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 –>

Government Actions and Basic Premises

cropped-bob-shapiro.jpg   By Bob Shapiro

Many times, reversing your basic premise can give you valuable insights. Let’s look at oil, religion, and the US Constitution, as well as our political leaders actions in these spheres.

Looking around the world, we see numerous oil exporting countries who also are avowed enemies of the US, either outright like Venezuela and Iran, or surreptitiously like Saudi Arabia. While in the past, OPEC members have curtailed production to keep prices high, now they are in “pedal to the metal” mode, producing as much oil as they can, and have pushed the price so low, many analysts are declaring the death of American production.

Our leaders, most obviously President Obama, have been treating OPEC with kid gloves, while at the same time they are in an undeclared war on US produced energy – mostly of the fossil fuel variety. How might these seemingly at odds actions make sense together?

I expect that most Americans would believe, as a basic premise, that the elected President of the United States is working for the benefit of the American people. So, for the purposes of this mental exercise, let us assume the exact opposite – that President Obama is working AGAINST the best interest of America.

It is a well established fact that the availability of cheap, reliable energy is very well correlated to growth in a country’s Economy, to the people’s Standard of Living, and to the general Well-Being of all who live in that country.

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

How Obama’s “Green Legacy” Will Shut Down the Economy

By Mack Stetson – Re-Blogged From http://politicaloutcast.com

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with support from President Obama, is heading up a move that would make the cost of electricity skyrocket and do unprecedented damage to the economy.

President Obama is supporting the EPA’s move as a part of his own plan to leave a “green legacy” when he leaves the White House.  The cost of Obama’s legacy to the country may be worth it to him, but to average Americans who already pay too much for electricity, the prospects of these new policies are frightening!

According to Foxnews.com, the battle to stop the EPA and President Obama is underway:

The legal barrage to halt the Environmental Protection Agency’s radical Clean Power Plan has begun.

A broad coalition of U.S. industry and business, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,  the National Association of Manufacturers, and an armada of other business and industry organizations, has  asked the D.C. District of the federal Court of Appeals to prevent any further action on the Plan until the court can decide its overall legal status.

Continue reading

Iraqi PM Abadi accuses Obama of a lack of “will,” and may invite Russia to bomb ISIS

By – Re-Blogged From The American Enterprise Institute

In an interview with France 24, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi accused President Obama of a lack of “will” in the fight against the Islamic State, and complained that Obama had failed to deliver the “massive air power” he had promised. Abadi further said that while he has not yet discussed Russian intervention in Iraq, he “would welcome” Russian airstrikes against ISIS in his country. From the interview:

France 24: Are you discussing with Russia the possibility of Russia striking in Iraq?

Abadi: Not yet, not yet.

France 24: But it’s a possibility?

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