Clean Power Plan

Clean Power Plan's Dubious Math

Consulting economist: What do you want it to equal?

|

EPAflat
EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency's final rule implementing President Obama's Clean Power Plan (CPP) aims to cut by 2030 the emissions of carbon dioxide from electric power generation in the United States 32 percent of what was emitted in 2005. Electric power generation produces about 30 percent of America's carbon dioxide emissions. So just how much carbon dioxide is the President talking about?

According to the EPA's regulatory impact analysis of the new rule, electric power generators emitted 2,683 million short tons of carbon dioxide in 2005. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that U.S. electric power plants emitted 2,247 million short tons (2,043 metric tons) of carbon dioxide in 2014. That means that the U.S. power sector has already cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 436 million short tons, about 16 percent below its 2005 emissions.  As a result, President Obama is right when, during the CPP announcement at the White House yesterday, he stated, "Over the past decade, even as our economy has continued to grow, the United States has cut our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth."

The reduction in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions resulted from a combination of shifting from coal to cheaper natural gas to generate electricity and reduced economic growth stemming from the Great Recession.

The EPA's regulatory impact analysis of the CPP basically assumes that without the new regulations that carbon emissions from the power sector would dip a bit (probably from continued fuel switching from coal to natural gas) but rise again to about where they stand today by 2030. In other words, the EPA projects no further sustained carbon dioxide emissions reductions in the power sector without the CPP.

Ultimately, the CPP aims to cut emissions another 16 percent over the next 15 years, essentially doubling the current reduction of 436 million tons to 871 million tons by 2030. The EPA projects that the economic effects of CPP will be minimal, raising retail electricity prices by around 1 percent by 2030 and decreasing employment by only 30,000 job-years.

This anodyne conclusion contrasts with an analysis done for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that calculated that regulations similar to those in the CPP would suppress average annual U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $51 billion and lead to an average of 224,000 fewer jobs every year through 2030. The Chamber's analysis also reports that the CPP will cause consumers to pay nearly $17 billion more per year for their electricity. 

The EIA reports that total electric power revenues in 2013 amounted to $376 billion, of which revenues from residential customers accounted for $170 billion. Depending on whether the Chamber's number applies to total electric power revenues or just to residential customers, the CPP would roughly boost electricity prices by 4.5 to 10 percent. 

In any case, the EPA's regulatory impact analysis esimates that the annual global climate benefits using a standard 5 percent discount rate would sum to $6.4 billion by 2030. In addition, the co-benefits—mostly improved health stemming from cleaner air—from reduced coal-burning would amount in 2030 to between $13 and $34 billion per year.

Such dueling econometric projections bring to mind the unkind joke in which an economist is asked what does 2 plus 2 equal? Before responding, the economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says, "What do you want it to equal?" On such suspect calculations is public policy argued and made.

NEXT: The Mindlessness of Donald Trump—and What It Reveals About the GOP

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Power is good and cleanliness is next to godliness. So power + godliness = godlike powers. Obama just wants us to have godlike powers. I think that would be considered cheap at any price.

  2. I have it on good authority from our local dipshit that it is DIRECTLY DUE to Obama that coal, gas, and oil are all at record low prices and our energy economy is BOOMING!!!

    1. You really narrowed it down, M.

    2. I have it on good authority from our local dipshit that it is DIRECTLY DUE to Obama that coal, gas, and oil are all at record low prices and our energy economy is BOOMING!!!

      Which is why Alpha Natural Resources went bankrupt.

  3. Well, I say he’s a piker! Let’s leave *100%* of the oil in the ground!
    Ooops. Wrong idiot.

    1. At least ban *greenhouses*!

  4. Just lie back, and try to relax.

    1. … and think of Airstrip One.

  5. It still boggles my mind how they make the connection between reduction in CO2 and less pollution causing health problems.

    CO2 doesn’t cause health problems, it causes global warming, which also, does not directly cause health problems. This “health problems” crap is just numbers they’re pulling out of their ass so that they can claim “savings”.

    Another neat point is the EPA pointing out that electricity will be so expensive that people will use less and then save money. To which I would have to reply: “Thats not how this works, thats not how any of this works.”

    1. Are some of the “health problems” the other emissions associated with coal? Mercury, particulate matter, etc.

      1. I’ve read US coal plants are already pretty clean since the Bush 1 SOx and NOx rule also reduced mercury dramatically.

        I’ve read (can’t confirm) most US mercury comes from China and surprisingly cremation of bodies with mercury fillings. Not huge in other words.

      2. P: In the regulatory analysis is mostly ozone and fine particulates.

        1. Did they even talk about the indoor air pollution study that showed increases were not related to things like proximity to power plants or highways?

      3. Sorry, but electrostatic precipitators, they have a collection efficiency of 99.9%. Plus REACT technology has a Mercury capture rate of 90% that gets absorbed in the activated coke.

        Ultra supercritical plants are more efficient and require less fuel usage also. Coal plants today have come a long way.

        Exceeding what the gov’t wants you to? Ok, we’re gonna move the goalposts and go after CO2 which is actually good for the environment. Take that!!!

        Let’s see, we can reduce co2 emissions out of the stack and increase our CO and NOx emissions as well. Seriously, these douchebags are causing capital to be diverted to a non issue like CO2. It is taking away from real accomplishments brought about by private industry, and the continued improvements of environmental controls.

    2. Just read another scary article on AGW and they shoved the “asthma increases” in there as usual.

      I guess they don’t like Science! since a recent study shows its more due to indoor air quality (shitbirds raising kids in cockroach infested apartments).

    3. “We’re losing money on it, but we’ll make that up on volume.”

    4. it causes global warming, which also, does not directly cause health problems.

      Ahem:

      airport malaria

      Lyme disease

      More at numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

      1. Global Warming spontaneously generate malaria plasmodia and Borrelia bacteria!

      2. Malaria was widespread in California until we sprayed everything with DDT of course Malaria will come back now since we are defenseless now.

    5. Another neat point is the EPA pointing out that electricity will be so expensive that people will use less and then save money.

      I didn’t see that when I skimmed the article, but “it’s more expensive, so you’ll save money” sounds like exactly the kind of lie used to sell a government plan. EG, Obamacare.

      1. I think JWW is correct here. The EPA director’s blog claims people will save $7 per month on average on their electric bill, but not because the price of power is going down (in EPA’s analysis). She attributes those savings to greater energy efficiency. The Department of Energy has definitely predicted that the Clean Power Plan will increase electric rates, though I think their analysis only predicts a fairly small gain.

        Of course, any prediction about the price of anything 15 years from now is pretty useless. But if you believe substituting wind and solar for a lot of coal-fired power isn’t going to be expensive, you’re dreaming.

      2. Its the interim conclusion that statists must come to before they arrive at the idea of rationing and communism.

      3. maybe so until all the cars are powered by electricity.

    6. Yes, your power bill will be lower.*

      Because you can’t afford to use as much electricity once we jack up the price of power and every industry that uses power. Something something chocolate ration.

      1. Here in the People’s Republic of Connecticut the political class, after they had to allow the utilities to jack up prcies to account for the need to import a huge chunk of it (that’s what happens when demand can’t be met due to lack of generation capacity), had the temerity to add a surtax to all our bills to “help’ those unable to pay their bill. Of course the subsidy money ends up in the general fund where politicians use it to buy votes from those that vote instead of work for a living, and people still get shafted with insane monthly bills. But hey, lets decommision even more generation capacity. What can go wrong?

  6. I find it interesting that environmentalists rarely seem to factor in mass immigration. When millions of people move from the Third World to the First World, they have an environmental impact. They use more electricity. They drive more. In California at least, they use dwindling supplies of fresh water. (A fact I once pointed out on SFGate, and had my comment deleted, so it seems like a taboo subject.)

    Not that I don’t want everyone on Earth to live decently, but this seems like a blind spot for pundits.

    1. Sierra Club almost tore itself apart on this. Verboten subject

      1. Yes, I have a vague memory of that. It’s telling, isn’t it? The Sierra Club has an ostensible purpose, which many were willing to disregard to support other leftist goals. Similar to the feminists rushing to defend Bill Clinton’s treatment of women.

        1. Team Uber Alles!! It’s always Team Uber Alles!! thats sadly what modern American politics have degenerated into.

      2. Awww, and I so wanted to tear the Sierra Club apart myself….

        Then beat the pieces to pulp and incinerate what is left.

    2. That is what the mass extermination and sterilization programs are for.

    3. If you’re going to collectivize people so much, you might as well point out that all of those “problems” are created and/or enabled by California’s social and economic policies. As is often the case, immigrants reveal the problems inherent to the system.

      1. Of course CA has screwed up their water system, but it’s not “collectivizing” to talk about mass effects of masses of people, any more than talking about GDP is “collectivizing.”

        1. it’s not “collectivizing” to talk about mass effects of masses of people, any more than talking about GDP is “collectivizing.”

          Eh, whatever. My point is that it’s not any more accurate to say “immigrants are a problem” than to say “California is a problem”.

    4. I find it interesting that environmentalists rarely seem to factor in mass immigration.

      ACtually, they do… when it serves their purposes.

      Google “Climate Change Refugees” if you have an inclination to read their pie-in-the-sky predictions.

  7. I’m on the HO-WV border,both states get around 70% of there power from coal.Natural gas is getting used more but wind and solar in these states will never supply power in any large amount.So what are we to do here? As eveyone here knows.solar and wind are not a steady power suppy and need a base lie back up.This paln is truly evil.

    1. Oh,crap

    2. The West Va AG was on Squawk Box this morning – very articulate regarding legal challenges/arguments.

      http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000403247

    3. Good points, in fact for every MW of wind power you install you need about 0.75 MW of gas fired power “spinning” (on standby) to pick up the load (swing) when the wind dies down.

      So the REALLY interesting point is that you must burn natural gas to keep the backup system ready even as you get your power from wind.

      But the “top men” at the EPA don’t want to burn the natural gas either. By the way, a large part of this information is available from the DOE. Apparently the EPA has a rule against reading information from the DOE.

      1. On the brighter side, envirowackos tend to have lots of natural fats in them and are suitable for conversion to biodiesel!

  8. Anyone have good luck with LED lights for home use? I love saving power but the new LED ceiling lights I installed are ungodly – or is that godly? – bright white. It’s like heaven – minus the hookers ‘n’ blackjack.

    1. forgot to add that I am all for energy efficiency – but not to the point where it degrades my 1st World life.

      1. Just killing yourself is more than 100% efficient (assuming you get composted).

    2. I’ve just done one or two bulbs. Have an outdoor one I hope will last long. The florescents suck balls for life.

      My company installed LEDs for our data centers and they have been great so far, but minor savings in the grand scheme. Even at home, washer dryer, AC are the big hogs.

    3. I use them in potlights in the basement. Seem to work fine. You just have to look around for he color you want. (Yes they come in colors other than ungodly bright white.)

      1. Yeah, this. I have one in my light blue living room that has a really appealing color of light. I live in a hot climate and don’t want the added heat of incandescent bulbs or the toxic mercury (if you break them), slow warm-up time, or UV emissions of CFLs.

    4. They just installed them in the streelights on my block. My wife didnt know it was going to happen and freaked out the night they came on. Its way different, the shades are pulled down all night in the living room, I cant imagine what Winter is gonna be like with the long nights and no leaves on the tree outside.

    5. Lots of choice in the market. They even have Edison-style LEDs although all but one look like a circuit board crammed into glass.

    6. Light color is the problem, but they seem to be getting better at making warmer feeling LED bulbs.

      1. All: We have replaced nearly all of our lights with LEDs and they work fine. Advice: experiment with various ones until you fine a brand and variety that works for you.

        1. This^. As somebody who has inordinate experience with shopping for LEDs and Fluorescent bulbs with specific color temperatures, the brand and variety varies greatly.

          Here’s a “daylight” 5000k bulb

          Here’s some 2400k “warm white”bulbs, Edison style as mentioned by Je suis

        2. Also, Consumer Reports has some good reviews on the lights, as well as decent explanation and metrics on light color and brightness.

          My biggest beef with LEDs is that they don’t dim as well as halogens or even some of the more expensive CFLs. In our living room, I tried some out and they only dimmed to like 30% intensity while you could get down to 10% with other styles.

        3. Good advice from Mr. Bailey. I love LED’s.

    7. Also definitely curious to hear good experiences with LEDs. Am in Mexico and utilities are tiered (the more you use the more you pay for every watt.) With 6000 square feet to light up, we’re always paying top tier rate, which ends up being about 600 usd monthly. The LEDS I’ve seen have either shitty luminosity or color

      1. https://www.1000bulbs.com/

        Key figure of merit is lumens/watt.

        Look for a CRI above 80 (100 indicates solar day equivalent).

        Choose color to taste. Same with dimmable.

        2400K = warm (incandescent)
        3000k = bright white (halogen-ish)
        Anything above that will start to look very blue.

        I’ve had good experience with the TCP floods. I can occasionally see some pulsation at low dim levels usually fixed by briefly pulsing to higher power. Pay attention to the dimmer used. The electronics general want forward Triacs but older varistors should work for most power levels.

    8. Sylvania lights, very nice and dimmable

    9. I’ve bought a few LED lights, and have been pleasantly surprised that they *were* bright white. Looks much better than the CFL’s that take a bit of time to warm up.

    10. I love saving power but the new LED ceiling lights I installed are ungodly – or is that godly? – bright white.

      Pay attention to the color temperature. 2700K is close to the old incandescent bulb and is probably what your looking for. I have had okay luck with LED bulbs. I have a couple of Cree (they invented the white LED) outside that have worked flawlessly even at -20F. Had a 2 pack of the Lowes brand PAR bulb and one has failed (driver circuit). I would check reviews before buying to see if there is a high failure rate which I discovered after the fact with the Lowes bulbs.

    11. I’ve replaced nearly all of the lamps in my house with LEDs. In many cases, you can replace regular ‘screw-in’ lamps with LEDs with a selection of ‘warmness of color’… from nearly pink to shocking white. Look for Warm White or Color Temperatures under about 2500K. I’ve recently found 4’ dual-tube LED replacements for fluorescents at $35-45 at Lowes or Costco!

      Some years ago, the regular screw-in bulbs were poorly made and would overheat their electronics and stop working after a few months. They don’t like being run socket-up. But after replacing a bunch of them, the newer ones started to last longer (got their shit together) and I haven’t had to replace any for about a year. By rough count, I’ve got over 55 regular LED bulbs in service inside and outside the house and one LED round fixture in the laundry. Extremely bright light there for maybe 20w of power consumed.

      You can have a ‘good life’ if you shop carefully for LED replacement bulbs. 4000K are the brightest blue-white; 2500K might be too ‘pink’ or ‘warm’ for your taste. Shop around. Our local Lowes stores have them on display so you can see the differences in color. And they come in all kinds of sizes. Even the range hood lamps in our kitchen are LED now, as are two sets of under-cabinet lights. 6W of LEDs can do what 50-60W of incandescent used to do, or 15-30W of CFLs. I’ve been giving away CFLs on Craig’s List for the past year or two.

      Enjoy. And shop around!

  9. So is it the “CPP” or the “CCP”? /editor

    Also, I thought that joke was about accountants… not economists.

    1. sg: Yep. Will fix. Thanks.
      Best,
      Ron

  10. OT, but I can’t believe Arthur Chu actually said this.

    1. Who among us will be the Catcher in the Rye?

    2. Delving into left-wing twitter is way crazier than I thought it would be:

      “””Pro-life” is terrorism. Not everyone lights the match?but if you’re out there saying healthcare is murder, there’s still soot on your hands””

      ….uh.

      Furthermore:

      “It’s oddly fitting that the US is where a robot that relies on the social contract to survive was murdered in the most gruesome way possible”

      How do people this stupid manage to feed themselves?

      1. You read left-wing Twitter all day via ESB!

        1. I’m still holding out hope she’ll read the comments on a reason article, stumble across my name and get really creeped out.

          I know you read us, Breunig! Come over to the dark side!

          I also think it’s funny that the *arch-Catholic* says libertarianism is infantile and childish.

          She said this as she was explaining how her imaginary sky-friend orders her to support welfare programs.

          1. Damn I hate when catholics (or any progressive christians really) try to use that argument.

            It’s pretty freaking clear that if you follow Jesus’s teachings you’re supposed to do that welfare and helping of the poor and needy voluntarily.

            1. “you’re supposed to do that welfare and helping of the poor and needy voluntarily.”

              Yea? So you just make a government program that forces people to give to the poor voluntarily. If they don’t voluntarily donate, you lock them up. I don’t see the problem here.

              /progressive

            2. Yeah, but it’s nothing new. Once Christianity became the religion of rulers and governments, it was inevitable. It’s not as if people’s “donations” to the Catholic Church were exactly voluntary for most of its history. And there are a lot of people who really seem to believe that governments actually represent the people they rule.

        2. Just peruse twitchy. They have it covered. Enjoyed the Rousey slamming going on because she doesn’t want to fight a tranny.

      2. “It’s oddly fitting that the US is where a robot that relies on the social contract to survive was murdered in the most gruesome way possible”

        Can’t be serious…

        One of the replies was “It appears as if a cis white dude did it, too.”

        1. I bet he was infected with toxic masculinity.

          1. It just shows the violence inherent in the (patriarchal) system.

            Although anyone even loosely familiar with human nature should have assumed the robot was defaced by males somewhere between ages 15 and 25.

        2. You can tell he’s cis because he was wearing a jersey, or something.

      3. “It’s oddly fitting that the US is where a robot that relies on the social contract to survive was murdered in the most gruesome way possible”

        Neill Blomkamp is already in negoation for the movie rights, presumably.

        1. Chappie 2?

        2. The single vandal will be replaced by the Philadelphia police and National Guard, who also have a new military mech suit for some reason.

      4. “It’s oddly fitting that the US is where a robot that relies on the social contract to survive was murdered in the most gruesome way possible”

        It’s one of the things that make America so cool.

        1. Hell yeah, time to destroy that left-wing robo-moocher over there! ‘Merica!

  11. To segue from question posed on another article, the potential of Trump telling the Carbon Clowns to go fuck themselves and cry him a river embodies Trump’s appeal.

    Who else from current prez candidates could one envision doing such a (useful) thing? Sure is better than Jeb Bush’s horseshit scheme for clean energy – whatever the fuck it is (yawn).

    1. Cruz said GW was non-existant. A little harsh to me, but I’m relying on biased reporting so assume he said AGW has been flat for 17 years or so.

      Like Abortion, the media is totally in the tank on AGW, but I am pleased that most comments on sites (even huffpo!) are calling bullshit on the we’re all going to die stories.

      1. Cruz said GW was non-existant. A little harsh to me, but I’m relying on biased reporting so assume he said AGW has been flat for 17 years or so.

        Attacking the science is an academic’s boring game – like economists arguing over tea leaves they discern in M1 from the Fed. Even if you agree with one of them, who gives a shit? Who watches?

        But muckraking the corruption, doomsday scare marketing, and equally uninformed dumbass celebritards of Carbontology (Leo DiCaprio is archetype) is where the action is at. Trump’s narcissism, arrogance, showmanship, and bombast is beyond Carbontology’s own, a cultural weapon they’ve never encountered and have no answer for in the public square. That’s the ticket, and only Trump has the potential to punch it.

        1. Good point — I do like the pushback he’s giving the media and it will only be sweeter if he can call out the media-democractic-washington/ny complex in their hypocrisy.

      2. I can do better than assume what he said.

  12. The EPA is fine tuning it’s “free energy” machines. They’re almost ready. Soon everyone will be pulling from the ether all the super clean power they’ll need for their super low energy consumption needs.

    A brave new world is just around the corner. Meanwhile, every time I’m at the power company there’s no shortage of power customers freaking out about their huge power bills that seem to be endlessly growing larger.

    1. Energy rationing is next – essentially total domination.

      I’m with you, Huxley was prophetic.

      1. Europe and renewables:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..of-claims/

        1. Great link – thanks.

  13. Trump is considered a clown because of his style, but is he really more of a clown then the likes of Hillary or Bernie Sanders? I’m mean seriously look at some of the shit the Democrat candidates have proposed, and laugh, and then cry when you realise these guys are considered SERIOUS candidates.

    Our country is so fucked.

  14. “”That means that the U.S. power sector has already cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 436 million short tons, about 16 percent below its 2005 emissions. “””

    Yes, but obama cronies were not enriched by *that*. So, needs moar, w/mandates…. Delicious mandates

  15. The only thing preventing us from fully transitioning into free energy fantasy land is a bunch of really stupid people who are paranoid about surrendering their remaining few liberties to our benevolent masters. Baddd paranoid people! Herpy derpy derpy doo!

  16. is it wrong that sometimes I want the green movement to get it’s way? Let them wipe out all coal, natural gas, nuclear power etc. Let them wipe out all electricity and send us back to the middle ages. Cause frankly I know I can survive in that kind of world, while I’m guessing a lot of the proponents of this shit could not. Let them starve let them reap what they have sowed.

    1. Except you probably wouldn’t survive in that world. In that world, 100% of the people who want this green shit would die while only 85% of people who aren’t morons would die. Are you sure you’re in the lucky 15%?

      1. Yep pretty sure I’m one of the 15%

      2. Yeah, you might survive the famine, but you’re not necessarily going to survive the roving hordes of pillagers. On a related note, I love to hear people talk about how guns uniquely enable mass murder. Somebody should tell Genghis Khan.

        1. You say roving hordes of pillagers, I say roving horde of unarmed food.

          By the way what spices go best with human? I might need to stock up.

          1. Assuming you are being even slightly serious, unless you fancy yourself as Simo Hayha (which would put you in the 0.0000001% not the 15%), it does not matter what you think of modern liberals, enough of them will revert to their animal instincts (which barely lurk beneath the surface as it is) the minute the shit hits the fan that your one-man-army narrative will fall apart remarkably quickly.

            1. Put another way, if it all took to defend themselves was resourcefulness, there would be a lot fewer dead people in the Russian and French revolutions.

            2. “barely lurk” meaning “are barely kept contained”

          2. When people roast, they smell like pork. If they’re still alive while roasting, they sound like squealing pork. Really fucking eerie the similarities there.

            Season accordingly.

            1. Thanks, at least someone is taking things seriously.

              So I’m guessing people bacon isn’t outside the realm of possibilities? Perhaps slow smoked?

              1. Perhaps. But I really don’t dig on swine much these days. For efficiency, I would recommend a luau-style burial-roast with high temperature, non-toxic accelerant.

                Then, dig it all back up and one has a pile of excellent plant food; sort of slash-and-burn agriculture without burning any trees down (as a bonus, the combusted eco-weenie can go to Al Gore’s windmill in the sky knowing his carbon was also sequestered).

                Far more calories for the effort going that route.

          3. when your hungry you can go without spices but you may want salt for preservative purpose. I think I just thought of a good movie, people preserved in salt coming back to life to suck the water out of the survivors.

        2. On a related note, I love to hear people talk about how guns uniquely enable mass murder.

          To be fair, they do make it a lot easier for a single person to commit mass murder in one go. It took a lot of work to get good enough with a sword or bow and arrow to do what just about anyone can do with a gun. And even more work to become Ghengis Khan with a huge army of horsemen.
          Of course, for the very same reasons, guns are unique in how they enable ordinary people to be able to defend themselves.

          1. To be fair, they do make it a lot easier for a single person to commit mass murder in one go. It took a lot of work to get good enough with a sword or bow and arrow to do what just about anyone can do with a gun. And even more work to become Ghengis Khan with a huge army of horsemen.

            They also allow a single person to stop a mass murder in its tracks. While it may have taken Genghis Khan a lifetime to become an effective conqueror, it would have taken the same lifetime to become strong enough to stop him. That isn’t so great when you weren’t expecting the Golden Horde to pay you a visit on such short notice.

            The fact that murder rates are at all time lows (as in, throughout the history of the human race) ought to give anyone who looks askance at guns some pause.

          2. Didn’t Samson kill 10,000 with the jaw bone of an ass. it takes skill but apparently it can be done.

    2. I would be more than happy to let them do it if they didn’t insist I take part.

    3. North Venezuela, we could call it.

  17. So just how much carbon dioxide is the President talking about?

    Probably less than he emits during one of his speeches.

  18. That African big game debacle won’t die.

    Now I’m at the point where I want to shoot a lion, leave the trophies (skull and pelt) in Africa, and pack the meat back home to donate to hunters for the hungry. Poverty-level American children dining on free lion would cause assplosions world wide.

  19. Meanwhile in Illinois, Exelon is going to decommission two or possibly three nuclear power plants because the state’s control of energy prices means it’s only profitable to generate the cheapest and dirtiest energy. Obviously there are more regulations in place than just consumer price regulations, but that is the point: if central planners got out of the way we’d already have cheaper, cleaner, more efficient energy.

    Instead, government has ensured that energy stasis is our fate: which means dirty, inefficient, unreliable sources. All government can possibly do when ensuring cleaner energy is ensuring we get less efficient, less reliable energy, which will be rejected by anyone not in prison.

  20. Any plan from the federal government will always result in dueling projections, particularly from the other side, and even more so on climate change. And in this case, CoC is the other side.

    Time to start fishing, and stop cutting bait. On climate change, it’s past that time.

    1. Time to start fishing

      The irony of choosing this metaphor undoubtedly flew right over joe’s precious little head.

    2. The market has always been fishing, except when constrained by bureaucrats like yourself.

    3. Re: Jackass Ass,

      The truth is somewhere in the middle which, unfortunately for EPA enthusiasts such as yourself would mean its policy is not going to achieve nowhere near the benefits it is touting.

    4. Hey, Jack! When’s the Rapture?

  21. It’s always safe to assume that Slick Barry and his Gang are lying. Given that much of the reduction in carbon emissions comes from a recession followed by persistent stagnation, it’s easy to see how they really expect to reach their goal — at the expense of American consumers, a group for which liberals have nothing but disdain (at best). Worse yet, by their own figures all this will accomplish virtually nothing — and that’s even accepting the fraudulent science of global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption (which carefully ignores the failure of reality to live up to their predictions).

  22. The EPA must be eliminated immediately, if not sooner. It is a rogue agency that operates without congressional oversight.
    It’s employees should all be given their walking papers and the buildings housing the agency should be torn down.

  23. Your last paragraph is spot on. I wouldn’t give a flying fuck about these stupid made-up numbers if they weren’t being used to somehow justify writing more laws claiming authority to control ever more vast areas of our lives.

    It’s as if they expect us to believe they came up with the numbers BEFORE they made the decision about what laws they want to pass, and not after the fact.

  24. In any case, the EPA’s regulatory impact analysis esimates that the annual global climate benefits using a standard 5 percent discount rate would sum to $6.4 billion by 2030.

    Two thoughts

    (1) I don’t give a shit about ‘global’ benefits when it comes to US government action. I only care about US benefits. What are those?

    (2) This says that benefits over a long time span will add up to $6.4BB. Let’s say the benefits don’t really cut in for a few years. That comes to about $640mm/year, worldwide. That’s frickin’ decimal dust, really.

    1. Exactly. So by the time those global benefits–which are dubious at best–get divided by everyone enjoying them the people who are paying for them, e.g. American consumers and tax payers (since there’s gonna be increased subsidies to cover the higher cost for the poor) will be seeing a net loss. Then again, what price can you really put on smug self-satisfaction?

  25. he stated, “Over the past decade, even as our economy has continued to grow, the United States has cut our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth.” He had to slip that little lie in there….”even as our economy has continued to grow”. While China creates 1/2 the pollution of the world and their look out period will never be met. A president with nuggets would be reminding the world of this non stop.

  26. I have every bit as much confidence in the EPA’s prediction that Obama CPP will reduce my utility bills as I did in Obama’s promise that the ACA would reduce my insurance premiums and bend the healthcare cost curve.

    In other words, I’m pretty confident that they’re lying.

  27. Why is the EPA so afraid to let everyone see their science? Are they hiding it with their Canadian girlfriend?

  28. All these govt estimates are based on assumptions..In this case probably based on continuied techology. But that is preposterous – new designs for nuclear power, such as the molten salt Gen 4 reactors from Transatomic Power will be in operation long before 2030 and will produce the cheapest power available, in addition to using up our nuclear wastes in the process. This certainty
    utterly destroys the govt estimatesand costs.

  29. It is better when debating CO2 control to compare the US slice of the pie to the rest of the world. China emits 80x as much CO2 with all its coal plants. India has a similar number. The countries of the former USSR, again a high multiple. In Africa they still cook over dung fires. I would say that puts the US share at about 1-2 tenths of a percent of the world total — So how much are we going to spend to save 6 hundreds of a percent of the worlds CO2 emissions ??

    A better place to aim an enviro argument is Brazil. The Olympic committee is worried about having to run events in the cesspool that is the Atlantic shore off the coast of Rio.

    1. I’m uncertain how any of that would channel money toward green-energy cronies like algore in the United States.

      It’s also a reminder of states like California or Germany pledging to “do their part” to reduce carbon emissions, as though California and Germany were more than a drop in the bucket and their single-digit reductions a fraction of a drop in the bucket.

  30. They should shut down the power to all gov’t buildings. They can make an ad

    “Hey, the gov’t wants to reduce CO2 emissions, so we decided to start immediately by load shedding, them first.” Our next moves will be anyone else that feels we are evil and should shutter our plants. Universities, and homes of those calling for our demise, without even trying to out compete us by trying to develop and implement Tesla’s theory of beaming power to individuals. This includes Al Gore’s home which consumes more energy than 4 homes do in a year.”

  31. Strange how all I can see when I read that is “CCCP”.

  32. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.