Just blowing smoke

New EPA rules will weaken America economically

  • Follow Editorials

Take a close look at your electric bill. You’ll someday want to tell people what it was like in the “good old days” – when you could actually afford air conditioning and other modern conveniences.

Back | Next
This Environmental Protection Agency document was signed during an announcement Monday detailing a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants by 30 percent by 2030.  FILE/ASSOCIATED PRESS
FILE/ASSOCIATED PRESS
This Environmental Protection Agency document was signed during an announcement Monday detailing a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants by 30 percent by 2030.

The era of cheap electricity is coming to an end thanks to President Obama’s radical new global warming decree that declares war on coal, America’s least-expensive power-plant fuel and one of our most abundant energy resources.

Hundreds of U.S. coal-fired power plants will have to be shuttered starting in 2016 for states to meet new Environmental Protection Agency rules that aim to slash carbon-dioxide emissions 30 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030.

The U.S. depends on coal for nearly one-third of its electricity, and it sits on one-fifth of the world’s proven reserves.

Fulfilling the far left’s utopian vision of a fossil-fuel-free society comes at a heavy price. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates the rules will kill more than 220,000 American jobs per year, reduce the country’s annual gross domestic product by $50 billion and cost consumers $289 billion in higher electricity costs.

And for what? The EPA’s own estimates say the new rules would reduce the global temperature by a whole 0.018 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

“Global warming” is a global issue, but the rest of the world is not obliged to do anything but watch us dismantle a key component of our energy portfolio.

Economic juggernauts such as China and India, the respective No. 1 and No. 3 coal consumers and No. 2 and No. 4 coal importers, can continue powering their growing economies with fossil fuels.

China and India are building four new coal power plants – every week. Wrote Paul Galuszka in The New York Times in 2012: “Global demand for coal is expected to grow to 8.9 billion tons by 2016 from 7.9 billion tons this year. China is expected to add about 160 new coal-fired plants to the 620 operating now, within four years. During that period, India will add more than 46 plants.”

So to recap the plan: Americans painfully wean themselves from a plentiful and inexpensive energy source; the rest of the world goes on unabated; and the reward for our immense sacrifice is a microscopic change in global temperature.

It’s classic Obama – monstrous investment, miniscule return, weaker America.

The progressive endgame is to make solar, wind and other renewables more competitive. The problem is, the EPA achieves the goal not by making renewables better or cheaper, but by handicapping fossil fuels.

The Obama administration claims the new rules will save $50 billion a year in pollution-related health costs and create more than 250,000 jobs. Be skeptical of both claims.

Greenhouse gases, by the EPA’s own admission, do not cause adverse health effects. And where are these jobs going to be created? At solar- and wind-power companies? Have we forgotten Solyndra?

The Americans most severely harmed will be the very people the far left most purports to help: low-income families. They already spend a proportionately larger percentage of their income on energy.

The president is well aware consumers will bear the brunt of his anti-global warming crusade. He warned us as when he was pushing his carbon cap-and-trade scheme back in 2008: “Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” he told the San Francisco Chronicle. “Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

No wonder Obama skirts Congress and ignores public opinion to get his way.

His entire rules-making process was suspect from the start. When Obama announced his Climate Action Plan last summer, the National Climate Assessment was still being revised and reviewed. Yet somehow he already knew the administration-paid scientists’ findings would support the emissions rules he sought to implement.

So did science shape the policy, or did the policy shape the science?

We would argue the latter, considering the assessment uses “climate” and “climate change” interchangeably. It unscientifically links natural climate occurrences such as droughts, blizzards, floods and hurricanes to atmospheric release of carbon, giving the impression all current and future extreme weather conditions – from tornadoes to heat waves – result from manmade pollution.

Such a connection has never been proven by scientists – not even the ones on Obama’s payroll.

That is not to say climate change is to be ignored. But it’s irresponsible to overexaggerate perceived negative impact. Remember horror stories of “acid rain” in the 1980s and CFCs in the 1990s? Weren’t those also global environmental catastrophes-in-waiting?

What’s badly needed in the national dialogue is some hysteria-calming perspective and public policy that incentivizes industries, instead of bullying them, into cleaner energy sources and more incremental carbon reduction.

Doing nothing is not a solution – though too many people think it is. But neither is making one of America’s most abundant energy resources as worthless as the topsoil it lies beneath.

Comments (49) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
bubbasauce
20689
Points
bubbasauce 06/05/14 - 01:47 am
7
3
Obama, absolute worst

Obama, absolute worst President ever!

Bodhisattva
6203
Points
Bodhisattva 06/05/14 - 05:45 am
5
14
Thank Don Balfour, the GOP, and Ga Power's lobbyists

Once again the Chronicle posts a piece of factless propaganda and tries to shift the blames from where it really belongs, monopolization. Shop around in Georgia for a pair of pants, a cell phone carrier, shoes, whatever you want. Then go shopping for your electricity. You have one choice, depending on where you live. If it falls under Georgia Power's area, it's Georgia Power. Zero options. Thanks to nuclear energy, the energy that used to be advertised that it would provide "almost free electricity". Then Plant Vogtle went a tad over budget with just the COST OVERRUNS increasing customers' bills 12.3%, not counting the added cost of building the blessed thing for by GOD, the company nor the shareholders are never on the hook for any construction costs, overruns, screw ups, anything. That just get added on to the customers' bills and they still get an 11.5% ROI. A 10 year T-Bill will earn you 2.61%. You can get 2.3% on a $100,000 5 year CD. These folks are a MONOPOLY! Thanks to 1.25 lobbyists per Representative and don Balfour, we're even getting to pay for the new reactors now, before they produce a watt of power, and they're already estimating they're going to take 19 months longer to complete. People will pay for 10 years for these things and die without getting any power from them. HOW IS THIS LEGAL! It's like paying for a car sitting on a lot then, whoops, you're dead. tough luck. we get to keep the money. Then we get into the real jump when they come online. I'm sure the Chronicle will blame this on Obama too, although he'll be out of office at least 3 years before they finally get them online. Instead of trying to run a dog and pony show, why can't the Chronicle just put the blame where it belongs? A "capitalist"? system that has a monopolistic utility that owns the PSC and the Genral Assembly and will spend any amount of money on lobbying it takes to get its way, overcharges its customers, charges it's customers for its mistakes, cost overruns, and delays, has a ridiculously high ROI in this day and age, scams the system to gets it ratepayers to pay years in advance for a plant that's not even built, and has a system that doesn't force it's executives or shareholders to risk a dime of their money on any project, no matter whether it's needed or not, no matter how bad it's planned, no matter how bad it's constructed, no matter what. Set up a system like that for any business in the country and we'd all be millionaires because there's no way we could fail. Oh, let's not forget, we'd get a few billion in government loans thrown in to help us along.

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 06/05/14 - 05:52 am
12
4
Once again, Bodhistechfan
Unpublished

Once again, Bodhistechfan accuses the ACES of lying, yet refutes not one single thing they printed with his own verifiable facts. Don't expect him to back up what he says....he never has.

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 06/05/14 - 05:54 am
10
3
"People will pay for 10 years
Unpublished

"People will pay for 10 years for these things and die without getting any power from them. HOW IS THIS LEGAL! It's like paying for a car sitting on a lot then, whoops, you're dead. tough luck."

I guess you have no problem with the Government seizing your income for Social Security that you may never receive back. Or any other taxes that you receive no benefit from for that matter. Why do you single out this one thing? Why do I bother asking when I know the hit and run artist won't answer?

ymnbde
9723
Points
ymnbde 06/05/14 - 06:11 am
8
1
there is no separation between O and state

and Obama, he does have that old time religion
and his followers are zealots, hungry for his word
you don't believe in global warming?
you don't believe the seas will rise FOUR FEET if O doesn't use his pen?
you're going to hell
you don't care about polar bears?
you're going to hell
you believe in demon coal and not trust in O to heat your house?
you're going to hell
you still don't believe it was a video?
you're going to hell
you still remember the VA scandal in spite of the Al queida prisoner release?
you're going to hell
set your mind on the holy things of government and the word of O
let the serpent of government bite you, dear friend
and if you die, well, you were not holy
in the eyes of O
O and His mediots, true believers all
James Jones, even he didn't have such followers!

carcraft
25803
Points
carcraft 06/05/14 - 06:27 am
8
1
I do believe you can dispute

I do believe you can dispute global warming (no warming in 16 years yet more CO2 in the atmosphere) . Fudged numbers and hysterical BS to sell global warming. The earths been warmer, the earths been colder. I've asked what is the ideal temp for earth and from the typical pseudo scientist climate alarmest crickets. I ask what the ideal content of the atmosphere should be, crickets! Oh, in the last 30 years climate scientists have predicted or called the impending crises "global cooling " a new ice age was upon us. Then "global warming " then we had "climate change "and the new latest pseudo science term? "Climate disruption" or some such. So here it is we are aiming to prevent changes in atmospheric gas content to some unknown so we can have an unknown ideal temperature. Now all ti's is to be engineered by a government that cant even create a web site in less time than it took to defeat the Japanese and Nazis! Please ...

effete elitist liberal
3112
Points
effete elitist liberal 06/05/14 - 08:37 am
4
7
"skeptical"

What a laugh! MR and ACES warn readers to be skeptical about the President's claims that reducing commercial coal use will cut pollution-related health care costs and create jobs. But then, with no hint of skepticism at all, they reproduce counterclaims by the Chamber of Commerce! Get real. The C of C is a right wing, pro-coal group notorious for distorting or ignoring scientific knowledge. I'm sure the C of C was up in arms in the 80s and 90s when the U.S. government issued strict limits on sulphur dioxide emissions from coal burning electricity plants, a major contributor to acid rain. Many conservative groups uttered dire predictions about shuttered plants, lost jobs, and skyrocketing electricity prices. Guess what? They all were WRONG. The threat of CFCs to the ozone layer was also real, and the U.S. joined an international protocol to ban their use. DuPont, the major producer of Freon, at first opposed the ban, then, as always happens, developed cost-effective alternatives and became champions of the CFC ban. So ACES story today is an old one:apocalyptic predictions of economic disaster which never come to pass.
In 20 or 30 years, people will look back to editorials like today's, shake their heads in disbelief, and wonder what ever happened to dinosaurs like Mike Ryan.

deestafford
27600
Points
deestafford 06/05/14 - 09:17 am
2
1
Obama has instituted a Value Added Tax (VAT) with...

Obama has instituted a Value Added Tax (VAT) with these new regulations. A VAT is a tax that is charged through each stage of production and sale of an item.

That is what is going to happen. Every entity from the extractor of the raw material to the final retail sale will have to increase their prices and pass on the cost to the next level. Everything will go up because the price of electricity and energy will go "sky rocketing" as he predicted in his interview.

The BS put out by the EPA that 188,000 less school days will be missed per year and 389,000 less work days lost per year will be the result of this policy is lunacy. There is no way to back up such a claim but it will be willingly swallowed by the watermelon environmental wackos (Green on the outside and Red on the inside) who want to bring down America.

Don't fall for this canard, as has Bill O'Reilly, that we are talking about clean air when we talk Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Chaos or whatever its moving title it. There is a difference between the two.

How clean should the air be and what is the incremental cost to get it cleaner? If we have 95% and want to go to 97% as the goal what is the cost of those 2% increases in both monetary and loss of production?

deestafford
27600
Points
deestafford 06/05/14 - 09:34 am
3
1
Global Warming is a hoax and a power grab....

Global Warming is a hoax and a power grab by the government and the "elite rulers". Only the ignorant and the stupid can believe in it.

The figure of "97% of the scientists believe in global warming" is a made up figure. It was not a poll of ALL scientists but a poll of those commenting a peer reviewed article about Global Warming. But it is not accepted as "fact" by the ill/uninformed.

There is not one recommendation/mandate/policy/law or what have you that is proposed to "help the climate" that does not increase the power of the government and take away individual freedom.

Please understand it is power grab with the goal of weakening the West and the US in particularly.

Oil and electricity have been booms to civilization. Just think where we would be without either of those. I would like to take the ones pushing this back-to-nature-man-is-bad movement and put them in the woods with no modern tools or anything else and return them to the 18th century and see how they like living like that---if they survive.

The entire movement is built on models which predict what the "climate" will be in 50, 100 and more years when the models cannot retroactively predict today's climate. They completely ignore the most abundant feature of the atmosphere---water vapor---and the impact of solar cycles and sunspots.

Like many other things, these people think that the way things are today are the way they should be, today's temperature is the ideal for the earth, and history started the day they were born.

Little Lamb
45989
Points
Little Lamb 06/05/14 - 10:27 am
3
1
Subsidy

From the editorial:

The Americans most severely harmed will be the very people the far left most purports to help: low-income families.

This statement is absolutely correct. If we continue to elect Democrat-majority senates and Democrat presidents, we can expect a new system of power exchanges where low-income persons get a permanent subsidy on their electricity bills. Therefore, the low-income people look at their power bills and see how low they are. They may or may nor realize (or care) that they are being subsidized by those who do not qualify for the subsidy.

dichotomy
32909
Points
dichotomy 06/05/14 - 11:45 am
3
3
I see

I see Techfan...err...Bod....has tried to divert the discussion again. Nice try Bod. Didn't work...totally irrelevant as usual.

Here is THE fact. This is going to cost families A LOT OF MONEY, maybe DOUBLE their electric bill, for ZERO effect on "global" climate change or clean air.

What coal we mine will simply be shipped to China and India to be burned and have their less clean emissions drift back our way. They will keep their cheap energy and we will DOUBLE the cost of our energy and "global" emissions will probably go UP because China and India have ZERO controls on coal burning power generating plants.

What we have here is an oppressive, vindictive government agency being led by and oppressive, vindictive, dictatorial president. At an earlier point in time there would be an armed revolution against unelected bureaucrats ramming these kinds of policies down our throats and a dictator of a president circumventing our elected representatives to implement his socialist, redistribution of wealth, and politically motivated "environmentalist" agenda. Too bad this country has lost it's spine.

This EPA coup de tat is functionally equivalent to Obamacare. Going to cost American middle class families A LOT of money, we will get worse service, probably brownouts, and there will be ZERO gain on global emissions. Just like Obamacare costing American middle class families A LOT of money, getting worse health care, and having as many uninsured as we did before.

Obama keeps doing it to you and you just keep taking it like a bunch of sheep. NOTHING....NOT ONE THING....has gotten better and you are paying A LOT MORE MONEY FOR IT. The real unemployment rate is still over 12%, welfare and food stamp recipient numbers are way UP, the number without health insurance is about the same, the cost of food and fuel is WAY UP. This EPA policy will not make anything better either but it WILL cost you A LOT MORE MONEY.

And AGAIN....notice the compliance date is Obama's last year in office. He KNOWS how bad this is going to be for the American middle class and is being his typical COWARD self. If he had doubled your electric bill during his first term he would have never made it to his second term. He told you he was going to do it but you wore too stupid to believe him. "Under my energy plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." You want it.....you got it......Toyo....err...Obama.

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 06/05/14 - 12:15 pm
4
3
"Many conservative groups
Unpublished

"Many conservative groups uttered dire predictions about shuttered plants, lost jobs, and skyrocketing electricity prices. Guess what? They all were WRONG. "

Hmmmm...plants DID shut down, people DID lose their jobs, electricity prices DID go up..........but they were still wrong. Interesting take on reality.

Sweet son
10398
Points
Sweet son 06/05/14 - 12:45 pm
4
1
We just hope that when that thing you call a president is gone

smarter minds will prevail once more and these types of absolutely ignorant things he is doing will be undone. The other issue that really lights me up is the fact that he is using the EPA or some agency to hold up another important energy source the Keystone Pipline. He is also showing his ignorance on that project too. I just don't know who is paying him to do these things. Maybe all of this activity will be monetarily paid off when he is out of office and we will won't know a thing about it.

Come to think of, I do know who is paying him off. the dumbocrats must be responsible.

ymnbde
9723
Points
ymnbde 06/05/14 - 01:02 pm
3
1
eel, O can raise his pen

and part the seas! Moses didn't need a pen, though
so he's got that going for him
"true believers" are really frightening...
even Jim Jones didn't claim to be able to lower the oceans...

carcraft
25803
Points
carcraft 06/05/14 - 01:13 pm
3
1
If you think liberal economic

If you think liberal economic policies work let's look at places where liberals have held sway like Detroit!

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 06/05/14 - 01:27 pm
2
3
" The C of C is a right wing,
Unpublished

" The C of C is a right wing, pro-coal group notorious for distorting or ignoring scientific knowledge."

Prove it.

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/05/14 - 01:29 pm
3
0
If you want to see the future

If you want to see the future of America just look across the pond. Energy cost in most of europe is double what it is in America and in some cases triple. If electricity and gas prices double for the average middle income family it would consume all of their disposable income. What would that do to our economy? The average european family most likely does not own their home, has one car at the most and lives in an apartment less than half the size of an American home. This is Obama's design for America. Hope you like it !

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/05/14 - 01:45 pm
2
1
Obama: Under my plan energy

Obama: Under my plan energy prices will necessarily SKYROCKET "

Price per KWH by country: Denmark $ .41 Germany= .35 Spain = .30 Australia = .29 United States = . 12 China = .08 India = .08

Gas prices show similar disparities but would have a much greater effect on the average American. If you support Obama you need to be aware of the effects on your standard of living.

carcraft
25803
Points
carcraft 06/05/14 - 01:54 pm
3
0
Just read that there has been

Just read that there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING for the last 17 years and 9 months from satellite temperature data.

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 06/05/14 - 02:13 pm
3
2
How could that be, carcraft?
Unpublished

How could that be, carcraft? Global warmi---coolin----climate change is settled science.

Bizkit
31382
Points
Bizkit 06/05/14 - 03:23 pm
2
0
The top ten countries produce

The top ten countries produce 70% of greenhouse gases. China produces about 8 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year and it is still skyrocketing, US 4-5 billion and it is plummeting (already), the European Union 3.7 and India 2, Russia 1.7, and Japan 1. China is escalating and will surpass the US, EU, India, Russian and Japan combined within the next few years-they aren't slowing down. We can continue to drop our carbon dioxide emissions and literally do nothing. We need to increase the absorption of carbon dioxide if we are going to bother to do anything unilaterally by increasing carbon sinks-peat bogs, chemically fix into earth, and more plant biomass, algae, and bacteria biomass really to do any good. But carbon dioxide is only part of the story-really we need to address methane, ozone, particulates and aerosols, then most importantly is change human activity in regard to land use and farming, how we build cities, etc. It has to be comprehensive or it's a waste of time. The focus on carbon dioxide is too narrow and too shortsighted. We get 40% of our power from coal and it has to phased out slowly without too much economic impact-Obama doesn't care about the economy only the environment=but that is a ruse he's goal is something else. If climate change really is a disaster then we need to immediately impeach Obama because what he suggests is both useless, careless, irresponsible, and he doesn't have a clue-as all the matters he has bungled. We can't trust this incompetent to do anything competent.

Bizkit
31382
Points
Bizkit 06/05/14 - 03:24 pm
2
0
And just think China just

And just think China just made a great deal with Russian such any economic sanctions we bother with will only hurt us. We have no clout to encourage China to reduce other than war.

corgimom
32362
Points
corgimom 06/05/14 - 03:27 pm
3
5
God knows, having air

God knows, having air conditioning is far more important than destroying people's land and habitats, so that people can have cheap power due to cheap coal.

And let's not forget the people that die of black lung, or die in caveins, having cheap air conditioning is by FAR the better choice, right?

Mining is one of the most dangerous occupations there is- but the ACES doesn't want to address that.

corgimom
32362
Points
corgimom 06/05/14 - 03:29 pm
1
0
So Bodh, why don't you invest

So Bodh, why don't you invest in utility stocks?

corgimom
32362
Points
corgimom 06/05/14 - 03:31 pm
1
0
Bodh, if Southern Corp really

Bodh, if Southern Corp really had that kind of ROI, their stock price would be far, far higher than it is now.

People would be clamoring for it.

corgimom
32362
Points
corgimom 06/05/14 - 03:34 pm
0
1
It sells for $44 and some

It sells for $44 and some change- there is no way that an investor gets 11.5% ROI.

The stock price is directly inverse to the 10 year Treasury bill- that's hardly foolproof, and people could lose their shirt on it if the 10 year Treasury bill rate goes up, and eventually it will.

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 06/05/14 - 03:38 pm
2
0
Corgimom

"destroying people's land and habitats" If you want to see destruction of land and habitat just visit any third world country an witness the effects of poverty. Wealth allows advances in technology and a more efficient use of resources, apparently both you and Obama prefer poverty.

burninater
9580
Points
burninater 06/05/14 - 03:58 pm
2
3
"The top ten countries

"The top ten countries produce 70% of greenhouse gases. China produces about 8 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year and it is still skyrocketing, US 4-5 billion and it is plummeting (already)"
------
Comparing emissions country-by-country can be misleading in terms of personal/local responsibility.

China emits twice as much as the U.S., but their population is four times greater. On a per capita basis, the U.S. is emitting twice as much as China.

Another factor is that China is largely America's factory: how much GHG production in China is related to manufacturing under contract to American firms -- in other words, what percentage of Chinese GHG emissions is outsourced American GHG?

This editorial makes claims about the negative economic effects of reducing GHG emissions, but what do we REALLY know about real-world tests of this claim? Well, we have a real-world case:

The northeastern U.S. states implemented cap-and-trade in 2008, and have reduced GHG emissions regionally by 30%.

An economic analysis of the impacts showed a short-term increase in energy prices between 0.6 - 0.8%. However, the proceeds from the cap-and-trade market were used to finance energy efficiency capital projects, and the longterm effect has been a regional DECREASE in energy costs, as energy efficiency has reduced regional energy demand overall.

"Key findings include:

The regional economy gains more than $1.6 billion in economic value added (reflecting the difference between total revenues in the overall economy, less the cost to produce goods and services)

Customers save nearly $1.1 billion on electricity bills, and an additional $174 million on natural gas and heating oil bills, for a total of $1.3 billion in savings over the next decade through installation of energy efficiency measures using funding from RGGI auction proceeds to date

16,000 jobs are created region wide

Reduced demand for fossil fuels keeps more than $765 million in the local economy

Power plant owners experience $1.6 billion in lower revenue over time, although they overall had higher revenues than costs as a result of RGGI during the 2009-2011 period"

http://www.analysisgroup.com/rggi.aspx

This real-world case demonstrates that claims that addressing GHG emissions must be economically damaging are empirically false.

For anyone interested in the details of how a cap and trade program functions in the real world, the report available at the link above is an excellent summary of the logistics of such a system, as well as real world measurements of such a system's economic benefits.

edcushman
7930
Points
edcushman 06/05/14 - 04:15 pm
1
0
"If you want to see
Unpublished

"If you want to see destruction of land and habitat just visit any third world country an witness the effects of poverty. Wealth allows advances in technology and a more efficient use of resources, apparently both you and Obama prefer poverty."
RMSHEFF, corgimom has seen CA and that is all she needs to know. Most of the liberals here have never been to a 3rd world country and DO NOT have a clue.

ymnbde
9723
Points
ymnbde 06/05/14 - 04:21 pm
3
0
another true believer

the science is what the political scientist says it is
nothing more, nothing less... unless less is more
no global warming since BillyBob stained Monica
but it's still out there, waiting...

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs