Human Events Blog

Obama’s War on Energy continues

The Obama EPA is getting ready to shut down the construction of new coal-fired power plants, as reported by the Washington Post:

The proposed rule — years in the making and approved by the White House after months of review — will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.

Industry officials and environmentalists said in interviews that the rule, which comes on the heels of tough new requirements that the Obama administration imposed on mercury emissions and cross-state pollution from utilities within the past year, dooms any proposal to build a coal-fired plant that does not have costly carbon controls.

“This standard effectively bans new coal plants,” said Joseph Stanko, who heads government relations at the law firm Hunton and Williams and represents several utility companies. “So I don’t see how that is an ‘all of the above’ energy policy.”

Well, you see, it’s “all of the above” except for coal.  And oil.  You can have any flavor of energy you want, provided it’s “green.”  Which means “fantastically expensive, controlled by a top Obama contributor, and doesn’t work very well.”

Coal currently provides about 40 percent of America’s power supply.  Although existing plants are exempted from the most stringent of these new EPA regulations, the Post reports that utility companies “plan to shut down more than 300 boilers, representing more than 42 gigawatts of electricity generation – nearly 13 percent of the nation’s coal-fired electricity – rather than upgrade them with pollution-control technology.”  Coal-fired energy production will begin dying of old age, and the EPA just issued a do-not-resuscitate order.

This should do wonders for electric bills, particularly for those living in areas that depend heavily on coal plants for power.  Americans for Prosperity recently cited studies that showed the Obama EPA tacking an extra 12 percent onto electricity bills nationwide, with up to double that effect in certain areas.  They’re on track to wipe out a million jobs, too… and that was before the “New Source Performance Standard” came down from Olympus.

This is all being done in the name of “global warming,” a primitive and discredited superstition you have no choice but to subscribe to, as it is the official religion of our central government.  Just to repeat the point for anyone who was unclear, there is no global warming.  The Wall Street Journal ran an article emphasizing this on Tuesday:

What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years. Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the University of Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. The latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979.

[…] There has indeed been some warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius, since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Some of that warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warming—much of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciably—suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with mankind.

Frustrated by the lack of computer-predicted warming over the past decade, some IPCC supporters have been claiming that “extreme weather” has become more common because of more CO2. But there is no hard evidence this is true. After an unusually cold winter in 2011 (December 2010-February 2011) the winter of 2012 was unusually warm in the continental United States. But the winter of 2012 was bitter in Europe, Asia and Alaska.

Also this week, the long-running operation by global warming con artists to discredit the existence of the “Medieval Warm Period” collapsed, as hard evidence of global warming and cooling cycles during the pre-industrial era was discovered.  From the UK Daily Mail:

Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times the whole of the planet heated up.

It then cooled down naturally and there was even a ‘mini ice age’. 

A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.

In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.

But the high priests of the global warming cult have spoken, Barack Obama is their acolyte, and your mandatory tithe will be extracted from your utility bills.

Sign Up
  • reddarin

    I don’t want to get into a big debate about Newt but this comparison is flawed. When NG sat with Stretch on that couch it was *before* ClimateGate had happened.

  • Guest

    “Under my plan,electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket”- Barack Hussein Obama,2008. How’s that for hope and change?

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    There was nothing in the East Anglia emails that puts doubt on climate science. Any doubts were all political. Climate science certainly is not perfect and it is a field of many, many complex variables. We gather new evidence all the time that enhances our understanding. When something contradicts or doesn’t fit with the rest of the evidence, we find out why and alter the theory or throw out the bad data.

  • Dustoff

     You didn’t see the news just a day or so ago?    They just blew-up the whole GW theory

  • Dustoff

    Why get off them in the first place.  You comment makes ZERO sense. 

    The pollutes comment has NO standing. Or are YOU not paying attention.

  • Dustoff

     Don’t underestimate what we can do intentionally
    ****************************

    Don’t GUESS either.  

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    They meaning oil companies and politicians or they meaning scientists? And the whole theory in one swoop too? Is the Earth not warming? Is CO2 not a contributing factor? Have we been wrong about chemistry?

  • demon_1

    Hope you have enough candles, and oil lamps because you are going to need them. Say BYE-BYE to air conditioning, central heat too. Better start shopping for a four legged means of transportation.

  • mikinzla

     how stupid does a man have to be before he is unqualified, and guaranteed to lose????????????

  • Wayne Peterkin

    Lest anyone forget, Obama was not only on record for infamously wanting energy prices to “skyrocket”. He is also on record for stating that America’s standard of living needed to be reduced because we consumed a disproportionate amount of the world’s energy resources. His argument is profoundly wrong is several ways, but he is on record as saying we should not be allowed to keep our homes as comfortable as we would like nor should we be allowed to travel as we would like. His view is a dominant federal government controlling the people. His policies consistently take us in that direction. Every single thing he has done in office has been to grow the federal government and take more control. I cannot understand how any American can support him, yet many still do. 

  • Wayne Peterkin

    Exactly what kind of climate do you hope to engineer? All these fools whining about “climate change” seem to think there is an ideal climate that they have in mind. Do you want the climate that existed 500 years ago? 50 years ago? 10 years ago? And how are you planning to make that climate happen, because eliminating fossil fuels alone won’t get you there?

  • akaFreedom

    I believe there needs to be a balance.  Too many people on the right seem to be forgetting about water quality, food quality, the practices of genetically engineering seeds, livestock and other meats and seafoods. Not to mention feeding them chemicals we can’t even pronounce.  A HEALTHY Environment is a GOOD thing.  I would like to be free to eat a tomato that actually ripened on the vine and not gassed to look red.  

    Could we please keep those issues in mind?  We might not drive as many environmentalists to vote for Obama again…..

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KHWBTGI6KV25CQXMHF5FHZ6JII Patriot38

    I like the way you think. The problem I see is that it takes a lot of funding to do the necessary research, and we don’t have, nor will we have sufficient funding for this program until we quit supporting the parts of the world that only “love us for the money we give them” and start funneling these funds into programs in this country. I’m not against giving help to other countries after a major disaster, but I hate giving it to them just because we can, and someone in Washington, DC thinks they can buy friendship and loyalty, which they can’t. We have to change our ways before we can’t change our ways! Being a physicist, I am all for fusion, which burns its own waste, as our sun does.

  • smartgranny55

    Obama clearly promised to put the coal industry out of business.  I don’t understand how any intelligent person could’ve voted for him.

  • smartgranny55

    Sacrifices like no money for gas to drive to work, no job, can’t put food on the table for my kids, make my grandkids pay for obummer economics?

  • Guest

    I don’t care if you call it GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE, or Al Gore’s flatulence.  With the exception of Al Gore’s flatulence, it does not exist.  I am not a meteorologist, but I did serve five years of active duty in the weather field.  That does not qualify me as an expert, but it puts me years ahead of Al Gore.

    I have heard many statements from Al (I invented the Internet) Gore and supporters, making some very interesting claims.  Man has been pracricing metallurgy, controlled burning and even burning cities for close to 5000 years now.  Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and say that weapons were produced on a massive scale since the time that Jesus walked the Earth.  That’s 2000 years, give, or take a few.  Some of the global warming estimates state that the average temperature has gone up one degree every ten years.  That doesn’t sound like much until you think about it.

    Let’s see…. One degree every ten years for 2000 years.  2000 divided by ten.  There is is!  The average temperature has risen 200 degrees since Herod was King of the Jews.  At that rate, every drop of water would have boiled off the planet and our good planet Earth would look like Venus, surrounded by clouds.

    How could that be?  Did we have some global cooling, too?  Of course we did.  Anyone that follows the path of the jet streams knows that fluctuations do occur, but that they are generally minor.  The article does mention that we have proof of this having occurred in the past.  We can, and have, taken 500 years of ice core samples in the Arctic and Antartica.  There are variations.  That’s why we have averages and statistics.

    There is one factor that man is responsible for.  Agenda 21 may solve that problem, though.  What is the problem?  It is human beings.  We have more of them on the earth than we have ever had before.  Human beings take in oxygen and emit carbon dioxide.  Not as much as Al Gore’s house, or the airplanes headed for another Obama vacation, but the amount of carbon dioxide is significant and probably responsible for the less than one degree, Celsius, average temperature increase.  It will take men far better educated than I to prognosticate any permanent change beyond the fluctuations that I have already mentioned.

    Until we can get a new resident of the White House and begin some serious economic recovery, we will just have to live with the CO2 that the older coal plants are responsible for.  We can compensate by removing the electricity to Al Gore’s house (possibly the largest carbon footprint on the planet) and letting the Obama family vacation by bus, instead of by Air Force One.

  • Guest

    I don’t care if you call it GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE, or Al Gore’s flatulence. With the exception of Al Gore’s flatulence, it does not exist. I am not a meteorologist, but I did serve five years of active duty in the weather field. That does not qualify me as an expert, but it puts me years ahead of Al Gore.

    I have heard many statements from Al (I invented the Internet) Gore and supporters, making some very interesting claims. Man has been practicing metallurgy, controlled burning and even burning cities for close to 5000 years now. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and say that weapons were produced on a massive scale since the time that Jesus walked the Earth. That’s 2000 years, give, or take a few. Some of the global warming estimates state that the average temperature has gone up one degree every ten years. That doesn’t sound like much until you think about it.

    Let’s see…. One degree every ten years for 2000 years. 2000 divided by ten. There is is! The average temperature has risen 200 degrees since Herod was King of the Jews.   At that rate, every drop of water would have boiled off the planet and our good planet Earth would look like Venus, surrounded by clouds.

    How could that be? Did we have some global cooling, too? Of course we did. Anyone that follows the path of the jet streams knows that fluctuations do occur, but that they are generally minor. The article does mention that we have proof of this having occurred in the past. We can, and have, taken 500 years of ice core samples in the Arctic and Antartica. There are variations. That’s why we have averages and statistics.

    There is one factor that man is responsible for.   Agenda 21 may solve that problem, though.   What is the problem?   It is human beings.   We have more of them on the earth than we have ever had before. Human beings take in oxygen and emit carbon dioxide.   Not as much as Al Gore’s house, or the airplanes headed for another Obama vacation, but the amount of carbon dioxide is significant and probably responsible for the less than one degree, Celsius, average temperature increase. It will take men far better educated than I to prognosticate any permanent change beyond the fluctuations that I have already mentioned.

    Until we can get a new resident of the White House and begin some serious economic recovery, we will just have to live with the CO2 that the older coal plants are responsible for. We can compensate by removing the electricity to Al Gore’s house (possibly the largest carbon footprint on the planet) and letting the Obama family vacation by bus, instead of by Air Force One.

  • justinwachin

    Election day can’t get here soon enough. The Obama administration has demonstrated what happens when a radical intent on destroying America gets elected president. 

    Any of the remaining Republican candidates are more qualified to serve as president than Mr. Obama. Our nation’s best hope is for change on election day.

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    That is a good question except the goal is not to engineer a specific climate but to prevent a warmer climate that we are current contributing to. There are a lot of variables to climate that we don’t have control over but there is one major variable we do.

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    Or you could switch to energy efficient CFLs, turn off lights and devices you aren’t using, insulate your home better, etc. The ways we can use energy more efficiently are endless. Electric cars are becoming a realistic option and we can gradually transform the electric grid to come from clean energy sources.

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    How much did you consider the average miles per gallon your vehicle gets when you purchased it? Will you think about that for the next vehicle you buy? If not, that is your own shortsighted purchase.

  • Wayne Peterkin

    So let me try to understand your argument. You can’t tell us exactly how much fossil fuels are contributing to climate change because the climate changes naturally. You cannot predict the final outcome, and you do not have a goal in mind nor can you tell us when that goal is achieved. But you still want major changes economically to meet this undefined goal?  You have a really tough argument to win here.  

  • smartgranny55

    It was a primary consideration.  I have no need for an SUV or truck, even though I would rather drive one.  Regardless of the cost of gas, it is wise to save money where you can.  I, also, drive routes that get me better gas milage.  But, to double the cost of gas and tax coal plants out of existence, in 3 yrs is short sighted.  Increasing the price of gas will increase unemployment, the cost of groceries, and the cost of other essentials.

  • reddarin

    “If not, that is your own shortsighted purchase”

    Obamao has only been in Office for 3 years. A reasonable person might not expect the President of America to purposefully act to double the price of gas. That is exactly what he has done.

    It also isn’t reasonable to expect the Fed to force American’s into a purchase path by contorting energy policy.

    Primitive worship that the Left engages in defines the stupidity of leftist sheeple.

  • reddarin

    “We might not drive as many environmentalists to vote for Obama again…..”

    That is plain silly. No ‘environmentalist’ is going to vote for anything other than a (D) that at least pays lip service to environmentalism and no (R) will ever convince such a person that they are worthy of their vote.

  • akaFreedom

    I don’t agree.