JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Obama tries to change the weather by burning US jobs

Bad news for the environment. Obama has a plan.

Obama’s power plant rule leaked: EPA seeks 30 percent reduction in emissions

The proposal will aim for a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030, according to the WSJ

The Obama administration is set to announce its draft proposal to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants at 10:30 am ET Monday morning, but the Wall Street Journal claims to have the early scoop on the basics.

The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 from existing power plants based on emission levels from 2005, “two people who have been briefed on the rule” told the WSJ. That’s considerably higher than the 20 percent cut that had been predicted – although, because CO2 emissions have already been on the decline in recent years, not as stringent as it would have been should the administration chosen 2010 or 2012 as a baseline. The EPA refused to comment before tomorrow’s release. [read more]

 

I’m sure China, Brazil and India are grateful…

Source UNEP

Source: UNEP

American ingenuity may yet win the day despite the pointless ball and chain.

 

..

Then again, Greens ought be very concerned at Obama’s new plan. In nearly every country where governments have tried to reduce CO2, the emissions have risen. Getting the government involved could spell the death-knell of US achievements in reducing CO2.

The US States may yet be able to limit the damage:

The opposition to Obama’s new carbon emission standards has been strongest in some states that have large coal-mining industries or rely heavily on coal to fuel their electricity. State officials say the new federal regulations could jeopardize the jobs of thousands of workers and drive up the monthly electric bills of residents and businesses.

It remains to be seen whether new measures passed by the states will amount to mere political symbolism or actually temper what’s expected to be an aggressive federal effort to reduce the country’s reliance on coal. But either way, states likely will play a pivotal role, because federal clean air laws leave it up to each state to come up its own plan for complying with the emission guidelines.

Sigh.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (78 votes cast)
Obama tries to change the weather by burning US jobs, 9.0 out of 10 based on 78 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/n2gtds3

264 comments to Obama tries to change the weather by burning US jobs

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Let me beat Tony.

    The USA grid (eastern) ran very close to capacity in the last very cold winter.

    Shut down 2 or 3 coal fired plants and another very cold winter and they will freeze.


    Report this

    471

    • #

      You beat me here at this Thread, but I commented at the earlier Unthreaded Post at this link, with actual data on what it means to make cuts of that nature.

      No point copying and pasting it when you can just go and read it all there.

      Let me repeat. This astonishing 30% reduction in CO2 emissions, just from electrical power generation will never be achieved, let alone by 2030.

      Tony.


      Report this

      420

      • #
        Popeye

        Tony,

        You also beat me to it (I was having dinner).

        I’ll bet London to a brick that the USA NEVER reduces it’s emissions by 30% in any time frame without going to MAJORITY nuclear (or derivative).

        There just isn’t enough stupid people in the USA that will cop the repercussions of such a madman stunt for this to happen.

        Cheers,


        Report this

        290

        • #
          the Griss

          “There just isn’t enough stupid people in the USA that will cop the repercussions of such a madman stunt for this to happen.”

          I suspect that there ARE enough stupid people in the USA.

          We will see, won’t we. !!

          I suspect that there are enough stupid people in Australia too, and may vote Shorten in at the next election. :-(


          Report this

          362

          • #
            Tabbott

            Heaven forfend.


            Report this

            70

          • #

            Those people who are petrified about the future of our planet due to increasing carbon dioxide emissions must be ecstatic that automobiles no longer emit that despicable gas. [What do automobiles emit these days? are the catalytic converters converting the gas to green cheese?]
            Still, a bloke who swaps a deserter for five cold blooded murderers is apt to make some brilliant decisions such as this “Lulu” to save the planet.


            Report this

            270

          • #

            Evidence indicates there may be enough stupid people. Our only hope is the smart ones are sitting silent and waiting for the election. Otherwise, James Hansen’s grandchildren’s storms are not going to be caused by global warming, but rather complete and utter stupidity on the part of humans. The only cure for that is Nature smacks us hard and re-injects reality. Not looking good for those grandchildren at this point.


            Report this

            160

          • #
            Mark Hladik

            I have to reluctantly second the motion that there ARE enough stupid people in the US. I encounter far to many of them on a daily basis.

            Remember, Albert Einstein warned us that, “The difference between genius and stupidity, is that there is a limit to genius.”

            Amen!


            Report this

            180

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              Actually there are about 20% stupid, 40% ignorant. Which is enough to get anyone elected. As we have seen.

              Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. Stupidity is the rejection of knowledge.


              Report this

              10

          • #
            Steve

            Well I had a conversation with my parents about putting solar onto their house. The basic premise is that we need to be pretty much independent in terms of water and power.

            It seems clear that the plan is to create artificial mayhem, so the people rise up in crisis and ask the govt to “help” by asking for power rationing. This is just implementing Agenda 21 by forcing people into high density power efficient housing ( ghettos ) and removing their independence.

            The problem with 1st world countries is their inffrastructure is solid – so the only waty the protagionists can create 3rd world conditions ( i.e. so called “low carbopn” conditions ) is to deliberately wreck our power grid.

            J’Accuse.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            DT

            Maybe not after voters learn about Mr Shorten’s role in covering up the AWU slush fund scandal for his comrade Ms Gillard and associates via the Royal Commission when former AWU boss Bob Kernohan gives evidence from 6 June next.

            Part of Bob’s evidence, he has stated via Michael Smith News website, relates to Mr Shorten offering him a seat in parliament if he dropped his inquiries into the slush fund, and when he refused to do so arranged for him to be bashed close the death. And then withheld his AWU employment severance pay for almost a decade.

            And other revelations about Mr Shorten’s past history.


            Report this

            40

            • #

              The ALP sure comes up with some gems for leaders – Latham, Rudd, Gillard, Shorten.
              Q What is the opposite to a Rhodes scholar?
              A An ALP leader.

              [Ahem - Kim Beazley, Bob Hawke? - Mod]


              Report this

              20

              • #
                GreggB

                … And not forgetting Malcolm Turnbull, who’s on track to having history record him as being the Rhodes scholar who lead both the Liberal and Labor parties …

                I really need to find that /sarc tag.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Steve

                Cecil rhodes was all for one-world Govt, the same sort the UN-loving left wing is all for.

                Abbott is a rhodes scholar, as was Hawke, Beasley and Turnbull.

                Both siodes of politics is equally committed to a one0-world UN-run govt. They have to maintain the appearance of “different” to maintain the charade of democracy, lest the sheep work it out and revolt….

                Its much easier leading a sheep up the ram to the abottoir calmly, than bucking and kicking….people often recoil at such a statement, but so far I can find little that refutes this thought.

                It is what it is…


                Report this

                00

          • #
            Bob of Castlemaineb

            I fear you are correct Griss. Just as we here in Australia seem to have enough “Greek holiday lemmings” who believe that voting for the Labor-Greens promised keys to the treasury will guarantee them the eternal welfare weekend, I suspect the same is true of Obama’s “free” welfare hooked US.


            Report this

            20

      • #
        cohenite

        The hypocrisy and stupidity of this move is well represented by California’s energy mix.

        Look at coal and gas usage in California: 51% of the total mix; of that 51% about 1/2 is imported from neighbouring states. Hippie logic!


        Report this

        251

        • #
          Sean

          California also gets about 15% of its power from hydroelectric. Half of this is explicitly called out and the other half is unspecified power from the Pacific Northwest. Environmentalists would shut this down if they had the chance. Mother Nature on the other hand does constrain hydroelectric during California’s periodic droughts. Another big chunk is nuclear. A good part of this capacity was shut down when San Onofre closed and Diablo Canyon has been the target of the environmentalists’ ire for decades. This has lead to power rates that are 50% higher thn the rest ofte US, a fairly rapid de-industrialization in the last 25 years and evisceration of the middle class in the state. This is the example Mr. Obama would like the rest of the nation to follow.


          Report this

          280

      • #
        bobl

        Tony,
        Griss just commented over at Watts place and I heartilly agree, shut down every plant that is too expensive to run under the new rules on the same day and time of enaction of the rule. In particular that would shut down every small community on an isolated system (usually diesel) will have zero/zilch/nada power, and load shedding at lewst in every major city without nuclear, and see how long it takes to topple the government.

        They should do it even if just for the day.


        Report this

        190

        • #

          I’ve linked to this before but it’s always worth looking at again and again.

          It’s the Great North East Blackout of 2003. It affected 55 Million people across most of North Eastern USA, and Eastern Canada.

          I’m just linking to the timeline at this link, but you can scroll up and down to see the end results. Most places took two and three days to come back on line.

          Now, look at that time line and note the build up for a little under 4 hours and then, from just before 4.06PM look at the crash, called a cascading failure, as plant after plant after plant shuts down, 256 plants in all, and in just on 7 MINUTES.

          Close down coal fired power arbitrarily and this could be the end result.

          Tony.


          Report this

          170

          • #
            pattoh

            Tony

            The Greens & their cheer squad keep harping on about Hazelwood ( along with eco terrorists who may or may not have had a grand design in a box of matches).

            With Hazelwoods 27%(?) of Vic’s power & all the interstate sales particularly to SA, How far of is a cascading shut down for Australia?

            It is probably the wake up we need.


            Report this

            80

        • #
          Leonard Lane

          Bobl, I wish you were right. You may be, but I doubt it. Since the lefties have not been able to ban guns they decided on an alternative based on two ideas:
          1) Obama said before the election that he would form a “civil defense force” that was as well armed as the military” and he plans to cut the military back to pre WWII size in his budgets (which are passing, and
          2) The federal government is flush with trillions of dollars, largely due to borrowing, and have been buying millions of guns, and several billions of rounds of ammunition for them. The Dept. of Homeland Security has purchased more than 5 billion rounds of ammunition (a large portion of which are hollow point bullets). Hollow points are illegal in war by treaty, so who would the federal government be able to shoot with hollow points? Also the postal service, forest service, fish& wildlife, BLM, national park service, etc. have been buying weapons and hundred of millions or rounds of ammunition per year for some time. This is done for two reasons. To arm Obama’s civil defense and dry up the public supply of ammunition. In addition, excess military hardware from drones to fighting vehicles are rapidly being dispersed to some of the agencies listed above and local police.

          It would be hard to “rise up” against this “civil defense force” and the president has the power to federalize the national guard in all 50 states. So, if anyone would rise up they could be quickly murdered in the name of civil defense. The USA is not what it used to be and that is by design.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            bobl

            I didn’t say rising up was practical, just that acting against his own people was what that constitutional provision exists for. In the US federation the states have the power to form a constitutional convention and change the constitution without the federal government, they could, if necessary, abolish the post of president or more easily than that, they could specifically exempt environmental powers from the federal government and return that power to the states, that is, make the EPA illegal. Civil guards are also only useful if they are loyal to the president. It’s not like a military force, arming a civilian force could set up the situation under which the president was forcibly unseated too, that’s been played out many, many times in many, many places. Personally I hope the people simply give the conservatives a majority in the US senate in November and they just impeach Obama for doing a lousy job ( and breaking the law / violating the constitution ).

            When it comes to constitutional change, it was a mistake to give the administration regulating powers back in the 1930s, the abuse here shows that this power should be repealed, (Which congress could do) instead the US could use a ministerial setup within congress similar to ours, which works well. Since ministers live and die with their popularity, self interest keeps them in line, if they fall out of favour their own party acts to remove them. The current US arrangements mean that a second term president effectively has no clear means of being removed if acting against the public interest providing either congress or the senate has his back. There is too little threat to the Presidents tenure to ensure that the President follows the congresses ( IE The peoples ) will. For example by convention in Australia, the government and therefore the prime minister can be unseated by a simple majority vote of parliament. In the US to unseat the leader requires impeachement, the President needs to have committed a crime, and the agreement is needed not of a joint sitting of the senate and Reps but both houses must separately agree. Party politics makes this an almost impossible hurdle and US Presidents can do pretty much what they like, becuase they are NOT beholden to the peoples house.

            In my opinion though reducing food availability and driving the US climate back to the LIA (according to IPCC theory), acting clearly against the interests of “We the people” probably triggers the constitutional provision that legallises forcible unseating of a president.

            In any case private utility businesses in my opinion are perfectly within their rights to pull up stumps and stop any plant that does not meet their criteria for economic viability. All I was suggesting is that they should act on that in a perfectly businesslike and capitalist way, drop every coal, diesel, and probably (if I read right ) open cycle gas plant offline to demonstrate what losing fossil power means to the USA. Do it for just one week and Obama would be history, I think Hazelwood should have been shut down 1st July 2011 too, along with every now unviable diesel system in the country. In WA that means everyone outside of the south west interconnected system. JG wouldn’t have lasted a week, instead the states that run most of that plant, just took a loss, then passed it on to us, and we are paying for it now in Queensland with a 13.7 percent rise in electricity this year. They should have revolted against the Commonwealth in the first place.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Leonard Lane

              Then we agree to disagree. By the impeachment process is done in the House of Representatives. If a president is impeached (like an indictment), then he is tried in the Senate similar to a court. Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury (certainly a high crime)and many misdemeanors in the Monica scandal. Under our laws for a common citizen these crime can carry many years in prison and he would have to register as a sex offended as a sexual predator. But the lefties in the US Senate would not convict one of their own unless he was hurting the left.

              The Republicans never really oppose Obama. They bluster and speak of dire consequences at press conferences and then go back to the House and give him whatever he wants. I believe they do this for two reasons. 1) they are so afraid of being called racists in the leftists’ press they are paralyzed because that accusation against a lefty means nothing, but against a Republican it means the end of a career. 2) Using the Dept. of Justice, FBI, NSA, CIA, etc. Obama has many ways to leverage a Republican opponent such as unverified leaks, widely broadcast government investigations showing FBI agents hauling away hundreds of boxes of files, computers, email records, and bad press reports on TV 24/7.

              Our Republican leadership in the House is gutless and the leftists control the Senate. The result is Obama can do about anything he pleases and there is no accountability. He owns the Democrat Party and the press and they do not even report most of his illegal acts and blunders. Only a few blogs such as The Drudge Report and small newspapers such as the Washington times report the news. And oddly, the Attorney General of the US recently announced an in-depth investigation of Matt Drudge. Respectively, I will stand by my comments. But, thanks for your analysis and thoughts–always good to hear an honest disagreement.


              Report this

              10

              • #

                Leonard: No politician is ever treated in the same fashion by the law as an average citizen. That’s one of the perks—you can lie, cheat and steal with impunity. It also seems to exist in many professions where the practitioners protect their own. It’s not right, but I think even in George Washington’s day, it was true. Politicians have always been exempt from their own laws pretty much. Now, the problem is we have lifetime politicians who never have to go back to real life and face those they lied to and cheated. Plus lying and cheatin are more or the norm now (witness global warming—lying, bullying and doing whatever it takes to win and people champion this).

                Yes, Republicans are gutless. However, they have found that opposition to Obama gets all the news and makes them look bad. It’s too late now to make a stand and win. So they choose to pass a budget, put forth few bills and just hold hearings all day long. That way, the Veteran’s scandal, the prisoner exchange, illegal and probably for a deserter, etc are all the news media has to report on. People start thinking about these things and my bet is the Republicans are hoping by November, that’s what people will be thinking. In coal states, democrats are toast. Coal miners want their high paying jobs and they are not about to vote for the flaming idiot who took those away. Look for coal states to turn bright red (those that are not already so).

                In reality, Obama does very, very little except stand on TV, say he’s angry and he’s going to get to the bottom of things. Everything he signs goes into effect years in the future. Never now, years in the future. He’s like the Wizard of Oz, standing behind a curtain, tiny and powerless, with a huge persona shown to the public. The problem is, people think this means something. And belief is everything. Obama triumphs because people believe he has power, not because he does.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @Sheri – We have a “spirited” primary here between an establishment candidate and an upstart Tea Party Candidate. Even though the funding is about 50-1, it has gotten very nasty. So much so that the establishment candidate is running an ad accusing the tea party backed candidate of lying about Congress being exempt from insider trading laws! They are!

                The establishment candidate will probably win, and I will vote this one time for him (I have not in the past 6 years) as his democrat opponent is trying to “tattoo” Tea Party members (literally), but this will be the one and only time I vote for the lying whore! I will vote for his opponent in the primary.


                Report this

                00

              • #

                Phil: We had a chance here of having one current senator challenged in the primary, but the candidate dropped out due to a family medical problem so it looks like our “never saw a federal subsidy I couldn’t lap up, especially for my own family” candidate will be still in office. Unfortunately, once a candidate is office, its’ very often till they die or quit. (Our senator actually expressed shock that someone would run against him in his own party—he fully believes he is entitled to the office for as long as he wants it. And he’s a so-called conservative republican.) There’s always libertarian if you can’t stand the mainstream parties. They don’t win, but at least you don’t end up voting for a known jerk.

                This “branding” people idea is really disturbing. Kind of like the Nazi tattoos for concentration camp detainees. All in the name of fairness, then and now. I don’t like the direction this is going. Brand Tea Party (there is no tea party, but that never stops anyone) and global warming skeptics. I presume these idiots don’t realize that they too can be tatooed for some infraction the ruling class thinks up. With any luck, the insanity will become apparent soon. Otherwise, we may be looking as some dark times (for one side or the other).


                Report this

                00

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                here’s always libertarian if you can’t stand the mainstream parties.

                I have voted for minor parties in the past. However, the “libertarians” around here are funded by the democrats. That is the only way they can win statewide races.


                Report this

                00

              • #

                There went another option. It’s getting harder and harder to go vote.


                Report this

                00

      • #
        Richard of NZ

        Tony, this reduction could be done in less than a month if the coal fired generators had any balls.
        1.. Call special general meetings by all of the coal fired operators.
        2.. Debate whether it is permissible for the generators to destroy the world.
        3.. Announce that they are closing down coal fired generation immediately. At the same time state that delivery contracts are immoral (as they require the death of the Earth) and therefore unenforcible.
        4.. Wait a week until the President and all his men have been impeached and gaoled.
        5.. Restart the death producing generating plants (oooh, sorry, that’s not part of el prezzes plan).


        Report this

        70

        • #
          Geoff Sherrington

          There is a pantomime going on with Australian energy producers and regulators.
          The producers are closing eyes to long term consequences such as the undoubted need to go nuclear because of its superiority. Instead they are trying to keep out of public view while imposing some private managers’ preferences on future directions.
          Collusion with re?gulators (who have been given extraordinary powers) has led to inquiries that are stacked with people of known bias to make the final recommendations. Often these are friends of the key generation owner/managers. It’s a cozy love-in designed to ensure that the consumer has no voice as to future types or costs of electricity.
          Some States have different policy mechanisms to others that make the above hard to generalise, but I am reporting the overall drift.
          There are numerous organisations, public and private companies, all sucking on the public teat while dancing around an obvious need to satisfy the clear demands for future energy supply. Some live on artificial schemes like RET, schemes that reward bludgers and that trouble my conscience for the waste of public monies.
          The whole field is over ripe for a clean sheet redesign where the hoodo voodoo of failed schemes like much alt eng is thrown out and a simple linear system with a maximum control by genuine private enterprise operates with essentially no regulation other than putting limits on the bleeding obvious.
          Why to we have to put up with green kindy influences on our future energy suply? Our country is abundant in raw resources but a hopeless failure in their management.
          Come on, Prime Minister, step in and fix it. You know how to. You are the one who can fastest remove the bureaucratic blanket that is the obvious problem


          Report this

          40

          • #
            the Griss

            “such as the undoubted need to go nuclear because of its superiority”

            There is absolutely no need for Australian producers to go toward nuclear power generation.

            We have some of the largest coal reserves in the world, and we should be using it to help INCREASE the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

            Thankfully, China and others are using OUR coal to do that already.


            Report this

            130

            • #
              Bob of Castlemaine

              Correct Griss the last thing Australia needs to do at present is switch to nuclear power. We have coal resources to burn, literally. Coal is not only our most economic power source but also a worthwhile contributor to increasing atmospheric CO2 and enhancing the biosphere.
              Perhaps there’ll come a time in future decades when coal will need to be reserved for coal to liquids production, but I believe that’s a long way off.


              Report this

              20

              • #
                bobl

                I disagree, with about 1/3 of the worlds known reserves of Thorium, we should be leading the pack on Thorium reactor design…


                Report this

                00

              • #
                the Griss

                I agree on that too, bobl.

                It could be 20-40 years before Thorium nuclear is really sorted out..

                so in the mean time.. lets use that massive coal resource we have.

                And get the coal to liquid-fuel production sorted out.


                Report this

                00

          • #
            Steve

            Yes but the problem is that while these two gialoths fight, as the roll around the collateral damage to anyone nearby is significant – think two “Transformers” fighting in a city filled with high rise buildings….( yeah yeah, so I like the transformers movies….)

            This is the reason we need solar and tank water – to ride out the coming rationing that is the ned result in all this Helegian dialectic struggle. If you can convince the punters there is a need to ration power, you can drop people off the grid for being “naughty”, kick the punters into line as needed, prop up the ailing eco-fairy stiory, maintain power over the serfs, and generally craete mayhem.

            My guess is there will be some form of extra regulation over how much power we can use etc etc.

            Side note – apparently the new solar panels with micro-inverters need to sense a 240V AC supply voltage from the grid to keep generating. My thoughts are that in a black out, if you needed power, but a battery and a 200W DC-AC inverter to provide a voltage the inverters can sense….( but drop the house of the grid first so you dontl liven up the street…)


            Report this

            11

            • #
              tom0mason

              “My guess is there will be some form of extra regulation over how much power we can use etc etc.”

              No need, the electric co. will insist that you have installed, and you pay for, a smart meter, then it will be ‘smart’ appliances.

              Guess who profits from you paying for being smarted.


              Report this

              10

              • #
                Steve

                Yeah although you could easily make low pass RC filters that attenuate any frequency above say 1000Hz that stop the power company talking to your appliances using PLC frequencies between 5-200 kHz.

                Alternatively ( and safer ) is buying isolation transformers for each appliance – this stops power line carrier frequencies reaching each appliance which means you cant be easily snooped on by the power company. You will use a little more power due to the transformers operation (expecuially if lightly loaded ) but its a small price to pay. The other good thing is that it blocks a lot of RF coming deep into the house from other houses ( like EOP devices etc ).

                I’d find it difficult to believe that it was law that the power company had to be able to control your dishwasher…..


                Report this

                20

        • #
          Reinder van Til

          Won’t work in the USA. By presidential order Obama Bin Laden will force the military to start the coal plants again. Any uprising of the people will be brutally oppressed


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        But Tony you forgot its the USA;

        Talk keep talk keep talking happy talk
        Talk about things youd like tooo dooo
        Youve got to have a dream
        If You dont have a dream
        How you gonna have a dream come troooo


        Report this

        10

      • #
        tom0mason

        Maybe it should be a Spanish lesson For Obama or the rest of America? This will happen in the USA if the USA ignores the hard lesson the EU is learning.

        http://mothersagainstwindturbines.com/2014/06/02/spain-dumps-the-renewable-energy-scam-before-it-destroys-their-economy-completely/

        As the EU’s disastrous energy model for Green Energy transition will soon crash, America gleefully runs to follows in their footsteps. This move by Obama’s administration imperils lives, businesses and jobs, and the infrastructure that a modern country requires.
        It is a clear case of self destructive madness for the USA as an industrialize country to persue.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        James the Elder

        It is to be noted that in 1950, the US Capitol power plant switched to————-coal. Lead by example you oxygen wasting maggots.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Tim

      “Shut down 2 or 3 coal fired plants and another very cold winter and they will freeze.”

      A 30% population reduction may be more the intended outcome. The UK are doing a good job of that already.


      Report this

      160

      • #
        bobl

        Very difficult to maintain economic growth or pay back 17 Trillion in debt after culling 1/3 of the population though, methinks the US would collapse before that.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And Obama will finally get the blame for a real difficulty that will affect millions. But he’s already mired in so many scandals that voters are taking notice. So he’s on his way down and out. The big question now is, who will replace him?

      I’ll vote for any of several Republicans who’re very unpopular with their party.

      Ted Cruz
      Rand Paul
      Chris Christie
      Marco Rubio

      There are problems of one sort or another with each one but they at least have a firm grip on the Constitution and understand that regulation, high taxation and reckless spending are the things that kill jobs and our prosperity. They firmly believe that Capitalism is the engine that creates our nation’s wealth, not socialism, much less Communism. They understand our need for energy, good old electricity, diesel fuel and gasoline. And they understand that Obamacare is going to fail no matter what they do to fix it.

      I want to stay prosperous so getting a president who understands those things would be a joyous moment for me.

      Now I need to figure out how to get one or more of these men nominated and finally elected in 2016. Any magicians in the audience?

      And before 2016 we need similar men and women in the Senate. It looks good for gaining both House and Senate seats this year. But never underestimate a foe. The fight will be long and hard. Friday’s primaries will tell us how it’s probably going to go.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        bobl

        Roy,
        We’ve just been through it, but there are other factors at play in the US and there are a few things you should sort out.

        1. For god sake, stop voting on a Tuesday. Vote on a day that busy business persons and small business owners can afford to step out for a few moments to vote.

        2. Right now in the US there are more people dependent on government largesse than not, I am very worried that the US is past the threshold where the population understands they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. It may have reached the point where a truly conservative government in the USA is impossible. The welfare state needs to be controlled so that no more than 50% of the population is dependent on government funding. Australia needs this control too, but creeping welfarism is pushing us toward the tipping point.

        3. From here in Oz it appears that racism played a decisive role in the last election. Minority support for Obama was in the 90 percentile or greater in some constituencies. Clearly reverse racism drove that, people voted for Obama specifically because of his skin Colour. The republican candidate needs to be capable of dividing that reverse racist vote.

        4. In my opinion the Republican parties need to stop being socialist light. They need to stand for something more like classical liberalism. Small government, low tax, cheap fuel and electricity, freedom of expression ( and freedom from political correctness ), individual liberty, pro business, pro jobs, and anti welfare. If you create a successfull business YOU did do that. Instead of welfare have small business startup grants, arrange it so the government can buy their goods and services. Relocation grants to help people move to where the jobs are, retraining grants to put them into jobs, and real support for the rural sector that feeds America. If the 4 Trillion dollars that the US has pulled out of the printing presses to buy mortgage securities and bonds had been spent on setting up new businesses, where might the USA be now, even if only 50 percent survived. The extra money would still be in circulation but many more people helped. Instead green mates like Solyndra get Billions while small buisiness got shafted. Let me ask for example, let’s say, the US government just decided tomorrow, that instead of purchasing centrally they would spread the purchasing around to all bidders no matter how small, and especially startups, what effect would that have?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          bobl,

          You have it pretty much right. I could write a book on what Roy Hogue sees wrong in the United States and it would call out nearly everything you said.

          However, with the polls open from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM there’s no excuse for anyone to complain about voting on Tuesday. Especially since once you are inside the polling place they will stay open until everyone in line has voted. And these days you can get a ballot ahead of time and mail it in just because you don’t want to put yourself out to the extent of making the trip to your polling place. But there’s another small problem in changing the day we vote. This is our government and voting is our chance to have our say in who will run it, thus, how it will be run. The importance of voting transcends everything but emergencies. If someone can’t get invested enough in the process to get to a polling place or cast a ballot by mail I don’t want them voting. They won’t be informed voters making wise decisions. That’s the difference between our systems. You get fined if you don’t show up and cast what might not be a well informed, wisely made vote. We can leave such people to their (I’ll call it what it is) laziness.

          Otherwise we agree. And I’ve made that comparison of our two voting systems before with some agreeing with me and some not. That, as they say, is politics.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Add Scott Walker, remove Chris Christie.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Phil,

          By all means add Scott Walker. But if you say to remove Christie then you should tell me why you object to him. :-)


          Report this

          00

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            He is just another democrat lite. He is cut from the same mold as McCain and Romney.

            And his behavior during 12 submarined Romney’s chances. Which was by design. he knew if Romney won, he would have no chance in 16.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              bobl

              Look, we’ll gift you Malcolm Turnbull if you like, definitely socialist lite, might be best in the Democrats, he’s an AGW nutter, but at least you might get decent broadband and net neutrality if he does get elected.


              Report this

              00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Phil, I agree completely.

          Christie is not worthy for several reasons and will be a distraction. Walker or Paul would be my dream for president but Walker AND Paul (either one as pres.) now there is your dream team!

          The first thing they could do is strip the EPA, eliminate the Department of Energy (what good have they ever done), cut every Federal employees pay by the rate of inflation, and every department by double the rate of inflation (ongoing). Send Congressmen back to their districts for 9 months out of every year using electronic means to “work from home” and force lobbyists to retreat in every way possible.

          Pass a law that all NGO business must openly disclose funding (in and out). Eliminate “non profit” status for all entities unless they document 80% or more of their mission and work going to help the needy.

          One last thought, Rand could appoint his father for something good like Federal Reserve Chair.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Rand Paul as Fed Chair? Where do I sign up!

            I agree. I am not a Rand fan for president, because I think he is too naive on Foreign policy (not as Naive as Obama however). But he is a very strong fiscal conservative.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              OK. So now it looks like it’s down to who I actually want for president. And it’s none of the above no matter who you name unless you have someone waiting in the wings that I haven’t heard about. He needs to be nearly God to be able to lead this fractured nation of ours. And there’s no such person on the horizon.

              So I’m back to who I would vote for if he got on the ballot and that includes Christie, even with baggage. And no one on the right should complain. What Republican in the audience didn’t vote for McCain in 2008? He was not a leader, not a President by any stretch, not even a good senator and not a good fighter pilot either, having ignored a clear warning in his cockpit that a missile was locked onto him. But you voted for him for the same reason I did — the alternative was worse.

              I’m really tired of voting for the lesser of two evils but I take what I can get.


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Rand Paul is an unknown as Fed Chairman. But he at least would know better than to keep on printing money. How he would actually deal with the problem I don’t know. But we need to take our medicine sooner, not later.


                Report this

                00

              • #

                Answer to Roy’s question: I did not.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Sheri,

                I like your new avatar. Did you take that picture yourself?


                Report this

                00

              • #

                Roy—Thank you. Yes, I did take the picture. Badgers are my favorite critters!


                Report this

                00

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                What Republican in the audience didn’t vote for McCain in 2008?

                Thank you for affirming I am not a republican (I have never pretended to be one). I did not vote for him in 2008. Like others, I thought he would be at best, marginally better than Obama. In that I was wrong. He just would not have been as big of a disaster.

                But I will not vote for Christie. If you are trading disaster for disaster light, you are getting nothing.

                There is no one that can fix this mess. I am not looking for that. I am looking for someone to make a start. Christie will merely continue the disaster. The others would at least make the hard choices and decisions.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                The severity of the cure will depend upon how soon it is started. The later the worse it will be.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Badgers are my favorite critters!

                Must be from Wisconsin.


                Report this

                00

              • #
          • #
            bobl

            May I as an outsider suggest something, NGOs that lobby government, via any means, cannot have tax free status… eliminates the we pay you to lobby us conflict of interest that pervades NGOs.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              The IRS, in spite of being neck deep in a whopper of a scandal, still wants to silence conservative political speech. I hope we can survive that one. And as if that isn’t enough there’s an amendment to the Constitution now proposed that would give Congress unbridled power to control political speech, thereby gutting the First Amendment with regard to politics. I don’t think that will fly any time soon. But it won’t go away either. And guess who would benefit from that.

              Thank you John McCain for getting us started down that road.


              Report this

              00

    • #
      Sean

      If I owned a coal generated power plant in the uS, I would just shut it down, and watch the grid collapse. Give the Dumocrats what the want, and let the people lynch them after.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Brian

    In nearly every country where governments have tried to reduce CO2, the emissions have risen.

    ..and in every country where they havn’t tried they have risen even further. What is your suggestion for fixing the rising CO2 emissions?

    ——————
    Look at the graph in the post #2 Brian – Jo.


    Report this

    129

    • #

      PS: My suggestion for fixing the CO2 problem – we need logic, reason and more CO2


      Report this

      302

      • #
        Geoffrey Williams

        When the CO2 continues to rise and the temperatures don’t people must see the logic.
        But how many years will this take?
        Geoff W Sydney


        Report this

        170

        • #

          Only if the people actually realize the temperatures are not rising. There are many, many people who only watch the MSM and they believe the world is warming up. So if the MSM says summers are hotter and there’s more extreme weather, then there must be. It’s easy to maintain. It’s always hot somewhere, there’s always a brush fire, tornado, hurricane, blizzard or other “extreme” event somewhere. So it must be true, or at least in the eyes of these people. Since said persons don’t ever actually check, it’s very, very easy to maintain the illusion.


          Report this

          290

          • #
            Geoffrey Williams

            It’s all about the message I suppose.
            I recently visited the UK and I was amazed at how the average person new very little about the issues of global warming and CO2 emissions. Nor had they ever heard of the IPCC!
            However they are all ready to believe that the weather (climate) is changing and we “have to do something don’t we” response was common.
            Also I listened to a talk back BBC Radio Wales programme on the subject of fracking and again it was amazing how little the people who rang in understood the subject. Nor indeed did the host of the radio programme know any better!
            We have to keep working at the message.
            Geoff W-Sydney


            Report this

            50

      • #
        Sean

        what CO2 problem?


        Report this

        50

        • #
          the Griss

          “what CO2 problem?”

          The plants want MORE of it.

          but the Greens and other environmentalists are fighting against it.

          That is the problem.


          Report this

          70

      • #
        Brian

        PS: My suggestion for fixing the CO2 problem – we need logic, reason and more CO2

        Classic, that sums up the oxymoron that is this blog


        Report this

        06

        • #
          the Griss

          ………………. and the moron that is Brian.


          Report this

          30

        • #

          You have absolutely no idea what an oxymoron is, Brian, (or a dictionary) and no idea how this blog of many words could possibly be described as an oxymoron. Still, you start with classic as if it is self evident.

          I’ll help you, Brian. Are you referring to “skeptical scientists” because scientists only parrot IPCC reports? Does the meaning of “dissident” imply a lack of thinking skills?


          Report this

          30

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          The oxymoron only exists when you post.


          Report this

          11

    • #
      bobl

      There isn’t a CO2 problem, at least not till 40000PPM where CO2 begins to become mildly toxic, but if there was, the only thing that can be done other than putting it into beer, is to feed it to plants. This is the only effective way. Reducing CO2 any other way, reduces the food and oxygen supply for the planet, and this might be illegal in the US since it’s deliberately killing your own innocent citizens, which the USA government can’t legally do


      Report this

      160

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … this might be illegal in the US since it’s deliberately killing your own innocent citizens, which the USA government can’t legally do …

        I don’t think a minor technicality like that, would get in the way of the Euthanasia Promulgation Authority, otherwise known as the EPA.

        If you create the right conditions, nature will do the job for you, whilst you were demonstrably elsewhere, with a cast iron alibi.


        Report this

        140

    • #
      Gbees

      Why do we need to fix rising CO2 emissions? Assuming we can of course.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      GJM

      Nothing needs fixing,so nothing to worry about except for politicians putting their hands in your wallet to tax you for an imagined problem.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Funny, one of the only countries NOT to sign Kyoto, is also the most compliant with the standards from that accord.

      The less you try, the more you succeed in this game.


      Report this

      10

  • #

    Joanne mentions this:

    In nearly every country where governments have tried to reduce CO2, the emissions have risen.

    While there are now considerably less coal fired power plants in the U.S. replaced by Natural Gas (lower CO2 emissions) fired plants, supplying greater actual power delivery than those closed coal fired plants, the actual amount of power delivered from the now lesser number of coal fired plant numbers has in fact risen over the last 2 years by 5% per year, and because of that, CO2 emissions have also risen as well.

    Five percent – not very much? Well think again.

    Emissions from coal fired plants alone rose by 5% in 2012/13, a RISE of a tick over 100 MILLION tons, and in 2013/14 to date a further 5% rise, an addition of 96 MILLION tons.

    Less coal fired plants, and yet delivering more power and emitting more CO2.

    All that on top of hugely rising CO2 emissions from the Natural Gas fired power plants as well.

    Tony.


    Report this

    180

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    America is the single most undemocratic country in the so called Western World and is one of the most fearful countries that you could ever consider to visit.


    Report this

    918

    • #
      Rogueelement451

      That is a nonsensical statement and I,m surprised to see support for it. I have visited America frequently and contrary to assumptions made by most left wing haters of capitalism ,it is a wonderful place to visit especially with your family.
      As to it being one of the most fearful , that is also nonsense. Americans by and large are some of the friendliest people I have ever met, much more so than The UK for example. Sure getting through the door is tough ,but considering the atrocities carried out by terrorists its a shame we don’t have tougher immigration controls at home.
      If you consider America fearful then please don,t venture into Pakistan , North Korea, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia , Iran, Iraq, numerous other Baltic or Russian states ,east Europe etc etc even the bloody Parisians hate anyone who is not French!


      Report this

      350

      • #
        Phil

        Having lived and worked in the USA and having worked closely with many Americans for 30 years I agree 100% with Rogue. Americans (like Australians) come in many varied forms, some lovable and others not so much, and some downright unlovable. i.e. they are people like us.


        Report this

        230

      • #

        even the bloody Parisians hate anyone who is not French!

        They actually like Australians. They treat you like crap if they think that you are English or American but are quite sweet when they find out that your Australian. This was about 12 years ago so the love affair might be over but I do have a few more hints apart from wearing Blundstones.

        Don’t try to learn a lot of French, just how to pronounce the basics. Remember that the French like to start a syllable with a consonant and end them with a vowel.

        Masculine words (le) are nouns that end in a vowel sound with the last consonant ignored, the feminine nouns (la) usually have a silent e to let you know you need to pronounce the last consonant.

        on, en, an, om, em, am are all nasal vowels pronounced like ‘on’ but keeping your tongue away from your front teeth. That is unless you need the n or m to start the next syllable because the next letter is a vowel. in/im and un/um are similar, the first being more like an ‘an’ with your tongue away from your front teeth.

        Greet people when you walk into a shop with ‘messieurs, dame’. They are very nice to you even if you follow up with Parle vous Englaise?

        I spent almost a year their with a vocabulary consisting of “un demi, s’il vous plait” (a pint, please), “deux vin rouge, s’il vous plait” (two red wines, please), (un cafe s’il vous plait), a coffee please), “un lait, s’il vous plait” (a small coffe with a bit of milk because you get a soup bowl if you ask for un cafe au lait), “ca, s’il vous plait” (that, please) and “ou est le toilet? (where is the toilet).


        Report this

        40

    • #
      UsLover

      No. It’s a great place with great people with a reasonable government… not very different from Oz.


      Report this

      130

    • #

      NoFixedAddress: Could you be a bit more specific? America is a big country. You see it as all the same? Downtown LA and Yellowstone Park equally problematic? Details?


      Report this

      141

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        America is in some ways a reflection of the world. You have 3rd world areas like Chicago run by tin plated banana dictators, and you have wide open free areas like Wyoming. A little bit of everything and something for everyone.

        Unfortunately you do have an Emperor in DC as well.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        bobl

        That’s True Sheri,
        I loved the USA lots of very friendly people except in New York, and grumpy bus drivers in LA that couldn’t speak english. I really loved the midwest, and south. Beautiful people, not fearful, not standoffish at all. Only comment I would make is that the majority are somewhat ignorant of the rest of the world, including history and geography. The internet age might have changed that somewhat though … it’s been nearly 30 years.

        My wife ( who’s part Cherokee ) and I would love to go (back in my case) there someday to investigate her ancestry.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          I spent 2 years in Germany (on the American GI plan). The people were great. I still have a fondness for them. I came back to the US to go to College. We landed in NYC. The only pleasant person I met was a GI who I shared a cab with over to Grand Central Station. He was going home on leave. Back to the South.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      gbees

      lets take both parts of your comment ….

      1. “America is the single most undemocratic country in the so called Western World ”

      Not currently but Obama is certainly heading in the right direction. Obama having been a Saul Alinksy teacher and lover of the Cloward & Piven approach its not hard to understand why he’s doing what he’s doing

      2. “America …… is one of the most fearful countries that you could ever consider to visit”

      Having been to the US over 80 times and lived there and having hundreds of American friends i have to disagree. There are of course places you would not want to go in the US just like here and elsewhere in the World. The American people are a great lot and will come through this dark time in their political history. It’s a wonderful country with an amazing constitution. The dark forces of Obama et al will not win out in the end …


      Report this

      70

    • #
      James the Elder

      No one will ever force you to come here.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      James the Elder

      We “fearful” Americans have a saying used by our military: “Your best friend, or your worst enemy.” My neighbor has the key to my house, and I have his. Can you say the same?


      Report this

      50

      • #
        GreggB

        I’m currently living in the Scottish Highlands. I couldn’t tell you, to the month, the last time I used my front door key.

        It’s one of those idiosyncrasies of living in the 1850s. Like being able to buy whisky in the supermarket. And having the booze (and ice-cream) aisles of the supermarket roped off on Sunday mornings.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    manalive

    Wherever like policies are adopted in democracies, it’s usually by bypassing the democratic processes i.e. broken election promises or by regulation.


    Report this

    142

  • #
    Brett_McS

    What about a 100% cut in emissions from the EPA?


    Report this

    310

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      If they were fair dinkum this is what they would do!
      Same for the rest of the world.
      Geoff W Sydney


      Report this

      50

    • #
      john robertson

      Exactly.
      Government claims Manmade CO2 emissions are bad.
      Government is huge and a massive cause of these emissions.
      So shut down government and so solve the governments problem.
      When you look at the emissions produced per govt employee, a simple 10% reduction of government each year would meet their needs.
      In the USA, shutting down all non constitutional government agencies would meet the EPA’s demand overnight.
      As you say… starting with the EPA.


      Report this

      130

  • #
    pat

    meanwhile, in the UK -

    2 June: Daily Mail: Jason Groves: David Cameron warns Britain will quit the EU if federalist gets the top(President of the European Commission) job
    PM has voiced opposition publicly to appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker
    But he reportedly told Angela Merkel in private it could force Britain out
    David Cameron was accused of blackmail last night after warning Britain could quit the EU if an arch-federalist is appointed to head the European
    Commission.
    The Prime Minister voiced his opposition last week to the prospect of Jean-Claude Juncker being appointed to the role, warning it would enrage Eurosceptic voters across Europe.
    Yesterday it emerged that he had gone further in private, reportedly telling German Chancellor Angela Merkel it could lead to Britain’s departure from the EU.
    Mr Juncker, a former prime minister of Luxembourg, is a veteran enthusiast for the creation of a ‘United States of Europe’…
    The respected German magazine Der Spiegel said that in private talks with Mrs Merkel, the Prime Minister branded Mr Juncker a ‘face from the 1980s’ who ‘cannot solve the problems of the next five years’.
    He is said to have warned that the selection of Mr Juncker ‘would destabilise his government to such an extent that the referendum would have to be brought forward and will be likely to lead to the British voting no to EU membership’…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645751/David-Cameron-accused-blackmail-warning-Britain-quit-EU-federalist-gets-job.html

    30 May: New Statesman: Bob Ward: It’s time to challenge Ukip over its climate change denial
    The party should face a far more rigorous examination of its unscientific beliefs.
    While the party capitalised on concerns about immigration and the EU in order to gain MEPs and councillors in many parts of the country, its manifestos also outlined energy policies that reflect an outright denial of man-made climate change.
    The Ukip European manifesto attacked EU targets for renewables and efforts to close the most polluting coal-fired power plants, on the grounds that they increase the “risk of blackouts”, but also promised to scrap the UK’s targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce fuel duty on petrol. The party’s manifesto for the English local elections offered fewer pledges on energy, but vowed to “end wasteful EU and UK subsidies to ‘renewable energy scams,’ such as wind turbines and solar farms.”…
    Apart from its rejection of Europe-wide policies on principle, the other common theme running throughout the pamphlet is an avowed denial of the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. It claims that the rise in global average temperature so far is due to “natural” causes, and refuses to accept that carbon dioxide has anything but a beneficial effect because it is “essential to plant growth and life on earth”.
    It is not surprising, then, that Ukip wants to repeal the 2008 Climate Change Act and to abandon its legally-binding targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. The architect of Ukip’s energy policy is Roger Helmer, who was re-elected this weekend as an MEP for the East Midlands. Helmer is also the party’s candidate for the Newark by-election next week, and has already publicly reiterated his hatred of wind turbines as a key part of his campaign…
    Helmer is not the only Ukip MEP who actively promotes climate change denial. He is joined by Paul Nuttall, the party’s deputy leader, who represents North-West England in the European Parliament where he has been a member of Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. Last September, Nuttall made a speech against biofuels and described “so-called global warming due to man-made carbon emissions” as “increasingly discredited as a climate theory”. He cited the recent slowdown in the rate of rise in global average surface temperature as justification, along with a notorious article in the Mail on Sunday, which wrongly suggested that Arctic sea ice extent increased by 60 per cent between 2012 and 2013…
    However, with Ukip now setting its sights on seats at Westminster, and Nigel Farage speculating openly about holding the balance of power in a hung parliament, its candidates should face a far more rigorous examination of their unscientific beliefs and the lack of robust analysis behind their energy policy.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/05/its-time-challenge-ukip-over-its-climate-change-denial


    Report this

    100

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    O’barmy appears to be controlled by Holdren who with Erlich want to halve US population and drive it into a form of Amish subsistence agriculture, and expect other countries to follow suit. During that transition, GE and GS get very rich. O’barmy gets rich too.


    Report this

    240

  • #
    Hasbeen

    This really is just corruption. A way to increase the cost of power to help his campaign donors in alternate energy industries,
    .

    The behavior of this bloke is so anti American interests, that it must be coming close to treason.


    Report this

    250

    • #
      Rogueelement451

      I have previously asked the question “Can an American President be impeached for stupidity?” I hope the answer is yes.


      Report this

      230

      • #
        Mike S

        I have previously asked the question “Can an American President be impeached for stupidity?” I hope the answer is yes.

        It is – an American President can be impeached for anything Congress considers to be high crimes and misdemeanors, and the link is rather enlightening as to what that means. The real question is will he be impeached, and I’m afraid the answer is probably no – under the current Congress, definitely no.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        James the Elder

        In changing the rules for Obamacare as he wishes, he has amassed at least 18 articles of impeachment. In the Taliban swap, add another. But, it takes a Congress with stones to bring the charges and a Senate with even more to convict and throw out. Never gonna happen due to the catchall “racism”.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Treason yes! but the Bast@%d has probably created a loophole for that also.
      All I could think while reading this today is what disgusting excuse for a human being would purposely enforce this type of hardship on anyone?, and not just Obama but the entire grubby lot of them instigating and fully aware of this s%*t.

      Note to Obama, claiming to Combat a non existent threat while hiding behind a standing army sworn to protect you does not make you a nations leader, it firmly puts you into a nutjob dictator role re: Papa Doc, Idi Amin, Mussolini etc….


      Report this

      200

  • #
    the Griss

    Good luck America :-(

    …. you are seriously going to need it !!!

    Will your populace wake up to the reality of this psychopathic totalitarian idiot before the next Presidential election ??????

    Will that be soon enough to save your country ???????

    Will there even be a next election ????????????


    Report this

    192

    • #

      They will never wake up to the reality of this psychopathic totalitarian idiot. The only hope is that they will wake up to what is going on in Washington (Obama only knows what’s happening when he sees it on Fox News) and try to change Congress. My bet is there will be another election. While Obama still has the media and his brainwashed sheeple, his approval ratings are rock bottom. At this point, there are a lot of people comparing Obama to Sgt. Schultz, a TV character that always said “I know nothing, nothing at all”. By 2016, that may wear thin and people will actually look at Obama and think “He knows nothing”. Plus, the US economy contracted last quarter. The Dems blamed it on the weather (that’s going to backfire, too).

      Obama’s coal stance is already looking like a death nell for congressional Democrats. Seems you can’t go home to your “coal” state and say “Too bad but we have to save the world and thousands of you will now be unemployed”. Especially since the economy ranks near or at the top of every survey out there. I guess we’ll see how much Dems are willing to fall on their swords for a guy who knows nothing.


      Report this

      120

      • #
        PeterK

        Sheri: Being a Canuck,my question is if this lunatic president forces regulations on CO2 emissions (coal fired power plants), through the EPA, can the Senate stop funding the EPA as a counter to an executive order? Just curious.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Off topic but you have not come through unscathed: you have David Suzuki

          KK


          Report this

          10

          • #
            PeterK

            True but Suzuki is being exposed by Ezra Levant at Sun Media for the airhead that he really is. I’ve noticed recently that some of the general public snear when Suzuki is mentioned. He’s a poor idiot old man.


            Report this

            10

        • #

          http://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=301337

          This is an old report but the first I could latch on to. The House of Representatives, in the theory of the Constitution, does all funding. Right now, it’s kind of hard to tell. The catch is the Senate must approve the bill and that only finally happened fall of 2013. (This is the first budget under Obama, so far as I remember.)

          Lack of funding can “shut down” the EPA as was done with the idiotic White House response to the momentary refusal to pass a continuing spending resolution. These little gems demand the House appropriate money as a chunk and the White House gets to play monopoly with it. Or else the government defaults on it’s bills—which would happen because the government buys drinks for table, gives lavish gifts and then if there’s any money left, they pay the rent. So you have to give them a huge chunk of cash. Of course, the EPA would never get shut down due to lack of a continuing resolution. Those don’t last very long. Permanent closer or complete defunding is a different story.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Obama has yet to sign a Budget. He has only proposed 2 (both unanimously defeated in the Senate). He is required by law to submit one every year.


            Report this

            10

            • #

              What did he sign in December 2013 that was called a two-year budget?


              Report this

              00

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                That was a deal – call it a frame work. Budgets have to be passed annually. It is unconstitutional to try to pass a 2 year spending budget. Not to say they cannot amend the constitution to do that, and not to say Obama is not familiar with breaking the law and violating the constitution. However that was merely a framework of future spending. It did not contain any details. Only targets.


                Report this

                00

              • #

                Oh, another misnomer applied by the press? It was supposed to stop the wrangling and shut downs, correct? If you read what the press said, there were tons of evil cuts and so forth, again, making it sound like a budget. (Thanks for the answer.)


                Report this

                00

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          House actually. All money bills have to originate in the House. But the senate has to agree and then the president has to sign. However, if they do not fund it, there is nothing to agree to and nothing to sign. They just do not put money into the budget (or the only thing Obama has signed, CRs).


          Report this

          10

    • #
      Mark Hladik

      “Will there even be a next election?”

      That’s the question. Sheri is more optimistic than I. It may actually take something like a cancelled election to finally awaken the “sleeping giant”.

      Apologies to Yamamoto … …


      Report this

      60

    • #
      DT

      He reminds me of Julia Gillard far to the left politics and international socialist associates.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    King Geo

    This 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 as reported in the WSJ is total & utter lunacy for a country which has so much debt that it has to print more money to keep going. The worst thing the USA needs right now is an idealistic socialist/greenie leader like Obama – the USA should continue to fast track its extensive shale gas reserves and focus on generating the “cheapest form of base load energy power” as possible, ie fossil fuels e.g. mainly gas & coal – abandon fast tracking to “Renewables” (wind & solar)- it will be “Economic Suicide” – no one wants to see “Economic Armageddon” occur in the Worlds largest economy.


    Report this

    190

    • #
      James Bradley

      Whilst here in Oz we are 3 days into winter, the weather is fantastic.

      The alarmists are out in force now hottest 2 years evvvvaaa.

      The Climate Council scare campaign is in full flight…

      and Will Steffen – what a wanker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


      Report this

      190

      • #
        King Geo

        I bet Steffen never mentioned that our maximum temps in May 2014 here in Perth were 1 degree below average and that the rainfall was 152.6mm, which is way over average – in fact that is the 2nd May in a row that Perth’s May has been more like Winter, ie cooler & much wetter than average. Meanwhile the East Coast of Oz had a warmer 2014 May than average – big deal. Its all swings and roundabouts. What counts are the Global Temperatures – and you can see from the UAH Global Satellite Temperature record of the Lower Atmosphere that there has been no Global Warming since 1998, this despite CO2 in the atmosphere rising by ~ 10% during that 15 1/2 year period. Steffen and his delusional CAGW alarmist mates never discuss the big picture e.g. they focus on a few trees in a particular area and ignore the forest as a whole or what I would call the “helicopter view”.


        Report this

        90

        • #
          James Bradley

          KG, must be the same scientific concept as Sea Level Rise – Localised Global Warming.


          Report this

          80

        • #
          the Griss

          Quite frankly, why anyone in their right mind would complain about the WEATHER we have had on the east coast during May, is totally beyond my comprehension.

          Its been bloody beeeeauuutiful !!!!!!!


          Report this

          102

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Nice technical term there James, I had to give you a thumbs-up for restraint.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          James Bradley

          Thank you – I added the exclamation marks for effect – the warmists seem to be particularly fond of them.


          Report this

          20

        • #
          James Bradley

          and back again…


          Report this

          20

        • #
          James Bradley

          Yes, we would normally suffer heavy frosts this time of year on the highlands, but up to now we’ve had very pleasantly mild days with a bit of rain at night, and as Griss so elegantly put:

          “Its been bloody beeeeauuutiful !!!!!!!”

          Fair dinkum these warmists would pick up a gold nugget and still act like they were holding a turd.


          Report this

          51

          • #
            the Griss

            Thanks you , kind sir.. :-)

            Oh and just a hint.. your avatar is driven by your email address.

            If you type it slightly incorrectly or use a different email address, your avatar will change.


            Report this

            41

          • #
            the Griss

            ps. I also note how elegantly, and eloquently you put your description of Will Steffen. :-)

            The perfect description.


            Report this

            51

          • #
            Peter Carabot

            The weather has been superb, the sky resort will complain that there is no snow, the ABC will find an old codger that lived all his life at Perisher and has never seen the weather so hot, the climate commission will have doctored graphs showing the alarming ( deadly) rise in temperature and on and on and on!!!! ( I like exclamation marks and ……. dots too)


            Report this

            20

        • #
          James Bradley

          Jo – yes, I changed my e-mail address back and forth a couple of times, it’s quite liberating.


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Backslider

        Has anybody here ever been able to state something sensible on The Conversation and not had the mods immediately pull it?


        Report this

        10

      • #
        PeterK

        James: Doesn’t winter down under start on June 21/22 because summer up here starts on this date.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          the Griss

          Winter is generally reckoned to be June, July, August.

          I think that may also be “official”, but not sure


          Report this

          10

        • #
          James Bradley

          Peter, officially June 1, but most of us in the Southern and South Eastern states have the wood in and the fires ready to light after Anzac Day around the end of April.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    pat

    ***Ewart at Radio Australia is not a reporter, he is an open advocate of CAGW. note the leading questions, at one point he talks of countries that are, “CLIMATE SCEPTIC”, then, altho he represents Australia via taxpayer funding, he asks if Australia has shown any interest, knowing the answer will relate to the previous labor govts. sickening stuff to listen to:

    AUDIO: 2 June: Radio Australia (ABC): Pacific disaster plan may influence global blueprint – SPC
    Pacific leaders have gathered for a two day meeting in Suva to endorse a strategy which Mr Sikivou says will then be presented at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Japan next March…
    Speaker: Mosese Sikivou, Deputy Director of Secretariat of the Pacific Community Disaster Reduction Programme
    SIKIVOU: The Pacific is leading the world in developing this regional strategy in terms of integration of climate change and disastrous management. It was a single policy frramework.
    RICHARD EWART, ABC: Just to stress that point, what this gathering is all about is progressing this policy of linking the threat posed by natural disaster and also by climate change. The two are being interlinked as far as possible right across the Pacific?…
    RICHARD EWART, ABC: Is this something that is necessary for the countries of the Pacific to do, partly because on a global scale, such agreements are proving so hard to achieve and, of course, that there is the start of the renegotiating process on something to follow up on Kyoto yet to come. Who knows how long that might take. So the Pacific can’t really afford to sit back and wait?…
    RICHARD EWART, ABC: The platform has been co-convened by yourselves at the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and also the United Nations Office for Disaster, Risk Reduction. We’ve seen on a number of occasion in the last few years impassioned speeches from Pacific leaders at the UN General Assembly on the theme of climate change and what needs to be done to mitigate the effects. In future, might we see something more in terms of speeches on behalf of the Pacific, rather than on behalf of individual countries?
    SIKIVOU: I think that’s already happening, but certainly, with this integrated approach with the prominence of the whole climate and disaster discourse, in the upcoming meeting on small island developing states in September in Samoa…
    RICHARD EWART, ABC: And what you’re doing collectively is being described as a world first.
    ***(CLIMATE SCEPTIC?)So what sort of signal, what sort of message, does this send out to the rest of the world, particularly those countries who are perhaps (SIC) climate sceptic than others?…
    RICHARD EWART, ABC: What about interest from closer to home, closer to the Pacific.
    ***Any interest from Australia or from New Zealand?
    SIKIVOU: A couple of years ago, Australia in particular, was looking at developing a new policy to bring together their efforts in climate and disaster risk from a donor prospective. The European Union has also been a strong advocate of this, in fact a new line of funding has been provided to the region through SPC, approximately 20 million euros and firmly encourages the work on integration…
    http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/pacific-disaster-plan-may-influence-global-blueprint-spc/1320208


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Peter Carabot

      “linking the threat posed by natural disaster and also by climate change.” … so that next time we publish statistics about climate change disasters the numbers will be disproportionate high and there will be no way to find out which is which… Another scam organized by the warmist!!


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Rob Taylor

    “because federal clean air laws leave it up to each state to come up its own plan for complying with the emission guidelines.” Recent court decisions make it very clear that legislation will be set by the Feds. If the EPA doesn’t think state legislation goes far enough, there are Federal recourses.
    Television coverage now saying cuts of 26% by 2020 and 30% by 2030. Yeah!Right!


    Report this

    110

    • #
      bobl

      Of course the USA is a federation of states and the states do have the right to override the federal governments guidelines, they also have the power to call a constitutional convention and repeal the presidents power to regulate over the states and in fact remove the office of the president from the books entirely. In my opinion the states should gang up on washington and commence such a process. They could start just by ammending the constitution to exempt environmental activities from federal powers. In my opinion the president should never have been given the power to regulate, the states should shift that role back to congress.

      A joint sitting of congress and the senate should be capable of removing a President on a vote of no confidence, more like the westminster system. The president should be the servant of the people, and unless he is made subservient to congress the president is largely invulnerable and the US will always be vulnerable to tyranny. Put simply the US system puts too much power into a single pair of hands, power that rightly belongs to the people’s representatives in congress.

      The states could if they so desired fix this problem, but they don’t.


      Report this

      60

      • #
      • #
        PhilJourdan

        In my opinion the states should gang up on washington and commence such a process

        A Constitutional convention is a 2 edged sword. They could rip up the document and start over. So many states fear it. Plus you have the People’s Republic of California and the Free Republic of Wyoming (as extremes), which would both be equal in such a convention. So the big states have no reason to agree to one. And getting 38 to agree on a single item would be like herding cats.

        It is desperately needed, but alas, the strength of the founders was not a trait inherited by the politicians of today.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          bobl

          But Phil, this is politics – commencing the process with an aim to curb federal power would be plenty to bring the feds to the table. Calling the convention doesn’t mean it needs to be convened. The states do hold all the cards, or “a big stick” as it’s known here.

          It could be done on a limited scale, say a small amendment to permit a president to be removed on a simple majority vote of a joint sitting of parliament (house and senate together), followed by VP taking charge in a caretaker role until a presidential election within say 90 days.

          This simple change means the President would serve at the pleasure of the people and the states, no crime or misdemeanour required. You probably wouldn’t see too many presidents off ignoring marriage acts, and changing environmental legislation intended for cars into fixed plant legislation, or instituting defacto immigration amnesties against the wishes of congress after that change.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            I agree with you to an extent. But you have to remember that some of the states LOVE what Obama is doing. And love a strong central government (think Mass, NY, California, etc.). As it still requires 38 states to even call one, I just do not see that number saying yes.

            If it ever got to that point, yes I think there would be a lot of scrambling by all of DC (all the little men in government). I really would love to see it. I just do not see it happening.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    ROM

    “The opera ain’t over until the fat lady sings”.

    Obama is playing with fire and his presidency in a way that assumes he is arrogantly invulnerable even if things go very wrong for him and his totally useless and utterly inept but potentially devastating and crippling economic blunder of trying to forcibly close down America’s coal generation plants, all 600 of them.
    Usually in positions of such power at this period of their presidencies most past American Presidents have adopted a fairly pragmatic course for the remainder of their presidencies.

    From the outside and compared to the regularity of past American Presidential mentions in the Australian media, Obama has been almost invisible and is coming across as almost totally ineffective or worse for most of his presidency, highlighted by the lousy, one could say completely ideologically driven and incompetent set of advisers he has appointed around him.

    Of course the level of competency of Presidential advisers reflects first on the competency of the President himself in his choice of the calibre of the advisers he selects and then reflects the President’s competency in the way his advisers operate and what they and he can achieve during the four years of elected Presidency.

    Just imagine the difference if Richard Lindzen or Judith Curry or similar had been the science advisers to Obama instead of that totally ideological driven crack pot John Holdren.

    Again from the outside Obama appears to have failed and failed dramatically in his choice and the calibre and competency of his main advisers.

    The best possible outcome would be for the major power generation units that supply the east coast and California were to all shut down for maintenance together leading to massive weeks long blackouts while America’s heartlands continued to operate as usual.

    Obama’s left wing stooges and the greens and his running dogs in the east coast media and California would soon reverse course after just 24 hours without power.

    Via the GWPF from Commentary
    ____________________

    The Casualties of Obama’s War on Coal

    [ Selected quotes ]

    The president has already signaled that addressing climate change was one of the priorities of his second term as well as making it clear that he was eager to move ahead and govern by executive order rather than via the normal constitutional process that involves the legislative branch.
    As such, the White House rightly anticipates that this broadside aimed at the coal industry will be intensely popular with Obama’s core constituencies on the left as well as the liberal mainstream media.

    But while leading Democratic donors such as Tom Steyer will be cheering a measure that fits his ideological agenda, not everybody in the Democratic Party is going to be happy with what amounts to a new Obama war on coal.
    In particular, the Democrats’ brightest hope for stealing a Republican-controlled Senate seat this fall—Kentucky’s Alison Lundergan Grimes—may wind up paying a fearful price for Obama’s decision.

    &

    But back at home this high-minded environmentalism may not play as well as he thinks.
    Many Americans fear that Obama will damage their economy while doing nothing to alter the warming equation that is being decided elsewhere.
    Though the media has followed the White House playbook in emphasizing any report that hypes the threat from global warming while downplaying any development that undermines this thesis, the public has demonstrated repeatedly that this issue is not a priority, especially when compared to their concerns about the economy and jobs.
    And this is exactly what the president’s orders will affect most grievously.
    &
    The war on coal is exactly the ticket to fire up the president’s coastal elite base as well as very much what the international community wants.
    But it could be the death knell for Grimes’s Senate hopes. If that race makes the difference in deciding control of the Senate, it could be that global warming will be the issue that pushes Obama from a weak-second term incumbent to dead-in-the-water lame duck.
    ______________

    Australian, European and Chinese pop corn futures are going up fast.
    Putin and co are sniggering and suggesting; Whats your problem Obama?

    And remember over the next few weeks and months; “The opera ain’t over until the fat lady sings”


    Report this

    150

    • #
      ROM

      I’ll toss in another thought, one which was brought on when browsing for the structure of the North American grid network.
      It is the insurance brokers “Lloyds of London” study on the effects of a Black Swan event .
      [ All Swans are white and there is no such thing as a Black Swan. But there was! It was un-forecast, unpredicted and impossible to imagine but it happened. ]

      That Black Swan event is increasingly likely.
      It is the probability of a Coronal Mass Ejection from the Sun impacting somewhere on the Earth.

      If it was to impact on the likes of North America, or Europe or Asia or Australia, it would likely destroy considerable parts of or most of the electrical transmission network infrastructure for many months at a minimum, as well as taking out most or all of the electronic communications networks over entire continents again for many months or years until those networks could be repaired and rebuilt.

      The reasons for bringing this point up is that Obama’s attempts to change the way in which energy is generated, distributed and used by the world’s major economic and political power in the USA in his arrogant and pathetic belief that he can change the course of Nature and force it to fit his own imagined perceptions on what Nature should look like and how Nature should act.

      This arrogance and contempt for the power of Nature and Obama’s apparent belief that he can change the course of Nature by decree is itself so totally pathetic when measured along side of what Nature in all it’s power can do to one of mankind’s greatest achievements, the creation of massive energy generation and distribution networks that covers entire continents, a network that underpins the entire civilisation of our modern world and a network which if severely damaged or destroyed will possibly set whole societies back by decades at least.

      Rather stupidly Obama appears to be inadvertently trying to destroy much of the North American grids ability to ensure the continuation of the essential to the America electrical energy supplies.
      If he had a modicum of intelligence and realism anywhere in his mentality, he would instead be concentrating on ensuring the reducing of the grids vulnerabilities to unexpected outside shocks such as terrorism and most importantly the possibility / probability of an impact from a major Coronal Mass Ejection which have demonstrated in the past to be capable of damaging large parts of the entire power generation and distribution systems of America’s vital electrical energy systems.

      By his actions in this case, Obama is demonstrating just how narrow and small time he actually is and how unfitted he is to lead the world’s major economic and political power.

      So to calibrate the level of the power of Obama’s decrees to alter the natural order of our environment against that which Nature herself will impose at her leisure and discretion and at a time unknown to any, this Lloyds 2013 paper on the effects of a major solar Coronal Mass Ejection striking a major global economic and political power’s electrical and communications network is worth a long look at
      ______________
      Solar storm Risk to the North American electric grid

      [ selected quotes ]

      1 Executive Summary

      A Carrington-level, extreme geomagnetic storm is almost inevitable in the future. While the probability
      of an extreme storm occurring is relatively low at any given time, it is almost inevitable that one will occur
      eventually. Historical auroral records suggest a return period of 50 years for Quebec-level storms and 150
      years for very extreme storms, such as the Carrington Event that occurred 154 years ago.

      The risk of intense geomagnetic storms is elevated as we approach the peak of the current solar cycle.
      Solar activity follows an 11-year cycle, with the most intense events occurring near the cycle peak. For the
      current Cycle 24, the geomagnetic storm risk is projected to peak in early 2015.

      As the North American electric infrastructure ages and we become more and more dependent on
      electricity, the risk of a catastrophic outage increases with each peak of the solar cycle. Our society is
      becoming increasingly dependent on electricity. Because of the potential for long-term, widespread power
      outage, the hazard posed by geomagnetic storms is one of the most significant.

      Weighted by population, the highest risk of storm-induced power outages in the US is along the
      Atlantic corridor between Washington D.C. and New York City. This takes into account risk factors such
      as magnetic latitude, distance to the coast, ground conductivity and transmission grid properties. Other high-
      risk regions are the Midwest states, such as Michigan and Wisconsin, and regions along the Gulf Coast.

      The total U.S. population at risk of extended power outage from a Carrington-level storm is between
      20-40 million, with durations of 16 days to 1-2 years. The duration of outages will depend largely on the
      availability of spare replacement transformers. If new transformers need to be ordered, the lead-time is likely
      to be a minimum of five months. The total economic cost for such a scenario is estimated at $0.6-2.6 trillion
      USD (see Appendix).

      Storms weaker than Carrington-level could result in a small number of damaged transformers
      (around 10-20), but the potential damage to densely populated regions along the Atlantic coast is
      significant. The total number of damaged transformers is less relevant for prolonged power outage than
      their concentration. The failure of a small number of transformers serving a highly populated area is enough
      to create a situation of prolonged outage.

      A severe space weather event that causes major disruption to the electricity network in the US could
      have major implications for the insurance industry. If businesses, public services and households are
      without power for sustained periods of time, insurers may be exposed to business interruption and other
      claims.
      &
      9 Conclusions
      Given the essential role electricity plays in society today, it is crucial to understand how natural hazards
      impact the reliability of the grid. The hazard posed by geomagnetic storms is one of the most concerning due
      to the potential for long-term, widespread power outage. While the probability of an extreme storm occurring
      is relatively low at any given time, one will occur eventually. And as the electric infrastructure ages and we
      become more and more dependent on electricity, the risk of a catastrophic outage increases with each peak
      of the solar cycle.

      Considering physical and technological risk factors such as magnetic latitude, distance to the coast, ground
      conductivity, and transmission grid properties, it is clear that the corridor between Washington D.C. and New
      York City are at the highest risk for power outages from damaged transformers. Other high-risk regions
      include the Midwest and the Gulf Coast states. Dynamic simulations of extreme geomagnetic storms suggest
      that the total human population at risk of extended outage from a Carrington-level storm ranges between 20-
      40 million in the at-risk areas, with durations of 16 days up to 1-2 years.

      Depending on the number of EHV transformers immediately available for replacement, outages in highly
      impacted regions could last from weeks to months. In fact, geomagnetic storms weaker than the extreme,
      Carrington-level storm still have the potential to be extremely costly if transformer damage is concentrated in
      small regions with large populations.

      Given the potential for large-scale, long-term economic and societal chaos, it is necessary to evaluate
      preparatory and mitigative measures. There are currently several space satellites in operation that can
      provide warnings of incoming CMEs on the timescale of hours to days, timescales that could allow grid
      operators to take preventative measures before the storm hits.

      However, magnetic field strength and orientation of incoming plasma – key ingredients in forecasting Earth
      impacts, can only be measured with a lead time of 15-30 minutes. Additionally, these satellites are all past
      their mission lives, and replacements are essential for monitoring solar activity in the near future.
      Improvement in forecasting Earth impacts will only be made by funding research targeted at predicting and
      continued investment in the infrastructure necessary to measure impulsive solar wind events.

      The electric grid can be hardened against the flow of geomagnetically induced currents in regions with the
      highest risk of outage. Current blocking capacitors and GIC monitors can be installed to protect transformers
      and regulate the power flow. While these measures represent additional costs to grid companies, the cost of
      prevention is much smaller than the price of damage a single storm can create.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    pat

    no surprise at all.

    30 May: Reuters: EPA may nod to nuclear in carbon rules, as generators fear closures
    By Valerie Volcovici and Scott DiSavino
    U.S. environmental regulators could throw a lifeline to the nation’s ailing nuclear power fleet when they unveil landmark carbon pollution curbs next week, heeding calls from operators like Exelon Corp to acknowledge nuclear energy as a valuable way to reduce emissions…
    Nuclear generators like Chicago-based Exelon, the nation’s largest, and Entergy Corp of New Orleans, have warned that they need a regulatory pathway to compete with cheap gas-fired power plants and to cope with the high cost of repairing or replacing aging units.
    In meetings with the EPA, executives have urged the agency to recognize atomic energy in the new rules, arguing that financial incentives or trading systems that would prevent the closure of nuclear plants are an effective way to reduce overall greenhouse gas output.
    Officials appear to have taken note. In an EPA summary document seen by Reuters, the agency identifies “avoiding the retirement of 8 percent of existing nuclear capacity” among several ways states can comply with the rules, along with increasing renewable power such as solar.
    By naming the continued use of existing nuclear capacity as part of a “best system of emission reductions” – the menu of options for curbing carbon – the EPA could give states the go-ahead to make nuclear part of their strategy for complying with the new federal pollution limits…
    “We need every single megawatt of nuclear to stay in place just to tread water, and we need appropriate incentives to keep those units in operation and to expand clean energy,” Joseph Dominguez, Exelon’s senior vice president of governmental and regulatory affairs, told Reuters. He said he has not yet seen the EPA proposal…
    The pleas arise amid growing signs of distress in the industry. Last week three nuclear units owned by Exelon, including two in Illinois, failed to win contracts at an auction to supply the Atlantic and Midwest PJM electrical grid, the nation’s largest, for 2017-2018.
    Exelon, which operates 24 reactors at 14 sites around the country, or about a quarter of the U.S. fleet, has said it may be forced to shut three Illinois units for economic reasons. The threatened facilities – in Byron, Clinton and the Quad Cities – employ more than 2,300 people and pay over $50 million a year in local and state taxes…
    Chuck Barlow, Entergy’s vice president of environmental strategy and policy, says nuclear generators should get credit for the megawatts produced, either through state clean energy programs or multi-state carbon markets, like the northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)…
    Without any incentives, companies may be forced to shut several of the nation’s older reactors, despite expectations they would find favor with the retirement of older coal plants, said Doug Vine, a senior energy fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions…
    Nuclear accounts for nearly half of Illinois’ electricity generation, with carbon-intensive coal making up most of the remainder, making the future of the nuclear fleet a key question for the Midwestern state…
    Doug Scott, chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission, hopes the EPA proposal will back states like Illinois that have a cleaner energy mix, led by nuclear, but including energy efficiency improvements, coal plant closures and renewables.
    “There are ways we can take advantage of the clean energy sources we have, like nuclear…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/30/usa-climatechange-nuclear-idUSL1N0OF24O20140530


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    (2 pages) 1 June: Forbes: Ken Silverstein: Industry’s Choice: Help Shape Or Be Shaped By Obama’s Carbon Plan
    The president’s new method to be created by executive order is reported to give states the latitude that they will need to reduce their emissions — anything from burning cleaner fuels to installing modern technologies to trading credits. The northeastern United States will agree, having long complained that dirty air from southeastern and midwestern states are drifting its way.
    But the coal-producing states will not concur, arguing that those kinds of policies ought to be left to Congress. Opponents, though, must now choose between all-out war or negotiations, which leave open the possibility of compromise…
    A joint report issued by the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute says that pricing carbon is the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide releases that are tied to global warming. A $16 tax per ton would raise $1.1 trillion in the first 10 years…
    Conservative legends such as George Shultz, former U.S. Secretary of State under President Reagan, support a carbon tax. His argument is that the producers don’t bear the environmental price; rather, it is the broader society. And a carbon tax would even the playing field.
    Shultz adds that that British Columbia has such a carbon tax. In that case, the government there gradually increased the tax and then redistributed it to individuals, making it popular. He adds that the Republicans have historically been known as the party that issued policies to protect the environment, noting that it was under President Nixon that the 1970 Clean Air Act passed…
    The utilities supporting the pact as a compliance framework are Calpine Corp., Consolidated Edison, Exelon Corp and National Grid…
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/06/01/industrys-choice-help-shape-or-be-shaped-by-obamas-carbon-plan/


    Report this

    40

  • #
    John Watt

    My understanding is that Dr John Nicol (in 2010) has pretty much demonstrated that increasing/decreasing CO2 emissions has a negligible effect on climate change. Isn’t much of what is being commented on above just political posturing? When will politicians be honest enough to admit they don’t understand what drives climate change. How do we stop their adopting what they perceive to be vote-winning postures and start promoting factually-based policies that benefit the community?


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Carbon500

    Wouldn’t it be nice to see the power engineers just left to get on with establishing, maintaining and building what’s needed?
    I for one don’t want to see greens, environmentalists, climate change experts and politicians deciding on critical issues such as the provision of a nation’s power supply – but this is seemingly what’s happening.


    Report this

    200

    • #
      ROM

      Carbon500 A@ # 17

      We will get back to that again probably within the next decade and a half as something else that will devastate most of what you can think of will be dreamed up by the next lot of young left green water melon whackos who are just emerging from the universities right now.

      And who are arrogant enough and definitely ignorant enough to believe they alone hold the keys to knowledge and wisdom and all those other, to paraphrase one of them on the thread the other day, grumpy old white men who infest the JoNova and other skeptic sites don’t know nuthin.


      Report this

      90

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    He will burn the jobs. But do nothing for CO2 (which is good – a small solace to the train wreck of his administration). The opposition is pathetic and the courts cowed. So even when he breaks the law, no one does a thing about it.

    We can only hope that he will go quietly in 2 years. But I have my doubts on that as well. “Doin’ Right Ain’t Got No End” – captain Red Legs, The Outlaw Josey Wales.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Tim

    ‘Clean energy’ run by dirty politics.

    A product or concept succeeds or fails on its merit. It doesn’t need to be subsidised or dictated by a socialist agenda.

    “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts, godammit.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/solyndra-politics-infused-obama-energy-programs/2011/12/14/gIQA4HllHP_story.html


    Report this

    50

  • #

    As long as we are on STUPID people and politics, read this yesterday:

    http://watchdog.org/147057/social-costs-fossil-fuels-stop-north-dakota-border/

    Looks like the grandchildren in Minnesota will be freezing to death over the winter, but since nature kills them, it will be okay.


    Report this

    60

  • #

    So, good luck with reducing the emissions when you have this.

    Total population of New York City is 8.4 Million people.

    Total Yearly Power consumption New York City is 115TWH. (TeraWattHours)

    Total population of Africa 1,100 Million.

    Total Yearly Power consumption for all Africa is 670TWH.

    So Africa has 131 times the population and consumes only 5.8 times the total yearly power. There are only 2 Countries in Africa which consume more power per year than NYC, South Africa, (Population 52 Million and consuming 250TWH) and Egypt. (population 81 Million and consuming 150TWH)

    An African Country with a similar sized population to NYC is Benin (8.5 Million people) It’s yearly power consumption is 0.15TWH or 0.13% of NYC power consumption, or NYC consumes 766 times the power of the whole Country of Benin.

    Huh! Tell Manhattan and all those skyscrapers there that they have to do without one fifth of all their power.

    Yeah! Right!

    Tony.


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Mark D.

      Tony, that’s because all the stupid people that live in New York can’t find their way around without all the blinding night lights and neon. On top of that, some of the stupid ones like to stay comfortable in their $1,000,000 + apartments and can afford a 30% increase in electric costs. The rest of the stupid East Coast SOB’s get what they deserve. They voted that *&^%*&#%! idiot into office.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Robert O

    One has to be bemused at the lack of knowledge of pretty basic engineering and power generation. To have high intensity electricity you have to have turbines, either steam turbines powered by coal, oil, gas, wood, or nuclear, or dams and turbines powered by water. Most of the other forms of generation, wind, solar, tidal, produce low intensity electricity which is intermittent as well. Irrespective of the politics, the only alternative at the moment for non carbon dioxide producing power generation is nuclear, currently fission, but possibly fusion in the future, unless we build more water storages and have hydro power, but there are probably not many more suitable sites for this.

    In various countries, rural India for example, bio-digesters are used for the production of methane, which is equivalent to coal seam gas, why not think about using an industrial scale operation in our larger cities with an adjacent power plant, rather than dispatching our waste to sea!


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Richard111

    People who believe carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can effect global climate are deniers of more than 200 years of verified science.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    gai

    I have a suggestion.

    The USA needs to sequester CO2 by pumping ALL the excess under Washington DC or maybe just Congress….


    Report this

    30

  • #
    gai

    The Energy Information Administration 2012 report and other reports at instituteforenergyresearch (org) showed major shutdowns already planned in the Mid-Atlantic, Ohio River Valley, and Southeastern United States. That is ~10% of the energy generation and does not include the need to shutdown half the coal plants at a time for an 18 month retrofit to meet the EPA’s three year deadline from the EPAs last bombshell.

    There is also the possible shutdown of 1/3 of the US nuclear plants if their licenses are not renewed.

    Now add in all of Obama’s stirring up of racial hate, 24% unemployment, over 1/2 of US retirees dependent on Social security and inner cities full of druggies and guns.

    Thanks to the Patriot Act we shredded Posse Comitatus, a law forbidding the use of the military within the USA on civilians. Now a leaked Memo outlines Obama’s plan to use the military against citizens.

    Well that sure explains the militarization of US police departments and the Department of Homeland Security stockpiling enough Ammo for a 20 year hot war doesn’t it? Nothing like our own government preparing for a war on its own citizens after forcing them to the wall….


    Report this

    60

    • #

      I take back any optimism. It seems every freaking politician in America, the news media and 90% of the bloggers out there are looking forward to a civil war. Republicans can’t win elections, so they’ll back the war in the hopes they can win. Democrats never like elections anyway. How is it that every side out there just wants an all-out war and are even looking forward to it??????


      Report this

      60

      • #
        gai

        I am not looking forward to a war. With luck we can avoid it if we see where the actions taken now lead.

        We are coming up on an election so screaming bloody murder to our reps and the general public NOW can have an effect.

        We have seen too many times that once an action is taken it is cast in concrete and the camel takes another step into the tent.


        Report this

        20

        • #

          I hope you are right. It’s just that even the Washington Times is feeding the “Obama is going to become a dictator” fears. With all the hype, I fear people will start believing this and take action.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            James the Elder

            I’m not looking for a revolution, but I am spoiling for a fight. Pick your politician and lets have at it. I’m 67 and can still hold my own. I think the vast majority of Americans that have their eyes open are along that line. We elect Reps and Senators who talk the big talk and immediately put on the knee pads when they hit DC, and we are damned tired of it. If I lie to Congress, I go to jail; if Congress lies to me it’s no problem since the Supreme Court ruled political lies are legal. If Bill Gates calls me and says to sell my MS stock, I go to jail for insider trading. If Bill Gates calls Harry Reid and says the same, it is not illegal.

            Our economy is crap.
            Our currency is crap.
            Our leadership is crap.

            We are damned tired of it.


            Report this

            80

            • #
              Mark D.

              James the Elder, nicely said! didn’t waste any words at all.


              Report this

              50

            • #
              bobl

              A good one for your new ammended constitution, lies by polititions are punishable by ….

              I have posited that Australian politics would be transformed by one simple constitutional change. That all house and senate votes be secret ballots. Maybe that could work in the US, it’s an amendment designee to ensure that representatives are free to represent their constituencies and not their Party.


              Report this

              00

          • #
            Truthseeker

            Sheri,

            There is a whole US sub-culture of “Doomsday Preppers” over there that take this stuff very seriously …

            Be afraid … be very afraid …


            Report this

            30

            • #
              James the Elder

              Joke. If Doomsday does come, once the preppers run out of fuel they’re in the $hit like everyone else. They can hole up in their little forts or underground bunkers for a few months at most, and then the zombies come for them too. I try to keep six months of staples on hand, but if the power goes, I can last only as long as my gas bottles, then I’m done.


              Report this

              40

              • #
                the Griss

                “I try to keep six months of staples on hand,”

                Gees… how many reems of paper have you got. ? :-)


                Report this

                40

              • #
              • #
                Mark D.

                James, the natives to northern North America survived winters with no more than firewood. Funny isn’t it that the EPA wants to ban wood stoves?


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Mark D.

                Joke. If Doomsday does come…..

                I think doomsday outcomes depend greatly on random variables related to location, some preparation and what everyone else does. For example you don’t want to be in a metropolitan area for a few weeks near the beginning. The worst will be over in a few months.

                Preparing to exist independently for 6 months or more isn’t a joke but I be in agreement that many preppers are fooling themselves. Those “semi prepped” may be the second wave of zombies.

                We already know how the government will respond. You’ll be herded into a “refuge” of some sort and stripped of your rights. Of course, all in the name of safety and security.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @the Griss

                many reems of paper

                Why do you think there is a shortage in Venezuela? ;-)


                Report this

                20

            • #

              I am aware of this phenomena. “Out west” is where many “‘hide” from the government (try to tell a die-hard vet hiding in the middle of nowhere that Google maps knows he’s there. They don’t listen. Then there were the cults with acres and acres of land, guns and supplies.
              I find it interesting these people have a TV “reality” show (along with the Amish mafia) so while I am sure some are sincere…….
              Actually, I think that these people will be the first to take on the government. They’ve prepared their whole lives for surviving the “end times’ and are quite likely to believe a good offense puts you in the best position.


              Report this

              00

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            I fear people will start believing this

            Believing it? Oh I do. “Doin right aint got no end” That is Obama. He is on a mission and it will not be done in 8 years. Why do you think he has stocked the civilians in the government with billions of rounds of Ammo? He expects unrest.

            Will he go quietly? I do not think so. He may go (and I hope he will) when the “support” of law abiding government officials disappears. But he will go kicking and screaming the whole time. And he will not be a president who “retires”. he has already stated as much. He plans to stay in DC.

            No, I will not be taking any action. And I pray that none is needed. But I will not fool myself into complacency.


            Report this

            10

      • #
        PeterK

        I hope it doesn’t spill into Canada…but the again…


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Mark D.

          PeterK, It will spill into Canada. First, waves of political asylum seekers, then probably an overthrow of your government by overwhelming force of numbers. Remember you’ve got an unarmed population?

          Fortunately, many of us like Canadians :)

          Don’t worry though, I expect several US States will declare independence and share in the influx of asylum seekers.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      handjive

      Sheri,
      Maybe you read this:
      The Pig Trap.
      From a blog called ‘Taxicab Depressions’.
      “Taxicab Depressions is a collection of funny stories about the obnoxious drunks and belligerent whores that get into my taxi in a Florida beach town.”

      A worthwhile read.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Peter Miller

    For the literate few, who have heard of the Smoot-Hawley Act in the USA around 80 years ago, Obama’s egotistical passion to leave a legacy of his presidency will probably have a similar effect.

    Smoot-Hawley turned a modest recession into the Great Depression. The activists who supported this act are just the same as those who support Obama now in this ridiculous and unneeded environmental crusade, they always say: “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.”

    To stop this BS, the owners of the coal fired power stations should switch them all off for ‘essential maintenance’ until this BS was stopped by public clamour.


    Report this

    120

  • #

    After watching the news at noon, I am now wondering how it is Obama found out about climate change? He claims to have had no knowledge of the IRS scandal, the Obamacare website failure, Benghazi, or the veterans dying while waiting for care. Fox News calls it global warming and does not seem inclined to report it as “fact”, so I don’t see him learning about it there. So, let’s find out where Obama learned about climate change and maybe we can use that to keep him informed of what is going on and he won’t have to come out and announce how angry he is and how he “knows nothing”. Note, too, that he didn’t come out and say he was so angry when he found out about climate change, though that was what he said on the IRS and all the other stuff. We really need to find out:
    A. How did Obama know about climate change?
    B.. Why did he not announce how angry he was about, call for an investigation and promise to do everything he can to fix it?

    Inquiring minds want to know.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    EternalOptimist

    An Australian a Brit and a Yank are talking in the bar

    Australian – ‘We had this bloke, lost his hands in a shearing accident. We put two kangaroo hands on him, now he’s out looking for a job’

    Brit – ‘Thats nothing. We had two guys, lost their arms. We put monkeys arms on both of them, now they are both out looking for a job’

    Yank – ‘Amateurs. We put a D!ck in the whitehouse, now there’s two million of us out looking for a job’


    Report this

    60

  • #
    James Bradley

    Maybe you guys should start a movement for the specific purpose of keeping today’s beneficial technological achievements and real scientific breakthroughs alive for posterity, guarding against destruction by the Climate Luddites…

    Could call the movement “Keeping Something for Leibowitz”


    Report this

    40

  • #
    handjive

    Obama says that stopping Doomsday Global Warming by “cuts to carbon pollution would reduce asthma attacks by 100,000“.

    Quote the British NHS:

    “Cold weather is a major trigger for asthma symptoms.
    Cher Piddock, a nurse for Asthma UK, says: “Hospital admissions for asthma traditionally peak during periods of particularly cold weather.
    This can be due to breathing cold air into the lungs, which can in turn trigger asthma, as well as picking up colds and flu.”
    . . .
    Yes. This person has control of the red button.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Another Ian

    A comment worth repeating IMO

    From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/02/the-epas-political-futility/#more-110676


    Steve Keohane says:
    June 2, 2014 at 1:18 pm
    For example, the assessment tells us that global warming will increase mental illness in our nation’s cities.

    It certainly has in the White House.”


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    I saw a version of the CO2 output vs Wealth chart maybe 10 years ago. This one also figured in things like education levels and infant mortality.

    One thing is certain, if you want to dramatically and negatively effect your citizens on about every measure of human welfare you can think of, then focus on reducing CO2, your serfs will be stupid, starving skeletons in rags before you can say eat your weeds.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Richo

    O’Dumba should be charged with crimes against humanity when poor people in the US start freezing to death in their homes in the next polar vortex because they can’t afford to heat their homes.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    ferdberple on WUWT commented about the George Shultz claim by Silverstein in the Forbes article posted earlier:

    – This is far from accurate. BC has a carbon tax that put into place by Premier Gordon Campbell. Gordo as he was called was a great friend of Arnie in California. Whatever California proposed, Gordo enacted.

    Gordo was forced to resign because he lied to the electorate over another tax, the GST, which the electorate rolled back via petition, in spite of millions in government advertising.

    The Carbon Tax was originally enacted as cap and trade. Millions were taken out of the public sector as schools and hospitals paid into the program to be “carbon neutral”. These millions were then diverted via Pacific Carbon Trust, largely to build two private industry programs, that would have gone ahead regardless of the subsidy.

    This corruption was documented by BC’s Auditor General in a scathing report on the carbon tax.. An advance copy of this report was somehow “leaked” to a number of insiders in the Carbon Trading Scam, who tried to discredit the Auditor General publicly even before the report was released.

    In the end the Carbon Tax was quietly converted to general revenues and it is now what it really is. Just another tax on British Colombians. Enacted under the guise of “saving the planet” it simply raises costs. We still need to drive our cars to work and heat our houses 9 months of the year. -


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Mark F

      Let’s not forget that Gordo was lapdog to Andrew “ICBM” Weaver, who had a hand in crafting the tax. Was BC’s first provincial GREEN party MLA elected, in a riding where spandex, afternoon tea and true-believer do-gooders have their own little yuppie village. Why is it that coupon-clippers feel they have to save the world by punishing those with less resources?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    Rowan Scarborough does a follow up to his Pentagon CAGW/conflict of interests story:

    (3 pages) 1 June: Washington Times: Rowan Scarborough: Pentagon wrestles with bogus climate warnings as funds shifted to green agenda
    Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios.

    Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.

    None of that has happened.

    Yet the 2003 report, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” is credited with kick-starting the movement that, to this day and perhaps with more vigor than ever, links climate change to national security…

    ***Doug Randall, who co-authored the Pentagon report, said, “Even I’m surprised at how often it’s referred to…

    The 2003 report was produced by a consulting firm, then called the Global Business Network, for the Pentagon’s office of net assessment. It is a driving force to allocate money to counter global threats — in this case, climate change…

    Asked about his scenarios for the 2003-2010 period, Mr. Randall said in an interview: “The report was really looking at worst-case. And when you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent.”…
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/1/pentagon-wrestles-with-false-climate-predictions-a/

    ***& i get a laugh when the CAGW so-called antiwar “left” – Suzanne Goldenberg, George Monbiot & the like – use it to push their agenda! wonder if any of them will do the right thing & write about the background to the Pentagon report? don’t think so.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    mmxx

    An excerpt from ABC’s (Australia) website today of a quote attributed to Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the US EPA:

    “Now, climate change is calling our number and right on cue these same critics will once again flaunt manufactured facts and scare tactics, standing in the way of our right to breathe clean air, to keep our communities safe.”

    I presume she equates around 400ppm of atmospheric CO2 with unclean air but at around 280ppm CO2 she happily calls it “clean air”.

    Her agency lists CO2 as a pollutant. Some serious arbitrariness is at play when EPA cannot tolerate levels of 400ppm but has a good feeling about 280ppm.

    Her basic qualification is a Bachelor of Arts in Social Anthropology. She also has a joint Master of Science in Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy – whatever that means! Built on her BA her Masters doesn’t sound to have been steeped in science.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    2 June: KFGO: Obama’s new emissions rules likely to face a friendly court
    By Lawrence Hurley
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The fate of President Barack Obama’s new regulations for curbing greenhouse gas emissions from existing U.S. power plants likely lies in the hands of a Washington, D.C., appeals court he largely reshaped through a series of key appointments.
    The appeals court has 11 active judges, of whom seven were appointed by Democratic presidents and four by Republicans. Four of the Democratic appointments were made by Obama over the past 13 months…
    And although losing parties can appeal to the Supreme Court, the high court’s nine justices rarely review the D.C. Circuit’s findings…
    The D.C. Circuit has long been a political football with senators holding up nominations by presidents of the opposing party…
    The EPA has a winning record before the appeals court of late. In this calendar year it has won 8 and lost 2 Clean Air Act cases, some brought by environmental groups and some by industry. The vote breakdown varies, with both Republican and Democratic appointees backing the agency in the bulk of cases…
    http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2014/jun/02/obamas-new-emissions-rules-likely-to-face-a-friendly-court/

    for handjive -

    29 May: Fox News: 60,000 Cattle dead in Bolivia cold wave
    The Cattle Raisers Federation in the northeastern Bolivian province of Beni reported Thursday that at least 60,000 head of livestock have died due to the cold wave that has beset the Andean nation for a week…
    Arteaga said that the ranchers were still recovering from the damage caused by the rains, when they were surprised by the low temperatures, which worsened their situation even more.
    The cold wave, which has brought low temperatures of minus 16 C (3 F) in some parts of the country, last week resulted in five fatalities due to hypothermia in Bolivia, two of them in the eastern province of Santa Cruz and three in the Andean regions of La Paz and Potosi.
    http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/05/29/60000-cattle-dead-in-bolivia-cold-wave/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    saw bbc’s David Shukman last nite with enabling female bbc host who began with something like ‘we’ve all seen the climate changing recently’ before letting Shukman say anything he liked, except answer her question about what would Obama’s plan do for the climate FIGURES.

    here’s Shukman with his own piece of work!

    VIDEO: 2 June: BBC: David Shukman reports: US unveils sweeping initiative to cut power plant pollution
    But many in the coal industry accuse him of waging a war on coal and say they will fight the regulations…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27670404
    APPROX 2 MINS IN: quotes from Tom Burke, Former Government Climate Adviser:

    what a busy Burke he is!

    E3G: Tom Burke
    Tom Burke is the Chairman of E3G, Third Generation Environmentalism, and an Environmental Policy Adviser (part time) to Rio Tinto plc. He is a Visiting Professor at both Imperial and University Colleges, London. He is a member of the External Review Committee of Shell and the Sustainable Sourcing Advisory Board of Unilever and a Trustee of the Black-E Community Arts Project, Liverpool.
    He was a Senior Advisor to the Foreign Secretary’s Special Representative on Climate Change from 2006-12. He was appointed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to chair an Independent Review of Environmental Governance in Northern Ireland from 2006-7. He was a member of the Council of English Nature, the statutory advisor to the British Government on biodiversity from 1999-2005. During 2002 he served as an advisor to the Central Policy Group in the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office. He was Special Adviser to three Secretaries of State for the Environment from 1991-97 after serving as Director of the Green Alliance from 1982-1991.
    He was an environmental advisor (part time) to BP plc from 1999-2001. He was a member of the OECD’s High Level Panel on the Environment 1996-98…
    He was formerly Executive Director of Friends of the Earth and a member of the Executive Committee of the European Environmental Bureau 1988-91. He was the Secretary-General of the Bergen 1990 Environment NGO Conference 1988-90. He was a member of the Board of the World Energy Council’s Commission ‘Energy for Tomorrow’s World’ 1990-93. He currently serves on the Advisory Board for Conservation International’s Centre for Environmental Leadership in Business in the US. In 2007 he was elected a Fellow of the Energy Institute. In 2010 he was elected an Honorary Fellow of the Society for the Environment. He also serves on the European Advisory Council of the Carbon Disclosure Project. He is a Patron of the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association.
    In 1993 he was appointed to United Nations Environment Programme’s ‘Global 500′ roll of honour. In 1997, he was appointed CBE for services to the environment. He was awarded Royal Humane Society testimonials on Vellum (1968) and Parchment (1970).
    http://www.e3g.org/people/tom-burke


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    same could be said about CAGW models!

    3 June: Bloomberg: Unstoppable $100 Trillion Bond Market Renders Models Useless
    By Susanne Walker and Liz Capo McCormick
    If the insatiable demand for bonds has upended the models you use to value them, you’re not alone.
    Just last month, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York retooled a gauge of relative yields on Treasuries, casting aside three decades of data that incorporated estimates for market rates from professional forecasters. Priya Misra, the head of U.S. rates strategy at Bank of America Corp., says a risk metric she’s relied on hasn’t worked since March.
    After unprecedented stimulus by the Fed and other central banks made many traditional models useless, investors and analysts alike are having to reshape their understanding of cheap and expensive as the global market for bonds balloons to $100 trillion. With the world’s biggest economies struggling to grow and inflation nowhere in sight, catchphrases such as “new neutral” and “no normal” are gaining currency to describe a reality where bonds are rallying the most in a decade…
    ‘How Wrong’
    “I don’t expect the consensus to be right, I’m just surprised by how wrong it has been,” Jim Bianco, president of Chicago-based Bianco Research LLC, said by telephone on May 28…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-01/the-unstoppable-100-trillion-bond-market-renders-models-useless.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    ***Greg Hunt speaks!

    3 June: Bloomberg: Reed Landberg: EU Calls on Deeper U.S. Emissions Cuts to Protect Climate
    The European Union said the U.S. must do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than the proposal President Barack Obama’s government released today if it’s to keep talks on limiting global warming on track…
    “All countries including the United States must do even more than what this reduction trajectory indicates,” EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said in a statement from her office in Brussels today…
    Envoys to those talks organized by the United Nationsintend to make an agreement next year that would apply to all nations instead of just the rich industrial ones…
    “While a step forward, this rule simply doesn’t go far enough to put us on the right path,” Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. “The science onclimate change has become clearer and more dire, requiring more aggressive action from the president.” …
    Even if Obama’s policy is implemented, the U.S. will burn far too much coal to curb global warming, according to forecasts by the International Energy Organization…
    Action by the U.S. is necessary to bring countries including China and India with the quickest-growing pollution levels into a global agreement…
    “I fully expect action by the United States to spur others in taking concrete action,” Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said in a statement…
    ***Australia, while welcoming Obama’s program, said countries will follow their own paths. The Liberal-National government in Australia, which has the largest per-capita fossil-fuel emissions among rich nations, aims to kill off the world’s highest emission tariffs brought in by the prior Labor administration.
    “We welcome constructive action to cut emissions,” the office of Environment Minister Greg Hunt said in an e-mailed statement. “Each country can play its role but no single model will suit every country. The U.S. is taking its own approach and we respect that.” …
    “This announcement will put other global leaders on notice that the U.S. will do everything necessary to get a global climate agreement in Paris,” said Nick Mabey, chief executive officer of E3G, a British non-profit group advocating sustainable development. “ Obama cannot deliver limits on coal power at home unless he can show China is committed to reducing emissions as well.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-02/eu-calls-on-deeper-u-s-emissions-cuts-to-protect-climate.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    2 June: Bloomberg: Obama’s Step Forward on Carbon Undone by China’s Steps Back
    By Mark Drajem and Jim Efstathiou Jr.
    (Corrects unit to billions in ninth paragraph of story published May 31.)
    Trimming carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by 25 percent in coming decades, as Obama is said to be proposing, would be more than overwhelmed by increases in China and India where coal-fired power plants are springing up and new cars are rolling out of showrooms.
    “It’s not a magic bullet,” Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an interview…
    *** Persuading developing countries to forgo the benefits of cheap coal power and economic growth won’t be easy…
    Burning fossil fuels in the U.S. released 5.3 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2012. China emitted 9.0 billion tons and by 2020 is forecast by the U.S. Energy Department to reach 11.5 billion metric tons, while the U.S. stays flat. India, Indonesia and other developing nations are expected to grow, as well.
    Were U.S. emissions cut to zero, “global emissions would continue to increase,” Robert Stavins, director of Harvard University’s Environmental Economics Program, said in an e-mail…
    According to the World Resources Institute in Washington, 1,200 coal-fired plants are proposed globally, with more than three-quarters of those planned for India and China alone. If all are built, which WRI says is ***unlikely, that would add more than 80 percent to existing capacity…
    And the effects on the U.S. are likely to be among the least extreme globally, as poor nations with coastlines such as Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Nigeria face the greatest threats from stronger storms and sea rise associated with global warming, according to a report this week from Standard & Poor’s.
    “The poorest countries in the world are those most impacted by climate change,” said Michael Wilkins, managing director of the credit ratings agency.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-31/obama-step-forward-on-carbon-undone-by-china-s-steps-back.html

    how compassionate Standard & Poor’s are!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    3 June: Bloomberg: Obama Climate Proposal Will Shift Industry Foundations
    By Mark Chediak and Jim Polson
    Coal-dependent power companies from American Electric Power Co. (AEP) to Duke Energy Corp. (DUK) face billions of dollars in added costs from the Obama administration’s proposed climate rules. Renewable-energy backers and nuclear generators like Exelon Corp. (EXC) stand to gain from the effort to shift the foundations of the U.S. energy industry…
    “The rule is going to speed the transition away from coal into natural gas and renewables and potentially increase the role nuclear electricity plays in the U.S.,” said Christopher Knittel, director of the Center for Energy & Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology…
    Nuclear plants, which emit no CO2 to generate power, may see a boost from the regulations. Exelon and Entergy Corp., the two largest nuclear plant owners, could enjoy “material earning gains,” as the price of power rises on competitors’ needs to purchase emissions permits, the Bernstein analysts wrote…
    Exelon, based in Chicago, has long supported federal rules to limit carbon emissions, at one point leaving the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobbying group, because of a disagreement over global warming policies. The company said it was pleased the draft rule recognizes the importance of nuclear power.
    With 23 nuclear reactors and 44 wind-power projects, it has much to gain from carbon regulations. Exelon may see a $1.3 billion gain in its generation gross margin, adding about 97 cents of earnings per share, according to Bernstein…
    “Exelon is clearly the biggest beneficiary here,” said Dumoulin-Smith, who rates the company a hold and doesn’t own the shares. “This is all about keeping the nukes around.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-02/climate-rules-threaten-to-rewrite-u-s-energy-map.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    3 June: KTVN: AP: Jonathan Fahey: Obama carbon rule: Surprise winners, losers
    The biggest U.S. natural gas producer, Exxon Mobil, will likely see higher demand for its fuel, which emits half the carbon dioxide as coal. The biggest nuclear power generator, Exelon, and biggest wind farm operator, Next Era Energy, may fetch higher prices for their carbon-free power. Companies that sell wind turbines, solar panels, or energy efficiency technology – such as General Electric, Siemens, First Solar and SunPower – may also come out winners.
    Coal stands to be a big loser…
    WINNERS
    - Nuclear Generators. If carbon-free power becomes more valuable to the marketplace, no one will benefit more than nuclear power producers such as Exelon, Entergy, Public Service Enterprise Group and First Energy…
    http://www.ktvn.com/story/25671412/obama-carbon-rule-surprise-winners-losers

    (3 pages) 2012: NYT: Eric Lipton: Ties to Obama Aided in Access for Big Utility
    Early in the Obama administration, a lobbyist for the Illinois-based energy producer Exelon Corporation proudly called it “the president’s utility.” …
    Exelon’s top executives were early and frequent supporters of Mr. Obama as he rose from the Illinois State Senate to the White House. John W. Rogers Jr., a friend of the president’s and one of his top fund-raisers, is an Exelon board member. David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s longtime political strategist, once worked as an Exelon consultant, and Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago mayor and Mr. Obama’s former chief of staff, helped create the company through a corporate merger in 2000 while working as an investment banker…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/us/politics/ties-to-obama-aided-in-access-for-exelon-corporation.html?_r=0

    funny how critics & fans of Obama never noticed!


    Report this

    10

    • #

      pat mentions this where it says:

      Nuclear Generators. If carbon-free power becomes more valuable to the marketplace, no one will benefit more than nuclear power producers such as Exelon, Entergy, Public Service Enterprise Group and First Energy…

      The thought is that power generation may move from coal fired to Nuclear power generation.

      The problem with that is that it takes a long time from the thought bubble stage for a new Nuclear Plant through to the day that proposal actually starts to deliver power to the grids.

      Here we have this 30% CO2 emissions reduction joke policy. This entails a 20% to 25% reduction in (basically) coal fired power, because they are part the way there already, considering it is based on the 2005 levels of CO2 emissions. Now if that was replaced in its totality by Natural Gas, (NG) you have only reduced those CO2 emissions by 60% of the current level, so 60% of 22%, (median of above two percentages) so they are still at the very least 8% to 10% short of their 30%, and that amounts to a helluva lot of electrical power. Because NG plants still emit CO2, then replacing them with NG is three steps forward, one and a bit steps back.

      For any Nuclear plants to fit in here to replace large scale coal fired plants, then those Nukes would need to be at the proposal stage right now, and that’s not happening, not on this sort of scale anyway, and here I’m talking about the plants to provide 355TWH per year, which comes in at 20+ dual reactor 2000MW+ plants. That’s TWENTY nukes.

      For currently existing Nuclear power plants to contribute more power is actually impossible, because they are running at a Capacity Factor (for the whole Nuclear plant fleet) of between 90 and 95%, so they are running at their absolute physical maximum right now.

      Forget solar power, and wind power cannot replace 24/7/365 power, which is what is called for here. They could double the current existing Wind fleet and still barely make 5% of U.S. power consumption needs, and by 2030, quite a large amount of existing wind will have reached its use by date, so that would only add to the required need from wind.

      No, this is a policy that will never be realised ….. seriously.

      Tony.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      So who is in the pay of Big oil? Obama.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    pat

    btw in Jonathan Fahey’s “Obama carbon rule: Surprise winners, losers”, he almost admits the FACT consumers will be losers!

    – LOSERS
    Electric customers. Power prices and power bills are influenced by many factors, but environmental regulations ***tend*** to push power prices up. -

    earlier in the piece he wrote it was “likely” consumers would lose. he refuses to state it as a fact:

    “Electric customers will likely pay higher prices for power, though efficiency measures could reduce the impact of higher prices.”

    MSM is toxic.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    an attempt to single out Exxon as an exception to the green-credentialed oil companies mentioned, but AP have already told us Exxon will be a WINNER under the Obama plan, so i haven’t bothered excerpting the Exxon bit:

    30 May: Bloomberg: Benjamin Elgin: Chevron Retreats on Clean Energy After Renewables Hit 20% Margin
    In January, employees of Chevron renewable power group, whose mission was to create large, profitable clean-energy projects, dined at San Francisco’s trendy Sens restaurant. Managers applauded them for almost doubling their projected profit in 2013, the group’s first full year of operations.
    The mood quickly turned somber. Despite the financial results and the team’s role in helping start more than a half-dozen solar and geothermal projects capable of powering at least 65,000 homes, managers told the group that funding for the effort would dry up, and encouraged staffers to find jobs elsewhere, say four people who attended the dinner, Bloomberg Businessweek reports in its June 2 issue.
    For the past eight years, Chevron Corp. has promoted“profitable renewable energy” as a core component of itsbusiness plan. The company’s slogan, “Finding newer, cleaner ways to power the world,” is splashed across its website. And ads begun in 2010 as part of Chevron’s “We Agree” campaigndeclare, “It’s time oil companies get behind the development of renewable energy.” Yet Chevron recently has retreated from key efforts to produce clean energy. This includes the renewable power group, which invested in or built utility-scale solar andgeothermal projects with margins of 15 percent to 20 percent or more, according to a dozen people who worked on them…
    Chevron earlier this year sold the 48-person business unit that builds small solar and landfill-gas systems and energy-saving retrofits for federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Defense. Jim Davis, president of Chevron Energy Solutions for the past 14 years and the executive in charge of many of the oil giant’s clean-energy pursuits, left the company in March. Davis didn’t respond to requests for comment.
    “When you have a very successful and profitable core oil and gas business, it can be quite difficult to justify investing in renewables,” says Robert Redlinger, who ran a previous effort at Chevron to develop large renewable-energy projects before he left in 2010. “It requires significant commitment at the most senior levels of management. I didn’t perceive that kind of commitment from Chevron during my time with the firm.” …
    Chevron still runs a business that develops smaller solar and energy-efficiency projects for public customers such as school districts. It also remains one of the world’s largest producers of geothermal energy — though much of this renewable power comes from decades-old plants in Indonesia and thePhilippines that were obtained through its 2005 acquisition of Unocal…
    A pullback from renewables doesn’t surprise some analysts, who say returns of even 20 percent can be bested by oil and gas projects that can generate profits of 25 percent to 35 percent.“Renewables for oil companies are sort of like the coffee shop inside Bloomingdale’s,” says Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Fadel Gheit. “On their list of priorities, it will always be at the bottom.” …
    While climate change is drawing public attention, oil companies have had mixed success promoting their green energy efforts. In 2000, BP Plc rebranded itself “Beyond Petroleum”and changed its logo to a green-and-yellow sunburst, but it was criticized for “greenwashing” as the majority of its business remained producing fossil fuels. In 2008, the U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority ruled in favor of a complaint claiming Royal Dutch Shell Plc misled the public in an ad that said its carbon-intensive extraction of Canadian tar sands oil was part of a“sustainable” approach to energy…
    Some analysts praise the more renewables-focused approach of a company like Total SA, Europe’s third-biggest oil company, which spent more than $1 billion in 2011 to acquire a majority stake in U.S. solar panel maker SunPower Corp. “At the very least you’d think the oil companies would want to keep a finger on the pulse of renewable energy technologies,” says Paul Spedding, a former oil and gas analyst for HSBC Bank. “I bet Kodak wished it had kept a closer eye on digital photography.”…
    “It’s not that oil companies dislike renewables,” says Oppenheimer’s Gheit. “It’s just not their core business or where they have expertise. They just don’t know what to do with it.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-29/chevron-retreats-on-clean-energy-after-renewables-hit-20-margin.html


    Report this

    20

  • #
    James the Elder

    And the clock keeps ticking.

    http://usdebtclock.org/


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    “Then again, Greens ought be very concerned at Obama’s new plan. In nearly every country where governments have tried to reduce CO2, the emissions have risen. Getting the government involved could spell the death-knell of US achievements in reducing CO2.”

    And Greens don’t give a d*mn, because reduction of CO2 never was their objective. Destruction of modern society is the object of the exercise. Killing jobs (and people) is a vital part of that process.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Owen Morgan

      “Vital”, from the Latin “vita” (“life”) was diametrically the wrong word for that context. Please substitute “central”.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    pat

    remember this one:

    24 May: Sydney Morning Herald: Peter Hannam: Australians more worried about climate change, poll finds
    A strong response to questions about global warming is among the standout results in this year’s Lowy Institute Poll, with the numbers demanding action ”even if this involves significant costs” building on a small rebound in last year’s survey…
    ”After five years of successive decline in Australians’ concern about climate change, last year’s poll showed the first upward trend in the number of Australians who see climate change as a ‘serious and pressing problem’,” the report’s author, Alex Oliver, said.
    ”This trend continues,” said Ms Oliver, declining to elaborate before the report’s release on June 4…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/australians-more-worried-about-climate-change-poll-finds-20140523-38u81.html

    and my followup:

    26 May: Guardian: Alex White: Could Australia really dismantle its carbon price?
    With repeated statements by serious scientific reports and organisations puts certainty that man-made carbon emissions are causing global warming at 95 percent — the same level of certainty for the connection between tobacco and lung cancer — Fairfax reported recently that the Lowy Institute poll, which has tracked attitudes toward climate change, is seeing an “upward trend in the number of Australians who see climate change as a ‘serious and pressing problem’”…
    COMMENT: By Paul Moulton:
    If you look at the actual report what you read above is, to say the least, misleading.
    http://www.lowyinstitute.org/2013pollinteractive/climatechange.php
    The data are reporting yearly from 2006 to 2013. The percentages of people that want drastic action is down (68% to 40%), the percentages of people that want low cost measures is up (24% to 40%) and the people that want nothing done is up as well (7% to 16%). Clearly the people that are warmists, the ones wanting drastic action, are far fewer in number than before.
    The reason that the article was able to state what it did and be technically correct is that in 2012 the number of people that wanted drastic action was 36% while in 2013 it was 40%. So yes, it is up as they said it was. Accurate? Yes. Misleading. You bet. Hypocritical? Of course, but to be expected…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/may/26/carbon-price-abolish-tony-abbott-australia

    to be cont’d…


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    well, well, well!

    as believable as everything else on ABC and in WaPo, who have produced this joint poll with Langer Research Associates of New York!

    2 June: ABC America: Gary Langer: Broad Concern about Global Warming Boosts Support for New EPA Regulations
    Seven in 10 Americans see global warming as a serious problem facing the country, enough to fuel broad support for federal efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions – even if it raises their own energy costs, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds.
    The poll, conducted in advance of the Obama administration’s announcement today of planned regulations to cut such pollution, finds 70 percent support for limiting emissions from existing power plants, and, more generally, for requiring states to cut the production of greenhouse gases within their borders.
    See PDF with full results, charts and tables here…
    Sixty-nine percent of Americans in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, see global warming as a serious problem; among them, eight in 10 favor new regulations, and three-quarters are willing to pay higher energy bills if it means significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions…
    Further, among those who do see global warming – also known as climate change – as a serious problem, the vast majority, 83 percent, say it’s “very” serious…
    PARTISANSHIP AND IDEOLOGY – Despite strong political and ideological components to views on global warming, majorities across the political spectrum support new regulations, albeit to varying degrees…
    There’s also a sharp difference by age, with higher costs acceptable to 74 percent of young adults, age 18 to 29, but dropping to 52 percent among those 65 and older. Seniors are more apt to be on fixed incomes, but there’s another factor as well – they’re also 14 percentage points less likely than young adults to see global warming as a serious problem in the first place, 60 vs. 74 percent…
    METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone May 29-June 1, 2014, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,002 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including design effect. Partisan divisions are 33-24-35 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.
    The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/broad-concern-about-global-warming-boosts-support-for-new-epa-regulations/

    2 June: WaPo: A huge majority of Americans support regulating carbon from power plants. And they’re even willing to pay for it.
    By Scott Clement and Peyton M. Craighill
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/02/a-huge-majority-of-americans-support-regulating-carbon-from-power-plants-and-theyre-even-willing-to-pay-for-it/?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    re Langer Research Assoc who allegedly did the ABC/WaPo Poll:

    LinkedIn: Langer Research Associates
    Langer Research Associates provides survey research design, management, analysis and consulting services for media, foundation, business, government, NGO and legal clients. We direct news polling for the ABC News television network, produce the weekly Consumer Comfort Index for Bloomberg L.P. and create in-depth national and international surveys on policy, social, economic and political attitudes…
    In addition to ABC News and Bloomberg, recent clients include Blue Shield of California Foundation, The Washington Post, The Center for the Next Generation, the BBC, ARD German Television, Yahoo! News, and with D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., the United Nations Development Programme, the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Counterpart International…
    Langer Research was founded by Gary Langer, former director of polling for ABC News. Staff includes Research Analysts Julie E. Phelan, Ph.D., and Gregory Holyk, Ph.D. Senior advisers include Prof. Jon Krosnick of Stanford University, Prof. Robert Y. Shapiro of Columbia University and Patrick Moynihan, assistant director of the Survey Research Program at Harvard University.
    http://www.linkedin.com/company/langer-research-associates


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    Gary Langer (Langer Research) has a long history of attempting to manufacture consensus on CAGW; this 2006 poll was even referenced in Oreskes “Merchants of Doubt” – found it in the notes at Google Books:

    (4 pages) 2006: ABC America: Poll: Public Concern on Warming Gains Intensity
    Analysis by Gary Langer
    The intensity of public concern about global warming has spiked sharply over the last decade, along with a change in personal experience: Half of Americans say weather patterns have grown more unstable and temperatures have risen where they live, and 70 percent think weather patterns globally have become more unsettled in recent years.
    A vast majority, 85 percent, believes global warming probably is occurring, up slightly from 80 percent in a 1998 poll…
    Sampling, data collection and tabulation for this poll were done by TNS…
    Moreover, almost seven in 10 in this benchmark survey by ABC News, Time magazine and Stanford University say the government should do more to address global warming. And just under half — rising sharply among those who are most concerned — say it should do “much more.” But views on what should be done are fractured, with little support for measures such as higher gasoline or electricity taxes to discourage consumption…
    A key element in attitudes on global warming is the extent to which doubters continue to influence public perceptions…
    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=1750492


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    Jo, or Mods,
    I get a ‘page not found’ error for the ‘limit the damage:’ link.
    I see the url is malformed, with the https:// at the END of it.
    Other readers might just not track it.

    I may well comment on the article itself, but only after I’ve read it’s sources and the comments fully.

    No need to print this.

    [Thanks, I have brought it to Jo's attention. Mod]


    Report this

    10

  • #
    John Knowles

    It’s late in the thread for a random topic but Jamaica is looking to build an LPG power station to supplement its four main oil units (and a variety of small hydro schemes). A scientist from Perth is looking at ways of augmenting a gas turbine with hydrogen and oxygen from water electrolysis. In theory the H burns with a very hot flame and acts as an accelerant to the the LPG. He seems confident that he could improve the efficiency of their proposed unit which I guess would be a combine gas turbine and conventional thermal power station so, highly efficient already.
    With coal and oil so cheap it is hardly surprizing that we burn them as if there is no tomorrow. I am confident that as the unit cost of electricity rises we’ll see innovation towards economy just as we have seen with motor vehicles.
    If Obama put funds into research he might get somewhere but it appears he is dedicated to sabotaging the USA power supply.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    And in response to Obama, now Abbott has just gone full retard on CO2 reduction rhetoric.

    Tony Abbott welcomes Barack Obama’s plan to slash power carbon emissions by 30 per cent, likens measures to Direct Action scheme
    “What the United States is doing is taking sensible direct action steps to reduce its emissions which is exactly what this Government is proposing to do.”

    Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for the duopoly.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      I think we all realise its just politics. Tony knows there are more votes among the faithful, its just dumb politics to side with sceptics.

      My comfort comes from knowing he is treating them like the sheeple they are by saying just enough hollow words to keep them suckered, while shutting down all the nonsense industries like the Climate Commission Authority Funding Association Organisation or whatever they were called… no doubt some poor public servant spent weeks on a beach in France researching the names too and now its all for nothing.

      As a Lib. PM your never going to satisfy people like us at one end, or the welded on tree hugging bed wetters at the other, so the smart money is on placating the dummies in the middle and in so far as he can appear sincere to them, hes trying to do so.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      bobl

      Yes, if I were Tony I’d encourage him too, after all he knows what happened to the last political bright-light that tried to do that here, quickest way to a republican in the Whitehouse is for Obama to do exactly what he is doing, and not too bad for OZ either when US power and fuel becomes as expensive as ours. Still, probably a US economic collapse might be a bad thing… Tony might think about that for a bit.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    john

    Upcoming Documentary that should be of interest to all.

    Sun News Network documentary Down Wind exposes the Wynne-McGuinty green energy disaster

    http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/31/sun-news-network-documentary-down-wind-exposes-the-wynne-mcguinty-green-energy-disaster

    TORONTO – Anyone who has studied the Ontario Liberal government’s failed experiment with wind power knows what a financial and social catastrophe it has been.

    How billions of taxpayers’ and hydro customers’ dollars are being wasted, and will continue to be wasted for decades to come, because of former Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty’s naive blunder into wind energy, now fully supported by Premier Kathleen Wynne.

    How it has contributed to skyrocketing hydro bills and to the loss of 300,000 manufacturing jobs in Ontario.

    A 2011 report by then auditor general Jim McCarter documented how the government rushed into wind energy without any business plan, ignoring even the advice of its own experts that could have substantially reduced costs.

    As a result, Ontarians are now locked into 20 years of paying absurdly inflated prices for inefficient and unreliable wind power, which, ironically, still has to be backed up by fossil fuel energy, meaning natural gas.

    That means the Liberals’ gas plants scandal, costing taxpayers and hydro ratepayers up to $1.1 billion — according to reports by McCarter and current Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk — is also part of the Liberals’ legacy of wind power waste.

    Indeed, while the Liberals were telling us they were replacing coal power with wind and solar energy, they were actually doing it with nuclear power and natural gas…

    …A new documentary, Down Wind: How Ontario’s Green Dream Turned into a Nightmare, by Sun News Network’s Rebecca Thompson — airing Wednesday, June 4 at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. — powerfully and succinctly explains the enormity of the Liberals’ wind power catastrophe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J Martin

    I find the graphic puzzling, even though France shows up as quite efficient, I would have thought they would have shown up as more efficient than their position indicates, given that nearly 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear. Presumaby the reason they don’t is all the fuel used for cars and heating. Looks like no real alternative to co2 yet exists.


    Report this

    10