Climate we need changed is political one




Food stamps have never been more popular, economic growth is in the doldrums, average household income remains in a slump, the work force is still shrinking, a third of everyone between 18 and 34 is living with parents, often as a means of rent rescue, and President Barack Obama wants to make things worse.

The issue for him is climate change, but the issue for the rest of us should be political change. Focus on November, everyone, as you contemplate a new directive dictating to states that, for the sake of a cooler future, they must vastly decrease the use of coal in electric plants. The states are given some options about how they go about it, but the sure-enough facts are that none of the allowed steps will do boo to budge global warming a fraction of a degree downward even as they visit the nation with dour economic consequences.

Obama himself once conceded that measures of the sort he is now dictating would send electric rates skyrocketing, an instance of candor now in remission. The Environmental Protection Agency says rates will sit there as if nothing is happening. My own observation is that when the government mandates changes that must at least initially be expensive, as some of these absolutely will be, the costs are passed on to consumers.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says the hit will be $51 billion and 200,000 jobs a year, and if you want to reply, “Oh, well, that’s just greedy business noodles talking,” consider the bureaucracy-bound, fiercely anti-warming European Union that fairly recently said it was putting higher emission-reduction goals in place even as it was going to ease up on how members get there. The issue, you see, is that Europe, also in a bad way economically, discovered that its anti-warming regulations were leading to deindustrialization, as one German official put it, and is now backing off of them, choosing to mouth lofty aspirations instead.

Of course, what the Europeans know is what everyone who knows anything at all about global warming knows. There are lots of countries but just one global atmosphere, and what is done across the Atlantic or in the United States will make not a smidgen of difference if the rest of the world does not join in. Much of it will not. China, for instance, may have rescued hundreds of millions of its people from destitution, but 900 million are as bad off as communism once helped to ensure, and China will never, ever sacrifice them for the sake of warming worries.

Some analysts contend otherwise. If the United States gets out front, leads the way with self-abnegating boldness, others will line up and salute with cheery smiles on their faces, they say. Do you suppose they’ve noticed that China, now strutting its bullying power internationally as much as at anytime in decades, might every now and then say something meant to mislead people about its noble intentions, but then shows by its actions that it meant not a word of it?

A final argument may be that we should begin the good fight even if it won’t help right off the bat just on the chance that China and others do eventually come along, and the answer is we are. Through the technological genius of the free market system, we have reduced carbon emissions significantly.

It is also the case that the EPA intervention will get lots of things wrong — that’s a governmental certitude — and that additional technological breakthroughs will supply lots more solutions over time. Some of the worst warming scare talk is scientifically disputable, by the way, and some of the economic concerns are worth listening to. Lend an ear.

 

YEAH,,,that's exactly what I told Clarise one day,, Godzilla even said it is the weather.

 

The US economy has generated over 200,000 jobs in each of the past four months. Things might finally be improving.

 

President’s carbon math doesn’t add up

For people who trumpet their strict commitment to fact and reason, the Obama administration and its supporters are strangely incapable of rational analysis of new climate-change regulations.

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency released draft rules last week to create a vast new regulatory apparatus with no input from Congress.

The goal is to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants, in particular coal-fired plants, to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

The rhetoric around the rules has involved self-congratulation about how they’re the inexorable result of taking climate science and the reality of dangerous global warming seriously.

“Science is science,” Obama said in an open-and-shut tautology in an interview with New York Times columnist Tom Friedman. By the same token, math is math, and the new regulations make no sense.

While the regulations are stringent enough to impose real economic costs, they have almost no upside in fighting global warming. That’s because the United States is only part of the global carbon-emissions picture, and a diminishing one at that.

We account for roughly a sixth of global emissions, and our emissions have fallen the past few years more than those of any other major country.

In fact, we’ve already achieved about half of Obama’s 30 percent goal, in part through the boom in natural gas, which produces half the carbon emissions of coal.

The regulations aim to cut carbon emissions by 700 million tons by 2030. As the Manhattan Institute’s Robert Bryce notes, emissions rose worldwide by about 700 million tons in 2011 alone. China increased its emissions by 3 billion tons from 2006 to 2012.

In D-Day terms, the regulations are like trying to roll back the Nazis by sending two landing craft to Normandy and doing some TV interviews.

Even by the assumptions of the so-called global-warming consensus, the regulations will have an imperceptible effect on global temperature by 2100.

The fight against global warming runs up against this reality: Anything we do on our own short of returning to a subsistence economy is largely meaningless, while we can’t force other countries to kneecap their economies based on a fashionable cause with no immediate bearing on the well-being of their often desperately impoverished citizens.

Supporters of the new EPA rules say they are an exercise of American leadership that will encourage other countries to crimp their economies.

How has the power of example worked so far? We are a liberal democracy. We allow a robustly free press. We don’t imprison dissenters. We don’t steal the industrial secrets of other countries and give them to companies owned by government insiders.

In all this, we provide a model for Beijing. Yet the Chinese Politburo stubbornly pursues what it believes is in its best interest.

Why will China be shamed by our self-flagellating new policy into adopting economically harmful regulations of its own based on speculative models showing a far-off threat of higher temperatures?

The best US policy, as economics writer Jim Manzi points out, is maintaining an environment favorable to technological innovation.

No one would’ve predicted the fracking revolution that has both displaced coal and benefited the broader economy. But the adherents of “science” prefer the satisfaction of pointlessly self-defeating gestures.

 

Most developed countries are acting in a meaningful way to reduce carbon emissions. And China is also acting. So stop your bitching, whinging and whining.

 

Go fuck yourself and do it all in your own CUNTry.


And if you think for one second that China gives a fuck about how much they're polluting or what the world thinks of them, you're moonbattier than any of us could ever have thought.

 

Here you are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_China

They have started a carbon price market in several provinces, and lead the world in renewable energy generation. Unlike certain stupid Repugs, they can actually see beyond the end of their noses.

 

blah blah blah blah blah......carbon emissions this, homeoprogenic climate change that.

IF it IS Humans causing the Climate to change; there's only ONE thing you really need to eliminate to stop it

GET RID OF THE HUMANS! AND LET THE SELFRIGHTEOUS LIBTARDS LEAD THE WAY BY EXTRMINATING THEMSELVES FOR THE GOOD OF THE PLANET!

 

You have shown yourself to be a complete and utterly nasty idiot with that comment. Are you a secret Nazi?

 

China now No. 2 Carbon trading market behind Europe

This proves that righties are full of it when they talk about China doing nothing. This article is from the China Daily, but it's very probably still accurate.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/greenchina/2014-06/11/content_17577749.htm

 

Has California suffered from its carbon market?

No, California is thriving under the complete Dem control. No need to worry about stupid Repugs mucking things up there. The CA budget is in surplus, and things are rosier there than in the rest of the US.

Yes, liberals do know how to fix economies.

 

Wow. Classic example of a low information voter swallowing whole the line fed to them by the administration.
200,000 jobs?
Peanuts. And, inaccurate in any case.

What about the unemployment rate, still over 6%?
What about the long term unemployed; those unemployed over 6 months? At last count, 1.3 Million formerly productive labor force members now sidelined, probably forever.
What about the debt? Approaching
$18 TRILLION

Things might finally be improving my ass.

We're not going anywhere.

 

Yep. Tax and spend. Tax and spend. Tax and spend.

 

More like a low-information, non-citizen buttinsky from half a world away. He's bitching from Australia. Can't mind his own business.

 

Seems to work.

 

By the way, ALL YOU DO is bitch and whine about people you've never met who live in a country you've never been to and probably never will. So if there's anyone who should stop their bitching, whinging and whining, and just plain shut the fuck up, find yourself a lib'rul-lovin' mirror and have a good look in it for the answer if you haven't figured it out by now. And yes, you are just as fucking utterly nasty as anyone you've criticized.

Sign me,
Tired O'yo sheeit!

 

I love getting under your skin, Repug!

 

"Under my skin" is minor compared to November, when the "Repugs" are gonna go right up your ass, clenched fists first for maximum impact.

 

As I have read, States will have until as late as June 2018 to submit their final plans for complying with the rule.

Also the 30 percent figure is just an average, and individual states would have widely varying requirements for how much they would have to slash their pollution levels

All this is likely to change when the dems lose the mid term elections this November. As well as losing the white House in 2016...

Numbers will be revised. Pollution estimates will be manipulated.

It's all about money you fool...