No Warming For 18 Years Has Convinced Climate Experts That CO2 Is Even More Dangerous Than Before

No Warming For 18 Years Has Convinced Climate Experts That CO2 Is Even More Dangerous Than Before

CO2 has increased by 10% over the last 18 years, with no warming. This complete lack of correlation has convinced climate experts that CO2 is even more dangerous than they previously believed. Allowable carbon emissions lowered by multiple climate targets : Nature : Nature Publishing Group Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs…

Obama Plan Will Have Miniscule Global Impact…Der Spiegel: CO2 Will Keep Rising 1.1% Annually For Next 20 Years – ‘Not even drastic global action would prevent CO2 emissions from rising’

Obama Plan Will Have Miniscule Global Impact…Der Spiegel: CO2 Will Keep Rising 1.1% Annually For Next 20 Years!

The online Der Spiegel writes how global CO2 emissions are projected to keep rising strongly, 1.1% annually, at least until 2035 – thanks to strong economic growth in emerging countries like India and China.
Obama’s newly announced actions to curb CO2 emissions by America’s coal fired power plants will do almost nothing to prevent global energy trends from progressing in the opposite direction, Spiegel writes.
Moreover, not even drastic global action would prevent CO2 emissions from rising. Spiegel writes that “energy generation would need to be revamped worldwide  – up to going totally without coal, or catching the CO2 from the power plants. That is hardly realistic.”
Decrease in global poverty adding to energy demands. Number of automobiles worldwide to more than double by 2035!
As emerging countries continue to develop, so will their need for energy. Spiegel cites studies from the World Energy Outlook of the IEA, the BP Energy Outlook 2035 and the World Oil Outlook 2013 from Opec. One sector that is expanding massively is automobile production. Spiegel writes:
Just the number of cars alone will more than double by the year 2015, from 1.1 billion 2.3 billion.”
India’s car ownership will jump from 20 cars per 1000 Indians today, to 130 by 2035. In China that measure will go from 80 today to 360.
Clearly the measures implemented by Obama will have no noticeable impact on the climate of the future, but threaten burdening Americans will trillions in added costs.
Global population will also increase strongly over the next 20 years. As a result, the even most sober studies see no chance of curbing CO2 emissions. The IEA writes that also in the year 2035 worldwide energy demand will be predominantly covered by fossil fuels. Today that figure is currently 86%. Spiegel writes:
Here neither the new plans from Obama to reduce greenhouse gases will change anything – nor the German plans.”
So CO2 will continue its unstoppable rise along with human prosperity and population. And should the temperature fail to rise much by 2035, as many scientists are predicting, then we will know that all the climate hysteria was for nothing. That, we suspect, is what the warmists are fearing the most. The truth is coming – like it or not.

How to comment on EPA’s proposed CO2 regulations

How to comment on EPA’s proposed CO2 regulations

The full text of the EPA proposed rule regulating CO2 emissions is available here. Anyone can comment to the EPA on the proposal within the next 30 days via the internet, email, FAX, or regular mail as follows:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602, by one of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking portal:

Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2013-0602 in the subject line of the message. 

Facsimile: (202) 566-9744. Include docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0602 on the cover page. 

Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center 
(EPA/DC), Mail code 28221T, Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0602, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. In 
addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information 
collection provisions to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Desk Officer for the EPA, 725 17th
St. NW, Washington, DC  20503. 

Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA  
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 
20004, Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. Such deliveries 
are accepted only during the Docket Center’s normal hours of 
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding federal holidays), and special arrangements should be 
made for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name 
and docket ID number (EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602). The EPA’s policy is 
to include all comments received without change, including any 
personal information provided, in the public docket

In addition, anyone can comment at the four public hearings 
[advance registration required]:

On July 29, 2014, one public hearing will be held in Atlanta, Georgia, 
at the Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center Main Tower Bridge 
Conference Area, Conference Room B, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 
Atlanta, GA 30303, and one will be held in Denver, Colorado, at 
EPA’s Region 8 Building, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 
80202. On July 31, 2014, a public hearing will be held in 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania at the William S. Moorhead Federal 
Building, Room 1310, 1000 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania 15222. During the week of July 28, 2014, a public 

hearing will be convened in Washington, DC. …

EPA admits alleged health benefits from CO2 regulation are from different regulations already in effect: ‘New EPA regulations on CO2 will add nothing to the existing regulations on actual air pollutants that are already in place’

EPA admits alleged health benefits from CO2 regulation are from different regulations already in effect

President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy are selling their onerous regulations on CO2 from existing power plants by disingenuously claiming co-benefits of reduced asthma attacks and heart attacks:

“in just the first year that these [CO2] standards go into effect, up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks will be avoided — and those numbers will go up from there.”
However, buried in the newly proposed rule which only regulates harmless & essential CO2 is the admission from the EPA that the alleged health benefits are from a different rule that has been in effect since February 16, 2012, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule. According to the EPA, “The EPA is closely monitoring MATS compliance and finds that the industry is making substantial progress.”

Thus, the new EPA regulations on CO2 will add nothing to the existing regulations on actual air pollutants that are already in place, accomplishing nothing for public health nor the climate. The attempts by President Obama and Gina McCarthy to claim the new regulations on CO2 will prevent “up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks” per year are disingenuous and have no basis in fact.

Excerpt from the newly proposed EPA rule on CO2 emissions:

C. Interactions with Other EPA Rules 

Existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs, such as those covered in 
this proposal, are or will be potentially impacted by several 
other recently finalized or proposed EPA rules.

On February 16, 2012, the EPA issued the mercury and air 
toxics standards (MATS) rule (77 FR 9304) to reduce 
emissions of toxic air pollutants  
from new and existing coal- and oil-fired EGUs. The MATS rule 
will reduce emissions of heavy metals, including mercury (Hg), 
arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), and nickel (Ni); and acid gases, 
including hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrofluoric acid (HF). 
These toxic air pollutants, also known as hazardous air 
pollutants or air toxics, are known or suspected of causing 
damage to the nervous system, cancer, and other serious health 
effects. The MATS rule will also reduce SO2 and fine particle 
pollution, which will reduce particle concentrations in the air 
and prevent thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands 
of heart attacks, bronchitis cases and asthma episodes.  
The EPA is closely monitoring MATS compliance and finds 
that the industry is making substantial progress. …

CO2 Emissions Limits Likely To Drive Up Electricity Prices

CO2 Emissions Limits Likely To Drive Up Electricity Prices

The new federal limits on greenhouse-gas emissions are likely to drive up electricity prices in some parts of the country as power companies close coal-fired generating plants.
But utilities that have power supplies that don’t emit as much carbon dioxide—nuclear, natural-gas and renewable energy including wind and solar—will probably benefit, analysts say.
Coal producers are likely to be hit hardest under new carbon limits, which the Obama administration is proposing Monday as part of its effort to fight climate change.

Losers also will include electric companies that burn lots of coal, such as American Electric Power Co. of Columbus, Ohio; Atlanta-based Southern Co., and NRG Energy Inc., which serves the northeast and Texas.
Likely winners include companies that pump natural gas and those that use it as their primary fuel, including Houston-based Calpine Corp. Companies that operate nuclear plants that generate little carbon but have been expensive to run, such as Chicago-based Exelon Corp. , hope that their aging plants will become more competitive.
The new rules are “bad for coal and the coal fired fleet,” said Hugh Wynne, an analyst at Sanford Bernstein in New York. “The guys who win are the ones who don’t emit any CO2 because they’re watching everyone else’s costs go up and they’re incurring no increase.”

Utility executives say it is unclear how much it will cost them and their customers to comply with the proposed regulation, which the government will formally unveil Monday.
“You have to be worried about the costs to the consumer and the effect it would have on the economy,” said Nick Akins, chief executive of American Electric Power.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce predicted that the rules could force the closure of 114,000 megawatts of coal plants over the next 16 years and lead to electricity-price increases for consumers of $17 billion a year over that period. But groups that favor carbon restrictions, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, have forecast the regulations will result in lower electricity prices.

Electric generation accounts for almost a third of greenhouse gases emitted in the U.S., according to the Environmental Protection Agency. It says three-quarters of the power industry’s carbon emissions come from coal-fired plants.
Coal use has declined compared with a decade ago but the fuel still produced 39% of the nation’s electricity in 2013, according to federal tallies. Plants …

‘New EPA Rules Will Cut Jobs & Hurt the Economy in the Name of Environmental Benefits that won’t Happen’

New EPA Rules Will Cut Jobs & Hurt the Economy in the Name of Environmental Benefits that won’t Happen

The New Anti-Coal Rules Will Cut Jobs and Hurt the Economy

Attacking power plants in the name of environmental benefits that won’t happen.By JOHN BARRASSO And HEIDI HEITKAMP

June 2, 2014 7:25 p.m. ET   THE WALL STREET JOURNALOn Monday, the Obama administration unveiled new regulations to restrict the amount of carbon dioxide produced by existing power plants. While we agree that America needs to balance energy needs with environmental concerns, the timing of this effort could hardly be worse for the struggling U.S. economy.We learned just last week that the economy is shrinking for the first time since 2011. America’s labor-force participation remains low. Millions of Americans continue to have difficulty finding good jobs. These excessive new regulations will likely force power plants to close, putting Americans out of work.The administration repeatedly promised to deliver regulatory certainty and give states “flexibility” if they meet the tough new standards. The fact is that states have to present their plans to the Environmental Protection Agency for final approval. If the EPA doesn’t approve the state plan, the agency could impose its requirements on the state.The 645-page rule would give states a few options to reduce emissions. Those options are still very restrictive and will take away good jobs, increase energy costs and hurt the economy.EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said that the agency’s regulations will decrease energy costs by 8% by 2030. We remain skeptical and believe that consumers will see higher rates. Businesses, large and small, and manufacturers will have to pay much more for their electricity; these increased prices will be absorbed or passed on and will further hurt the economy.In states that already require higher portions of renewable fuels, electricity costs are on average 30% higher than in other states. Recent studies have estimated that this rule would lead to certain job losses, with one study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimating that an aggressive carbon policy would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs by forcing coal-fired power plants to shut down. This does not even begin to address capacity and reliability issues that the administration all too often brushes aside.Coal-fired power plants will be especially hard hit, disproportionately hurting coal-producing states like Wyoming, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Montana.When excessive Washington red tape closes a power plant or a …

WSJ: Obama’s new energy rule is a huge tax on the poor and middle class

WSJ: Obama’s new energy rule is a huge tax on the poor and middle class

Carbon-Income Inequality
Obama’s new energy rule is a huge tax on the poor and middle class.June 2, 2014 7:42 p.m. ET    THE WALL STREET JOURNALPresident Obama vowed last year that he wouldn’t wait on Congress to bless his anticarbon agenda, and the rule his Environmental Protection Agency proposed on Monday is equal to that promise. The agency is bidding to transform and nationalize U.S. energy the way ObamaCare is doing to medicine, but in this case without even the pretense of democratic consent.The EPA’s goal is to cut carbon emissions by 30% by 2030 from near-peak 2005 levels, which will inevitably raise the price of electricity and thus all other goods down the energy chain. The 645-page rule is targeted at the 1,000 or so U.S. fossil fuel power plants, but it more or less orders states to adopt cap and trade or a carbon tax.A Democratic Congress debated and rejected this anticarbon program in 2010, and there isn’t a chance it could get 50 Senate votes now. But no matter, the EPA claims the authority for this sweeping power grab by pointing to an obscure clause of the 1970 Clean Air Act called Section 111(d) that runs merely a few hundred words and historically has been applied only to minor pollutants, not the entire economy.***The new rule is unprecedented because EPA is supposed to regulate “inside the fenceline,” meaning that its command-and-control powers are limited to individual energy generator sources. The agency can tell America’s 3,000 or so fossil-fuel power units to install on-site technology like scrubbers to reduce pollution, but not beyond. Now the agency is taking a “systems-based approach” that usurps state responsibilities in order to move electricity production away first from coal and later natural gas.The EPA is claiming states can choose whatever methods they like to meet the carbon targets, from shuttering plants to installing more green sources like wind and solar. But beware of the Obama EPA bearing gifts. The agency recently rejected state plans to reduce regional haze before they are even formally proposed and revoked permits it had previously approved.The EPA also claims that by some miracle the costs of this will be negligible, or even raise GDP, but it is impossible to raise the price of carbon energy without also raising costs across the economy. …

Morano in 3 against 1 AL JAZEERA TV debate: ‘They imply that somehow this would limit hurricanes and droughts, when it would not have a global temperature impact — it would not even have an impact on global CO2’

What are your thoughts on the feasibility and economic impact of the new EPA rules?

Marc Morano: My take it on it would be, not only is it unnecessary — they imply that somehow this would limit hurricanes and droughts, when it would not have a global temperature impact — it would not even have an impact on global CO2. Our emissions are being dwarfed by the developing countries like India and China.

What do you say to those who argue it will spark innovation?

In the U.S., emissions are down to ’90s levels due to natural gas breakthroughs. We’ve made bigger gains than European countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The natural gas fracking breakthrough could not have been imagined years ago. That was market innovation. The idea that we need central planning to achieve those same goals is absurd. The last thing we want to do is give people regulatory schemes that can misallocate resources. Why impose that on our economy when it cannot even lower global temperature and lessen storms?

I understand some of the environmental left is upset because there is too much flexibility and it is not as hard on companies as previous cap and trade proposals. But understand that whatever Washington does today will be different two years, three years from now. They can make everything sound nice and flexible now, but once implemented, it can expand and morph. They have expanded bureaucratic power of the unelected, and once they have it, it only grows from there.…