WSJ: EPA is banning coal even if it doesn’t reduce CO2 emissions: ‘The EPA is conceding that it has shut down coal development for at least the next decade, even if that doesn’t reduce carbon emissions’

The rule does not yet apply to existing coal plants that still provide about 40% of U.S. electricity, though that day will come soon. The meaning of Friday’s rule is that the EPA is banning coal—the second largest source of carbon emissions after petroleum—from the future energy mix.
The EPA admits as much in the 463-page document, noting that “few, if any” plants will be built “in the foreseeable future.” For this reason, “the EPA projects that this proposed rule will result in negligible CO2 emission changes, quantified benefits, and costs by 2022.” Got that? The EPA is conceding that it has shut down coal development for at least the next decade, even if that doesn’t reduce carbon emissions.
EPA chief Gina McCarthy nonetheless felt it politically necessary to disown the regulatory war on coal that she is obviously waging. At a breakfast this week she argued that the economics of coal power are bad because low gas prices have made coal “not really the fuel of choice” and that the new rule won’t have “a significant immediate impact.”
But then why issue the rule at all in return for “negligible” benefits? Probably because she and the shrewder environmentalists know that the fuel is still viable and might rebound if natural gas prices rise. The EPA is guaranteeing that won’t happen.
The rule creates a 1,100-pound limit per megawatt hour on carbon, while even the most modern, advanced coal plants put out 1,800 pounds or more. New plants could theoretically install carbon capture and sequestration technologies (CCS) to get below the EPA’s carbon ceiling, but it will be impossible for utilities to finance new projects with these unproven systems that require billions of dollars of capital investment. That’s why the EPA estimates the rule will have “negligible” economic costs as well.
The law requires the EPA to certify that the technology the agency mandates be proven and demonstrated in practice, but there are only two CCS projects now under construction—in Kemper County, Mississippi and Saskatchewan, Canada. Others are merely on the drawing board. When questioned last week about Kemper’s budget overruns despite federal subsidies, Ms. McCarthy admitted the project isn’t “really a good model” because it is “actually very unique.”

These and other legal ambiguities mean the coal ban will be litigated for years. EPA first proposed this rule in April 2012, then withdrew it to add more

Snake Oil Suzuki fails simple science test.

Snake Oil Suzuki fails simple science test.

Everyone interested in climate science knows of the main data sets for measuring global temperature; the two satellite data sets, the remote sensing system (RSS) and the set from the University of Alabama Huntsville. The other data sets are NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) and and from the Hadley climate research unit the  two HadCRUT sets with different methods  of tweeking HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT 4.David Suzuki has made a career out of travelling the world pushing the alarmist view of climate change. Surely then he would be aware of these global temperature data sets. And yet on Q&A last night when asked about them by Bill Koutalianos he seemed to be unaware of them.Bill: Since 1998 global temperatures have been relatively flat, yet many man-made global warming advocates refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Has man-made global warming become a new religion in itself? Suzuki: …yeah well don’t know how, er where er why you’re saying that. The 10 hottest years on record as I understand it have been in this century. In fact the warming continues, it may have slowed down but the warning continuous and every body is considering some sort of revelation in the next IPCC reports that are saying we got it wrong – as far as I understand – we haven’t. So where are you getting your information? I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us they’re thinking. Bill: UAH; RSS, HadCruT, GISS Data the shows a 17 year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the CO2 warming theory. Suzuki: What is the reference – I don’t  er….. Bill:Well, they’re the main data sets that IPCC uses…. Those Data sets show a 17 year flat trend which suggest there may be a problem with At this point Suzuki interruptedSuzuki: There may be a climate sceptic down in Huntsville Alabama who has taken the data and come to that conclusion.It seems it first, Suzuki, this snake-oil salesman, appears not to know about the datasets that all the climate scientists use,  then, when he  hears you UAH he refers obliquely to John Christie and denigrates him  although Christie has been  a former IPCC author. Christy was a leadauthor of the 2001 report by the IPCC.Later, Suzuki refers to the suppose consensus. Much has been written of the fraud studies …

Analysis: David Suzuki’s ignorance exposed — ‘Suzuki was baffled. Ideology and ignorance combined’

Suzuki’s ignorance

An extreme environmental ideologue, who advocates action on global warming and saving the planet, David Suzuki flies around the world on carbon-fuelled speaking tours and charges thousands of dollars per appearance, whilst exhorting the rest of us to cut back on our excessive lifestyles.
The ABC therefore thinks he’s Gaia incarnate and offered him a full Q&A to himself to spout his propaganda.
Bill Koutalianos, of the Climate Sceptics Party, hit him with the first question on temperature flatlining since 1998. When Suzuki asked how he got to that conclusion, Bill rattled off the acronyms for the four main global temperature sets, GISS, HadCRUT, UAH, RSS. Suzuki was baffled. Ideology and ignorance combined.

Sent by gReader Pro…

Warmist Green Guru David Suzuki bombs on Q&A, knows nothing about the climate

David Suzuki bombs on Q&A, knows nothing about the climate

David Suzuki on Q&A David Suzuki’s performance on Q&A last night was extraordinary. I was knock-me-over amazed that he has not heard of UAH, GISS, HADcrut and RSS, and knew nothing of the pause in global surface temperatures that even the UK Met Office and IPCC lead author climate scientists like Hans von Storch are discussing. How afraid is Suzuki about man-made global warming? So afraid, it doesn’t occur to him to check the data, incredibly he doesn’t even know what the data is. Tony Jones had to rephrase the questions to explain them to Suzuki, who doesn’t even understand them. How much is his reputation as a scientist worth when he doesn’t even bother to check the evidence for a cause he stakes his reputation on? Three times in Q&A he admitted he didn’t know — he didn’t know there was a pause in warming for the last 15 years, he didn’t know how global temperatures are measured, and he didn’t know that cyclones were not increasing over the Great Barrier Reef. He wants politicians jailed for “denying the science”. “You bet!” he exclaims, but then admits he hasn’t thought that through either. The cartoon-like responses were incongruous. […]Rating: 8.9/10 (14 votes cast)

Sent by gReader Pro…

Analysis: ‘Numerous UN IPCC personnel have ties to environmental groups, many of which raise funds by hyping the alleged dangers of climate change’



When IPCC personnel answered a 2010 questionnaire sponsored by the InterAcademy Council (a network of national science academies), there were repeated complaints about unqualified individual members. For example, one individual (the responses to the questionnaire were anonymized) said there are “far too many politically correct appointments” involving people with “insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful.”

The examples are legion. Donald Wuebbles, one of the two leaders of the introductory first chapter of the Working Group 1 report (a draft of which may be released next Monday)—has been writing awareness-raising climate change reports for the activist Union of Concerned Scientists for a decade. Another chapter of the full IPCC report, “Open Oceans,” is led by Australian marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who has written a string of reports with titles such as “Pacific in Peril” for Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Astrophysicist Michael Oppenheimer, in charge of another chapter of the IPCC report, “Emergent Risks and Key Vulnerabilities,” advises the Environmental Defense Fund (after having spent more than two decades on its payroll).

University of Maryland scientist Richard Moss is a former fulltime WWF vice president, while Jennifer Morgan used to be the WWF’s chief climate change spokesperson. Both are currently IPCC review editors—a position that’s supposed to ensure that feedback from IPCC external reviewers is addressed in an even-handed manner.

My own examination of the 2007 IPCC report found that two-thirds of its 44 chapters included at least one individual with ties to the WWF. Some were former or current employees, others were members of a WWF advisory panel whose purpose is to heighten the public’s sense of urgency around climate change.

Der Spiegel Poll: Only 39% of Germans fear global warming — Down from 62% in 2006

Der Spiegel Poll: Only 39% of Germans fear global warming — Down from 62% in 2006

Der Spiegel reports: For a quarter of a century now, environmental activists have been issuing predictions in the vein of the Catholic Church, warning people of the coming greenhouse effect armageddon. Environmentalists bleakly predict global warming will usher in plagues of biblical dimensions — perpetual droughts, deluge-like floods and hurricanes of unprecedented force. The number […]

Sent by gReader Pro…

Most Climate Sceptics Are Also Environmentalists; A paper published today in Global Environmental Change finds that ‘a central organising idea for climate change sceptics’ is that climate change is governed by natural cycles, such as ocean oscillations and solar activity, and that ‘sceptics can have pro-environmental values similar to climate change believers.’

Most Climate Sceptics Are Also Environmentalists

A paper published today in Global Environmental Change finds that “a central organising idea for climate change sceptics” is that climate change is governed by natural cycles, such as ocean oscillations and solar activity, and that “‘sceptics can have pro-environmental values similar to climate change believers.“
According to the authors, “In contrast to other studies that postulate scepticism and denial as individuals’ fear management strategies in the face of climate change threat, we found that the natural cycles view is founded on a reassuring deeper conviction about how nature works, and is linked to other pro-environmental values not commonly found in sceptical groups. It is a paradox of natural cycles thinking that it rejects the anthropocentrism that is at the heart of science-based environmentalism. By contrast, it places humans as deeply integrated with nature, rather than operating outside it and attempting with uncertain science to control something that is ultimately uncontrollable.”
Quite true, most skeptics I know are pro-enviroment for things that actually matter, such as water quality, toxic pollutants, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, atmospheric particulates, etc., but opposed to wasting the majority of environmental efforts on trying to control the weather with the harmless, essential, & trace gas CO2.
Full paper

Sent by gReader Pro…