Obama’s new climate plan is brilliant… at punishing his red state opponents

they’ve put a big target on some very specific states.

North Dakota would have been required to cut emissions just 10.6 percent to comply with the draft rule, the least of any state; it will have to cut emissions 44.9 percent to comply with the final rule, the most of any state except for similarly fossil-fueled Montana and South Dakota. Coal-rich Wyoming, Kentucky, West Virginia and Indiana were also among the biggest losers in the revised plan. Meanwhile, the states that are already greening their grid—led by Washington, Oregon and New York—were the biggest winners in the final rule.

That is a radical change. The EPA acknowledged in the plan that it “rectifies what would have been an inefficient, unintended outcome of putting the greater reduction burden on lower-emitting sources and states.” As EPA air quality chief Janet McCabe explained to me in an interview: “We got a lot of comments making the same point you did.” But it hasn’t gotten attention, perhaps because coal-state politicians cried wolf so loudly about the draft. It’s the result of a decision to calculate emissions according to a uniform measurement for every power plant rather than a weirdly calibrated analysis of what’s reasonable for individual states.

Think about that for a moment. North Dakota, under the original plan, would have had to reduce emissions by 10.6 percent over the roll out period to be in compliance. That’s a big cut, but with enough advance notice it would have been doable according to most industry analysts. Now, however, with one slip of the pen between the original draft and the final rules, the shale oil rich state will have to slash emissions by almost 45%. The same situation hits their neighbors in South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Kentucky, Indiana and West Virgina. I wonder what else those states have in common?


But at least this new plan will wean us off of that dirty old coal, right? According to the Clean Power Rules… not so much.

But the big question about the plan is whether it will accelerate America’s ongoing shifts away from coal and towards wind and solar. The answer, according to the plan itself, is no. Its targets are “fully consistent with the recent changes and current trends in electricity generation, and as a result, would by no means entail fundamental redirection of the energy sector.”

Despite 4,000 mile round-trip, EPA Chief skips mine disaster site: ‘but I did visit the river’



More than a week later and despite a 4,000 mile round-trip from Washington, DC, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy admits to reporters in Colorado that she hasn’t visited the Gold King Mine disaster site. Administrator McCarthy: ‘As you know it’s a significant distance away, but I did visit the river’.

AP REPORTER: “Have you been to the mine in your visit so far and do you plan, if not, are you going to visit the mine?”

ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY: “Well the most important thing for this trip was for me to actually come to the Unified Command Center to meet with the governors or whoever would like to meet, local community representatives, so that we can make sure that their needs are being met. That is my first order of business. I did not go to the mine. As you know it’s a significant distance away, but I did visit the river and I took a look at it myself. I wanted to get a sense of the river and I think that the good news is that it seems to be restoring itself but we have continued work to do and EPA is here today. And, just because I’m not here it doesn’t mean you don’t have experts, actually more than a hundred experts right here as well as additional folks, hundreds of them back at EPA working this issue with our federal and state and local partners and tribal partners.”

Durango, Colorado
August 12, 2015…

Steyn’s book on Mann surges in Amazon rankings, leaving climate alarmism books in the dust

Steyn’s book on Mann surges in Amazon rankings, leaving climate alarmism books in the dust


Readers surely recall the review I gave of Mark Steyn’s new book A Disgrace To The Profession on Michael E. Mann’s science as told by other climate scientists around the world. On August 11th, when I ran my review, this was the ranking for the book in Amazon – #12,246: Today, two days later, the […]

— gReader Pro…

Book: “A Disgrace to the Profession” The World’s Scientists own words on Mann and his Hockey Stick

“A Disgrace to the Profession” The World’s Scientists own words on Mann and his Hockey Stick


.. The unstoppable Mark Steyn has collected illuminating quotes from Michael Mann’s peers about the value of the Hockey Stick and Mann’s work. Steyn has both announced the book, and taken apart the critics like “Sir Charles” already. In fine form: “…not a single amicus brief was filed in support of Mann by any scientist or any scientific body. As I say in the book, Mann claims to be taking a stand for science, but science is disinclined to take a stand for him” Is there any writer more apt, more prosaic or more entertaining? There are cartoons from Josh too: A guy can’t sit around waiting for litigious fake Nobel Laureates to agree to discovery and deposition. So, with the Mann vs Steyn Trial of the Century currently stalled in the choked septic tank of the DC court system, I figured I might as well put some of the mountain of case research clogging up the office into a brand new book – all about the most famous “science” graph of the 21st century and the man who invented it. Michael E Mann’s defamation […]Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

— gReader Pro…