Children win Climate Change legal case: Lose future economy
…Study shows bad economic times means there are more climate skeptics
Study shows bad economic times means there are more climate skeptics
I’ve said before that the man-made climate-faith is a luxury of the stupidly wealthy. Only people with time to stress about the carbon footprint of their oranges can wallow in the indulgence of owning the idea that windmills in Alabama could reduce tidal surges in Peru. It follows then that if (or as) the economy falls apart so will the Green religion. A new research paper backs this up, but possibly shows more about researcher’s confirmation bias than it does about the public. (I suspect the most useful part of this research was that a couple of hundred people got to see a video with Richard Lindzen in.) That the global-eco-faith needs lots of wealth is a horrible conundrum for the Greens. The best thing they can do to encourage “climate belief” is to get out of the way and let the economy prosper, which of course is the last thing the Greens can do since “Growth” = “Pollution” in the GreenWorldView. So the more the Greens do to slow or wreck the economy, the more skeptical the population will get. It’s a “positive” feedback loop that may protect Western Civilization a little bit. Joy. Is that motivated recall or […]Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
— gReader Pro…
Multi-billion euro carbon-trading fraud trial opens in Paris
…Bjorn Lomborg on UN climate deal: ‘This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world’
Lomborg Skewers Pact’s Horrific Costs for Mere 0.086 Degrees Fahrenheit
Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author, environmentalist, and professor of political science and philosophy, says “Politicians will vaunt U.N. treaty, but its costs far outweigh its meager benefits.” In an op-ed today for USA Today, entitled “Climate change is real, but Paris treaty won’t fix it,” Dr. Lomborg writes:
The Paris accord talks a big game. It doesn’t just commit to capping the global temperature increase at 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The text goes even further and says the world’s leaders commit to keeping the increase “well below 2 degrees Celsius” and will try to cap it at 1.5 degrees Celsius.
But this is just rhetoric. My own research and the only peer-reviewed published assessment of the Paris agreement used the United Nation’s favorite climate model to measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every major carbon-cutting promise in the treaty between now and 2030. I found that the total temperature reduction will be just 0.086 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.
#
Not 6 degrees. Not 4 degrees. Not 2 degrees. Not even 1 degree. Only 0.086 degrees. That’s 86 thousandths of a degree! That’s certainly worth the trillions of dollars the UN globalists want to spend, right? It is if you understand Figueres, Edenhofer, and others who have admitted their plan is to restructure, reconfigure, transform, and redistribute — it “has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy.”
Lomborg, whose 2001 book The Skeptical Environmentalist is still causing waves, writes in his Earth Day op-ed: “Even if these promises were extended for 70 more years, then all the promises will reduce temperature rises by 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. This is similar to a finding by scientists at MIT. It’s feeble.”
Worse than feeble — and mind-bogglingly costly to boot. “This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world,” says Lomborg. “U.S. promises alone — to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26%-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 — would reduce gross domestic product more than $150 billion annually.”
“Trying to cut carbon dioxide, even with an efficient carbon tax, will make cheap energy more expensive — and this will slow economic growth,” he notes. “Green technology is still very inefficient (which is why it still requires significant subsidies).”
Neverthelerss, President Obama and the AGW alarm choir continue to insist …
Report: Obamas Global Warming Plan Would Cost Poor Americans $44 Billion, Raise Taxes By 166%
Report: Obama’s Global Warming Plan Would Cost Poor Americans $44 Billion, Raise Taxes By 166%
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3424233/posts
resident ObamaÂ’s global warming plan would cost America’s poorest families billions annually, according to a report published Thursday by the Manhattan Institute. The study estimates that ObamaÂ’s global warming plan would increase the costs of living for the poorest American families an additional $19 billion per year, equivalent to increasing their taxes by 166 percent. The tax increase would also raise taxes on other poor families by an extra $25 billion, equal to a 33 percent tax increase. Living costs for the richest households would only increase by 4 percent.Obama wants to implement the Enviromental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan,…
— gReader Pro…
EPA Chief admits: ‘I’m not disagreeing’ states with climate regs have ‘triple’ the electric rate
Pointing out the high costs of electricity in states that have implemented climate regulations similar to EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan, Senator Bill Cassidy tells EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, “states that emit the most carbon have the lowest energy costs [while those] that emit the least have the highest — in some cases triple…” Administrator McCarthy responds, “I guess I’m not disagreeing with your– the facts that you’ve outlined them just there.”
SENATOR CASSIDY: “In a previous conversation we’ve had, I’ve made the point that if the Clean Power Plant [sic] rule raises energy costs, that will put our economy at a economic disadvantage relative to countries overseas which frankly will continue to pollute or emit carbon. Now, we wanted to test this hypothesis, so we took all the states in the United States, and we looked at those which have the easiest compliance with the Clean Power Plant [sic] rule, i.e. they currently emit the less [sic], and those states that are going to have the hardest time, they emit the most. And, turns out there is kind of an inverse correlation with electricity costs. So, if you look at RGGI states for example, the Northeast, they have electricity costs that are three times higher than that for a state like Montana.”
ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “Mmmhmm (affirmative).”
SENATOR CASSIDY: “Now, I think I remember you saying, ‘No, it’s possible to lower emissions without raising the costs’, but I’ll just say it, baseline, these states which have the lowest emissions of carbon already have triple the cost of their electricity.”
[…]
SENATOR CASSIDY: “Empirically, though, it is true. Those states that emit the most carbon have the lowest energy costs. Those that emit the least have the highest — in some cases triple — and if input of your costs of energy is an input of your cost of production, intuitively companies are going to move where that cost is lower.”
ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “I guess I’m not disagreeing with your– the facts that you’ve outlined them just there. My disagreement may be with what would the impact of regulating greenhouse gas emissions have.”
Hearing to Review the FY17 Environmental Protection Agency Budget Request
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Senate Appropriations Committee
April 20, 2016…
Climate Activism Interferes with Responsible Public Pension Fund Management
Last month, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), which manages the pension funds on which California’s educators rely, voted to divestthe stocks of U.S. thermal coal companies. Many have praised the nation’ssecond largest public pension system for taking this bold action, including California Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León, who specifically blamed the coal companies for causing global climate change.
But is a public pension fund that many California residents now and in the future depend on for retirement income really the right stage for a political climate battle?…
Oops. Facing backlash, Clinton reverses herself on coal – Now says it still has a future
FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — Facing a backlash from Appalachian Democrats, Hillary Clinton’s campaign on Monday tried to reaffirm her commitment to coal communities one day after declaring on national television she was going to “to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”
Clinton’s comments came during a Sunday night appearance on CNN, where she was asked a question about how her policies would benefit poor white people in southern states who generally vote Republican.
“I’m the only candidate, which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity, using clean renewable energy as the key, into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” Clinton said. “We’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people.”…