Social Cost of Carbon Regulations Hurt the Poor, and Ignore Benefits

Anti-fossil fuel SCC relies on garbage models, ignores carbon benefits and hurts the poor


Foreword:

The Social Cost of Carbon is a key foundation for numerous Obama-era energy policies, regulations and programs. Climate alarm activists insist the SCC is rooted in solid science and economics, but it is actually little more than Garbage In-Garbage Out forecasting – and worse.

The SCC assumes fossil-fuel-driven carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous manmade climate change, and blames U.S. emissions for every conceivable climate-related cost worldwide. But it fails even to mention, much less analyze, the tremendous and obvious benefits of using oil, gas and coal to power modern civilization – or the undeniable benefits of more CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere helping crops and habitats grow faster and better. Finally, the SCC totally ignores the social, economic, employment and environmental costs of the regulations imposed in the name of saving the planet by converting America to a totally carbon-free energy system.


By Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

“If you could pick just one thing to reduce poverty, by far you would pick energy,” Bill Gates has said. “Access to energy is absolutely fundamental in the struggle against poverty,” World Bank VP Rachel Kyte and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen agree.

The UN Development Program also calls energy “central to poverty reduction.” And International Energy Agency Executive Director Dr. Fatih Birol notes that “coal is raising living standards and lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.” In fact, all fossil fuels are doing so.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Trump’s EPA Pick is Causing Green Heads to Explode

From E&E Legal – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.comscott-pruitt_2014

“We are delighted with President-elect Trump’s selection of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Mr. Pruitt has led the charge in recent years to confront head on the enormous federal regulatory overreach proposed by the EPA as epitomized by the Clean Power Plan and Waters of the U.S. rule.  As a litigator, he also understands how environmental fringe groups like the Sierra Club and the NRDC – who are bankrolled by renewable energy tycoons like Tom Steyer and George Soros – use the state and federal court systems to essentially create new laws through such schemes as ‘sue & settle.’

It is also reassuring that President-Elect Trump has chosen someone from the state ranks, particularly a state so important to energy production, since it’s the states and their citizens who are suffering the most by this Administration’s out-of-control EPA.

We encourage Mr. Pruitt to gear up for battle since draining the EPA swamp will be met with the utmost resistance from an entrenched and well-funded green industrial complex. Finally, we strongly encourage him to add a deputy administrator to his team who has significant EPA experience, who shares the President’s vision, and can protect that vision from a hostile agency staff.”

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #243

The Week That Was: October 1, 2016 Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Hubris: Michael Kelly, Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology of Cambridge University has written an excellent, short book review of Hubris: The Troubling Science, Economics and Politics of Climate Change by Michael Hart, a scholar who has spent a decade working on the book.

Kelly’s comments reflect many of the views held by SEPP (British spellings):

“[T]he global climate is changing, and has always been changing. The earth has warmed by 1C over the last 150 years. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the human emissions of carbon dioxide since 1850 are heralding an imminent and certain global climate catastrophe that could be averted by engineering projects.”

To which SEPP would add…or require drastic national and international energy policy restricting the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). Kelly goes on to state:

Continue reading

National Black Chamber of Commerce Upsets Climate Pundits

By Eric Worrall – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

The National Black Chamber of Commerce has been upsetting climate advocates, by insisting that President Obama’s clean energy plan would hurt the US economy. The response from climate advocates has been nothing short of vitriolic.

For example;

How the polluter-backed National Black Chamber misleads minorities

By Martin Luther King III December 29

Martin Luther King III is co-founder of the Drum Major Institute.

For months now, the National Black Chamber of Commerce has been warning communities of color that the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan will cause job losses and generate higher energy bills.

In fact, the opposite is true.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s first-ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants will create clean- energy jobs, improve public health, bring greater reliability to our electric power grid, bolster our national security, demonstrate the United States’ resolve to combat climate change and maybe even reduce our utility bills.

By limiting the emission of carbon dioxide, the Clean Power Plan also will slow a main driver of extreme weather, which has inflicted widespread economic damage and human misery, including death.

That’s what the National Black Chamber of Commerce neglects to mention.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-polluter-backed-national-black-chamber-misleads-minorities/2015/12/29/12b1ac3e-ae2f-11e5-b820-eea4d64be2a1_story.html

Unfortunately for Martin Luther King III’s dubious claim about energy bills, it was President Obama himself who explained that his plan will cause energy bills to skyrocket.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/green_money_windmills.jpg

So what has the NBCC done, to provoke such a response? The following is an excerpt from the NBCC report on the 15th December;

3. Congress Alert: Currently, Congress is negotiating the omnibus spending legislation. One concerning provision that they are reportedly trying to slip into this trillion dollars spending package is a provision that would increase funding for the Green Climate Fund by $3B. This money uses Americans’ tax dollars to subsidize projects in foreign countries under the guise of climate change. Please let your congressperson and senators know this is unacceptable before they finish this really pork filled package.

Read more: http://www.nationalbcc.org/news/progress-reports/2561-progress-report-december-15-2015

Back in September the NBCC held a seminar, titled How Climate Policy Hurts the Poor

Regardless of one’s personal opinions on the effect man-made greenhouse emissions have on the climate, the Obama Administration’s proposed Clean Power Plan will exact a high price on Americans and have a negligible impact – if any – on global temperatures. NERA’s economic consultants estimate a temperature reduction of only 0.018 degrees C in 2100 at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. In August, the Environmental Protection Agency announced its final rule to achieve a 32% reduction in “carbon pollution” from the electric power production sector by 2030.

Experts estimate a significant impact on the cost of electricity to all consumers and businesses. President Obama has kept his promise that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” as a result of his policy. The poorest and most vulnerable members of society will be disproportionately harmed by these impending spikes in energy prices. Europe is already experiencing “energy poverty” where families and the elderly are being forced to choose between eating and heating. Tens of thousands did in the United Kingdom in several recent winters because they are unable to pay their electricity bills and still buy enough food. Will this happen in America next?

The world’s poorest – the 1.3 billion in developing countries who depend on wood and dried dung as primary cooking and heating fuels, smoke from which kills 4 million and temporarily debilitates hundreds of millions every year – will be condemned to more generations of poverty and its deadly consequences. Instead, developing countries desperately need to replace such primitive and dirty fuels with electricity, the most affordable sources of which are fossil fuels.

Read more: http://www.nationalbcc.org/events/icalrepeat.detail/2015/09/21/120/-/how-climate-policy-hurts-the-poor

Plenty more where that came from – the NBCC website is well worth a read.

I admire that the NBCC has chosen to steadfastly and consistently defend the interests of its members, in the face of what must be substantial political pressure to join President Obama’s climate crusade.

CONTINUE READING –>

EPA Regulations To Cause Double-Digit Electricity Price Increases In Nearly Every State

By Michael Basatasch – Re-Blogged From http://freedomforce.com

People should enjoy the relatively low electricity prices while they can this Thanksgiving season, because nearly every state could see double-digit increases in electricity rates due to federal regulations forcing coal plants to retire, according to two separate studies.

Two new studies by Energy Ventures Analysis and NERA Economic Consulting claim the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan will raise electricity prices in every state it covers, with nearly all of them seeing prices increase 10 to 25 percent by the 2030s.

Forty-six states will face double digit increases in wholesale electricity cost when the CPP is fully implemented in 2030, with 16 states projected to experience a 25+ percent increase,” according to EVA’s report that was done on behalf of the National Mining Association.

NERA’s study found that “40 states could have average retail electricity price increases of 10% or more” and “17 states could have average retail electricity price increases of 20% or more.” Another “10 states could have average retail electricity price increases of 30% or more,” according to NERA’s study, financed by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

Continue reading

The Height Of Temperature Folly

By Willis Eschenbach – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

In her always interesting blog, Dr. Judith Curry [and Anthony at WUWTpoints to a very well-researched article by Bjorn Lomborg, peer-reviewed, entitled “Impact of Current Climate Proposals” (full text).

He has repeated the work that Tom Wigley did for the previous IPCC report. There is a simplified climate model called “MAGICC” which is used extensively by the IPCC. It can be set up to emulate the results of any of the climate models used by the IPCC, including their average results, by merely changing the MAGICC settings. This lets us figure out how much cooling we can expect from a variety of programs that promise to reduce CO2.

The abstract of the paper says (emphasis and formatting mine):

This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small.

  • The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100.
  • The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C.
  • The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C.
  • All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100.

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #193

The Week That Was: August 22, 2015 – Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Administration’s Power Plan: Independent analysts continue to provide details of the Obama Administration’s politically named “Clean Power Plan” (CPP). These studies make clear that the only forms of new electrical power generation the administration considers “clean” are solar and wind. Electric power generation from fossil fuels are condemned by the administration. Hydroelectric generation is out of favor, as explained by ex-EPA official Alan Carlin. There are no plans for federally supported new dam construction in the US. In fact, the thrust has been to tear down existing dams in the name of the environment. Continue reading