education has gotten worse.  I could go on all day, but you get the point.  Liberals state that they are going to make something better, and instead make it worse.  Then, they blame us for their failure.  Here is the latest; green cars cause more pollution!  The Lonely Conservative has more…

The Daily Caller reported that a new study by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology found that “green” electric cars are worse for the environment than traditional automobiles that run on gasoline or diesel. I don’t even think they took into account what happens when electric cars catch on fire.

Specifically, the study found that electric car factories can emit more toxic waste than gas-burning car factories. And greenhouse gas emissions rise exponentially if coal is used to produce the electricity necessary to charge “green” vehicles, according to the study.

The researchers compared the overall life-cycle impact of petrol or diesel-powered cars and electric vehicles and concluded that the latter can significantly damage the climate.

“The global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles,” the report said. “It is counterproductive to promote electric vehicles in regions where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal or even heavy oil combustion.” (Read More)

All together now, AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW too bad!

 

Romney’s Love of Cap and Trade?

Matt exposes some less than encouraging facts about Mitt

As all of you know, I am NOT a fan of Mitt Romney.  I believe him to be a RINO of the highest lowest order.  However, if any of you out there are still wavering, here is yet another game changer-he apparently worked with now Science Czar John Holdren to implement more stringent environmental regulations in Massachusetts.  If you recall, we covered Mr. Holdren rather extensively in the past, so we know that he has been rather radical in his support of de-development and forced population control. The Lonely Conservative has the coverage…

Thanks to Moonbattery for digging this up.

This brings us onto still more common ground between Barack Obama and Willard “Mitt” Romney. From an official memo released by Willard’s office when he was Governor of Taxachusetts, announcing “Strict New Clean Air Regulations“:

Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Massachusetts will take another major step in meeting its commitment to protecting air quality when strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006. …

Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants. The limits, which target the six largest and oldest power plants in the state, are the toughest in the nation…

In addition to reaffirming existing stringent CO2 limits, the draft regulations announced today, which will be filed next week, contain protections against excessive price increases for businesses and consumers. They allow power generation companies to implement CO2 reductions at their own facilities or fund other reduction projects off-site through a greenhouse gas offset and credits program.

One of the things that has driven me nuts is that while Perry has been raked over the coals over his Conservative creds, Romney’s record has been largely let alone. I fail to grasp why frankly.

I had a steak last night, Al Gore hardest hit

The angriest Envirocrat is back,and he wants you to stop eating meat

Al Gore wants society to ditch meat-heavy diets and go organic to combat global warming.

“Industrial agriculture is a part of the problem,” Gore said Friday during an interview with FearLess Revolution founder Alex Bogusky. “The shift toward a more meat-intensive diet,” the clearing of forest areas in many parts of the world in order to raise more cattle and the reliance on synthetic nitrogen for fertilizer are also problems, he added.

Blah, blah, blah, am I the only one tired of these talking points? I bet not, and I doubt I will be the only one PO’ed that Gore is now playing The Race Card

The former vice president also criticized climate change skeptics, urging those who support curbs to greenhouse gases to “win the conversation” when it comes to global warming. He compared the struggle against climate skeptics to the fight against racism during the civil rights movement.

When racist comments would come up in the course of conversations, “There came a time when people said, ‘Hey man, why do you talk that way? That’s wrong, I don’t go for that, so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’

Is there any smear the Left will not use to get their way? Is there any point where they look in the mirror and think “you know if I have to lie, or use smear tactics to win the debate, maybe I am wrong on the issues” When do Leftists reach that point? Sadly, never it seems.

Hurricane hysteria gives way to global-warming hype:

Was Hurricane Irene caused by global warming?
Politico

How Global Warming Is Making Hurricane Irene Worse
Thnk Progress

Global Warming’s Heavy Cost
The Daily Beast

And if you don’t buy into the hype, you’re anti-science.

As I already said, these people really need some new BS to spew.