Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, November 26, 2009

Obama to promise 17% cuts in U.S. emissions in next decade

November 26, 2009

Advertisement

— Putting his prestige on the line, President Barack Obama will personally commit the U.S. to a goal of substantially cutting greenhouse gases at next month’s Copenhagen climate summit. He will insist America is ready to tackle global warming despite resistance in Congress over higher costs for businesses and homeowners.

Obama will attend the start of the conference Dec. 9 before heading to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. He will “put on the table” a U.S. commitment to cut emissions by 17 percent over the next decade, on the way to reducing heat-trapping pollution by 80 percent by mid-century, the White House said.

Cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by one-sixth in just a decade would increase the cost of energy as electric utilities pay for capturing carbon dioxide at coal burning power plants or switch to more expensive alternatives. The price of gasoline likely would increase, and more fuel efficient automobiles — or hybrids that run on gasoline and electricity — likely would be more expensive.

Still, there is widespread disagreement over the cost to consumers.

Obama’s promise of greenhouse emissions cuts will require Congress to pass complex climate legislation that the administration says will include an array of measures to ease the price impact. The bills before Congress, for example, would have the government provide polluters free emissions allowances in the early years of the transition from fossil fuels, as well as direct payments to many consumers facing high costs.

And, supporters of emission reductions say, there would be clear long-term health and environmental benefits from shifting to a clean-energy economy.

Carol Browner, Obama’s assistant for energy and climate change, on Wednesday a cited a Congressional Budget Office study that said there would be a $173-a-year estimated cost to the average household by 2020 if greenhouse gases were cut by 17 percent by then from 2005 levels. But the CBO analysis also said that if the cost-blunting measures in the legislation were not taken into account, the cost to households could jump to $890 per household.

Other studies conducted by pro-industry groups have put the average household costs at $900 to more than $3,000 a year, although many of those studies do not take into account new energy conservation efforts and assume a more pessimistic view of new technology development that could bring actual consumer costs down.

But slashing carbon dioxide emissions also could save millions of lives, mostly by reducing preventable deaths from heart and lung diseases, according to studies published this week in the British medical journal The Lancet.

Comments

Dan Eyler 5 years ago

In the past week it was revealed through thousands of internal emails that the so called global warming specialists were frauds who were manipulating date and suppressing other info that refuted their lies all in an attempt to support the global warming religious acult. But all along the Grand Wizard of global warming lives right here in America. His name is Al Gore our past vice president. His first lutenant and the future wizard of the global warming acult is headed to Europe for a meeting with the global warming church; Barak Obama.

jonas_opines 5 years ago

It's wonderful to see y'all embrace criminal methods when it servers your ends.

jonas_opines 5 years ago

No, I'm afraid that I mean the act of illegally hacking into private emails in order to find some isolated quotes in order to claim that they represent an overall and all-encompassing trend for the benefit of those that would suck it in without question because it conforms to pre-existing views. But you're close!

repaste 5 years ago

Koo Koo birds. The earth is flat, dont go there you will fall off!

monkeyhawk 5 years ago

"Obama will attend the start of the conference Dec. 9 before heading to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize."

If he had any class, he would refuse this unwarranted and unearned "prize". It is even more offensive that he will accept it after continuing and endorsing the perpetration of the global warming fraud.

repaste 5 years ago

Time capsule this, lets revisit in 10 years.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

Amid all the hysteria about the hacked emails, none of them really amount to anything. If they did, we'd have seen it by now, rather than the pompous but unsupported declarations that can be read in the preceding posts.

monkeyhawk 5 years ago

"Amid all the hysteria about the hacked emails, none of them really amount to anything."

All hail the voice of authority. Tell us, almighty one, who exactly was the hacker? I have heard several theories, including an insider (whistle blower) who accessed documents prepared for FOI.

But since you are one of the enlightened ones - could you please point to proof positive of man-made global warming/cooling/climate change?

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving boozo.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

The man-made global warming emperor has no clothes.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

Who the hacker was is irrelevant with respect to the information that was discovered. And the information disclosed so far is pretty tepid, at best, if the goal is to prove that data were cooked, or that the flat-earthers have been vindicated in their skepticism.

jonas_opines 5 years ago

"So cooking the data to commit fraud is OK when it suits YOUR purposes?"

No, but since there hasn't been any hard evidence of that, and since I don't actually have a dog in this hunt or an agenda to protect, I'm more or less content to let the debate go on, with reasonable confidence that, in the end, it will sort itself out one way or the other. While sniping at the garbling of folks who claim certainty, but know no more than I for sure, of course. That's just entertaining.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

BTW, a 17% cut is at least 50% less than what we should be shooting for.

puddleglum 5 years ago

here comes the shew-shew fox news-digest wannabe in full stripes

scott3460 5 years ago

Are we better off because of the miles per gallon mandates our government imposed? Are we better off as a result of the space program? Are we better off because of our government's investment in, and creation of, the internet? Etc.

Leaders lead. Reactionaries react.

jonas_opines 5 years ago

"Arrogance: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride."

Man, that fits you to a "T", Muse of Hypocrisy.

pace 5 years ago

It is a conspiracy to say leaving your campsite filthy and burning a barnfire to heat your soup is a little much.. Oh, ye of too much faith and too much denial.

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

Just a thought on the stolen email archive.

The thieves have not released the entire archive. Instead, they have released selections that they believe will be damaging. Think about all the emails you have written or exchanged where you work for more than a decade. Do you think it might be possible for someone to paint you in a bad light by if they filtered and selected sections out of context?

So, here we are; lots of people are passing judgment on others when the only information they have has been stolen, taken out of context, and possibly edited for content. Kudos to you all.

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

BTW, Pilgrim2, thanks for providing such a good example of taking things out of context. Regarding the quote you use, “To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. ..."

To do what? In context it is,

"On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that..."

In this case, 'that', refers to "reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change".

The comment was made in response to people who look at any uncertainty, and say, well, there you can't prove it. Monkeyhawk is an example of this type. Let's see,

90% chance that your house will burn down - you fix the problem or at least make sure your insurance is paid up.

90% chance that you will be hit by a car, you get off the road.

90% chance that human-induced climate change will seriously degrade the earth's ability to support the current human population, no proof, carry on business as usual.

scott3460 5 years ago

Regarding the illegally hacked emails:

How desperate are the global warming deniers that they pull this stunt on the eve of the Copenhagen talks? It reeks of desperation to me, but I give them credit. The corporate interests have enormous amounts of PR people working on their behalf and it will be difficult to overcome the simple headlines being blared in the corporate media. Scientists and those with a great deal of interest will sort through the details and from what I can tell so far have found nothing that seriously changes the scientific assessment that man-made global warming is occurring. That won't matter much since much of the ignorant public accepts what the media tells them without further thought.

Richard Heckler 5 years ago

I am stunned that more citizens are not in the street demanding new USA industry that cannot be outsourced. If taxpayers want tax dollars to develop new industry so be it...YES!

A new stronger economy could be well underway if the government wanted to make it happen. The tools and labor force are available NOW. This new economy would stimulate other new business not necessarily related to energy but related to the new money available as a result of the new economy.

Meanwhile how about food for thought:

Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy New UCS Analysis Download: Climate 2030 Blueprint Executive Summary (2009) Download the Climate 2030 Blueprint chapter by chapter.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/climate-2030-blueprint.html

Reducing oil dependence. Strengthening energy security. Creating jobs. Tackling global warming. Addressing air pollution. Improving our health. The United States has many reasons to make the transition to a clean energy economy.

What we need is a comprehensive set of smart policies to jump-start this transition without delay and maximize the benefits to our environment and economy. Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy (“the Blueprint”)

To help avoid the most dangerous consequences of climate change, ranging from extreme heat, droughts, and storms to acidifying oceans and rising sea levels, the United States must play a lead role and begin to cut its heat-trapping emissions today—and aim for at least an 80 percent drop from 2005 levels by 2050.

Blueprint policies lower U.S. heat-trapping emissions to meet a cap set at 26 percent below 2005 levels in 2020, and 56 percent below 2005 levels in 2030.

The nation achieves these deep cuts in carbon emissions while saving consumers and businesses $465 billion annually by 2030. The Blueprint also builds $1.7 trillion in net cumulative savings between 2010 and 2030. Blueprint policies stimulate significant consumer, business, and government investment in new technologies and measures by 2030.

The resulting savings on energy bills from reductions in electricity and fuel use more than offset the costs of these additional investments. The result is net annual savings for households, vehicle owners, businesses, and industries of $255 billion by 2030.

Under the Blueprint, every region of the country stands to save billions. Households and businesses—even in coal-dependent regions—will share in these savings.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/climate-2030-blueprint.html

commuter 5 years ago

Merrill- this is the US. If you feel so strongly in green, go ahead and take a risk and strart a green business. or have you been inhaling the gas fumes from your lawnmower to long.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

Since just about every other promise from Dear Leader has been broken, what are the odds he'll follow through on this one?

scott3460 5 years ago

"Barry, I think this editorial is possibly written by a 'progressive articulate' and he is doing and saying anything to make sure the other PA's are able to get at other people's money. It's perplexing how they even attempt to justify criminal activity with their articulations in order to get at other people's money."

And just how, pray tell, do they "get at other people's money?" And doesn't a capitalist want to get at my money too?

scott3460 5 years ago

"One normally elects to give their money to a capitalist, scottie–— Obama and his ilk are going to confiscate it. This is the fundamental that amazingly gets by those in your crowd."

And in a representative democracy, we elect the government that sets the rules and structure that capitalist have to operate within. We have elected to go down this path. This a fundamental that amazingly gets by those in your crowd.

Chris Golledge 5 years ago

Pilgrim2 (Anonymous) says…

"Schneider calls for the scientific community to hide damning information, exaggerate data, use hyperbole to maximum effect, and gag those who would speak otherwise."

Really? Please show us where he says this.

notajayhawk 5 years ago

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

"And in a representative democracy, we elect the government that sets the rules and structure that capitalist have to operate within. We have elected to go down this path. This a fundamental that amazingly gets by those in your crowd."

Actually, we're a Republic, a form of government in which the rights of a minority - or an individual - are protected from the tyranny of the majority. This is a fundamental that amazingly gets by those in your crowd.

Oh, wait - when it comes to social issues, like gay marriage, rights not spelled out in the Constitution are somehow protected, and they shouldn't be taken away by the majority. But when it comes to confiscating property (which IS mentioned once or twice in the Constitution) then it's 'majority rules,' right, scottie?

scott3460 5 years ago

"But when it comes to confiscating property"

"Obama and his ilk are going to confiscate it."

What is all this confiscation that you fools are alleging? Do you think it is your God given right to pollute at any level you want so long as you can earn a buck?

labmonkey 5 years ago

Merrill-

Spain has already tried a green economy and now has twice the unemployment rate of the rest of Europe. For every green job created (most of which are temporary), three permanent jobs disappear permanently.

TopJayhawk 5 years ago

Scott3460. You need to stop. Your lack of common sense is showing. Our money will be confiscated by the cap and trade legislation. Funny how the progressives cry about the computer hacking. Yet the left has done this many times in the past to further their agenda, and you never say nothing about this kind of stuff. And throwing out examples of some unrelated shennanigans is a straw-man. It doesn't change the dishonesty of all of this global-warming scaremongering.

TopJayhawk 5 years ago

Don't any of you progressives worry about the obvious conflict of interest of the global warming guru's. Al Gore, etc. And I'm sure our prize winning President will be glad to donate his prize money to the Chinese to help pay for his deficits.

scott3460 5 years ago

"Our money will be confiscated by the cap and trade legislation."

Do explain. The government will just start confiscating bank account balances?

notajayhawk 5 years ago

The government is confiscating money and property in a lot of ways, scottie - but since you asked particularly about cap and trade, do you think those 'improvements' to cut down on carbon emissions are going to be free? When the government says your business must spend money for something that has nothing to do with making or selling your product, it really doesn't make any practical difference whether the drain in your bank account is going to new (and unneeded) equipment to meet the standards, to other companies to purchase credits if you can't meet the standards, or in fines paid because you didn't do either of the first two options. You're still losing money because the government legislated the expenditure.

Godot 5 years ago

Obama does not have the constitutional authority to make such a promise, and the entire concept of anthropogenically caused global warming is a politically motivated fraud.

Obama deludes himself that he is king, while Phil Jones, Michael Mann and Al Gore believe that they have god-like omniscience. What is to worry?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

I agree. Cap and Trade is a bad idea. A straight carbon tax with offsetting reductions in taxes that primarily affect the lower and middle classes is the only way to go.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years ago

"Don't any of you progressives worry about the obvious conflict of interest of the global warming guru's. Al Gore, etc."

A couple of questions. First, could you list those conflicts? And second, why do environmental kamikazes think that Al Gore is all there is to climate science? Don't you think that someday you might actually have to come up with an understanding of climate science, rather than just pick an elected-but-never-selected president to snipe at in your pitiful attempts to discredit actual science by actual scientists?

leedavid 5 years ago

Bozo: "...pitiful attempts to discredit actual science by actual scientists."

Think for a moment of all the things science people told us was true, and turned out to be false. Starting with the earth is flat and ending with global warming, no wait global cooling, no wait climate change. LOL! Scientist are jumping ship on this one. Even the polar bears are laughing.

There is no such thing as human created global warming.

scott3460 5 years ago

"...but since you asked particularly about cap and trade, do you think those 'improvements' to cut down on carbon emissions are going to be free? When the government says your business must spend money for something that has nothing to do with making or selling your product, it really doesn't make any practical difference whether the drain in your bank account is going to new (and unneeded) equipment to meet the standards, to other companies to purchase credits if you can't meet the standards, or in fines paid because you didn't do either of the first two options. You're still losing money because the government legislated the expenditure."

Of course there will be added costs. When food safety regulations were enacted, the costs of producing that product rose, but there was a public benefit gained. Same thing here.

By the way, when the issue of corporate taxes comes up, we are told that corporations simply pass the costs of paying taxes along to consumers. How would this be any different? If Company A is a large polluter, their costs will be higher, their price to consumers higher and they will have a tougher time competing against Company B who has found a less damaging way of competing. I think that's a good thing. I suppose if you did not want to compete or innovate, you'd be opposed to such measures.

notajayhawk 5 years ago

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

"When food safety regulations were enacted, the costs of producing that product rose, but there was a public benefit gained. Same thing here."

Congratulations!

You are the 500,000th liberal on the LJW message boards to justify government control over our lives because we have health inspectors!

Yeah, scottie, boy, it's the exact 'same thing.' Oh - except it's more than a 'consensus' that botulism can kill you, and we KNOW there's a public benefit preventing things like hepatitis outbreaks. The health inspector doesn't cost the country trillions just by playing Chicken Little.

Flap Doodle 5 years ago

Uptownbulker's being a busy lad.

Fixed_Asset 5 years ago

This is quite creepy actually. Is this type of behavior allowed, really? Does this Marion gal run around taking pictures of people and vehicles and houses and try to match them with posters here? This can't be safe as we have no idea what kind of person this really is.

Fixed_Asset 5 years ago

By the way, “Fixed Assets are very much like “fixed fortifications”;

““Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.”

General George Patton.

Seriously? Well, you better trash that "stupid" computer you use to make all that bank, huh?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.