BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label CO2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CO2. Show all posts
22 April 2017
08 April 2017
Rick Santorum garbles climate change comments by Obama's EPA chief 6APR17
WHAT is really sad about rick santorum is that not only is he stupid but that he has also bred and is raising his children to be as stupid as he is. Here is more proof that rick is correct, smart people will never be on his side. From PolitiFact.....
Rick Santorum garbles climate change comments by Obama's EPA chief
During an appearance on Bill Maher’s HBO show, former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., tried to convince the generally liberal host that Donald Trump was right to shelve Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which placed stricter standards on carbon emissions from power plants as a way of curbing pollution and climate change.
"The EPA director under Obama said the Clean Power Initiative would have no effect on man-made CO2 emissions," Santorum said. "That's what she said. Go look it up."
As if Santorum’s suggestion to "look it up" wasn’t enough of a prompt for us to take a look, a number of readers also suggested we analyze his statement. So we did.
What was the Clean Power Plan?
In August 2015, the Obama administration announced that its Clean Power Plan regulations would require power plants to reduce carbon emissions, from 2005 levels, by 32 percent by 2030. Scientists say that carbon emissions are a significant contributor to global climate change. Advocates added that the Clean Power Plan would also reduce other emissions that create soot and smog.
However, after opponents sued the Obama administration and found some success in the courts, the plan was never implemented. Then, on March 28, President Donald Trump, as expected, issued an executive order that set in motion the plan’s dismantling.
What was Santorum referring to?
The primary piece of evidence for Santorum’s statement, according to Santorum spokesman Matt Beynon, was an exchange at a House Science Committee hearing on July 9, 2015, including questioning of Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas. Here’s the exchange:
Smith: "On the Clean Power Plan, former Obama Administration Assistant Secretary, Charles McConnell said it best, that it will reduce global temperature by only 1/100th of a degree Celsius. At the same time, it is going to increase the cost of electricity, that's going to hurt the lowest income Americans the most. How do you justify such an expensive burden, some -- rule that is really not going to do much good, and isn't this all pain and no gain?"
McCarthy: "No sir. I don't agree with you. If you look at the RIA we did, the Regulatory Impact Analysis, you would see it's enormously beneficial. The value of this…"
Smith: "Would you consider 1/100th of a degree to be enormously beneficial?"
McCarthy: "The value of this rule is not measured in that way. It is measured in showing strong domestic action, which can actually trigger global action to address what is a…"
Smith: "Do you disagree with my 1/100th of a degree figure? Do you disagree with my 1/100th of a degree?"
McCarthy: "I’m not disagreeing that this action in and of itself will not make all the difference we need to address climate action. But what I'm saying is if (we) don't take action domestically, we will never get started."
Smith: "But if you're looking at the results, the results can't justify the cost and the burden that you are imposing on the American people."
McCarthy: "Actually this is a cost-beneficial rule…"
Did McCarthy say the rule would have "no effect on man-made CO2 emissions"?
First, we should point out that neither Smith nor McCarthy mentioned emissions per se in their exchange -- they discussed temperatures, a related but separate factor.
Beyond that, though, McCarthy actually didn't say the plan would have "no effect." It would be more accurate to say McCarthy sidestepped the question.
After McCarthy’s non-response to Smith’s question, the lawmaker didn’t follow up on that specific line of questioning. Because of McCarthy’s verbal fancy footwork, it’s a stretch for Santorum to say McCarthy acknowledged the view that the Clean Power Plan would have "no effect" on carbon emissions.
In the meantime, Benyon provided some additional pieces of supporting evidence. However, they did not directly support Santorum’s statement.
Benyon cited comments by an earlier EPA administrator under Obama, Lisa Jackson, at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. At the hearing, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., showed Jackson a chart showing "virtually no change" in carbon dioxide and asked her if she agreed with it.
Jackson responded, "I believe that essential parts of the chart are that the U.S. acting alone will not impact the world's CO2 levels. But as we've all said, and as many members of this committee said, the race is on for us to enter into a clean energy future. There is technology in this country that can be used to move markets not only here, but abroad, and that means jobs for Americans that we are currently losing."
This is actually a stronger example of an Obama EPA administrator acknowledging the limitations of curbing carbon emissions. However, this hearing was held in 2009, long before the Clean Power Plan was unveiled. (In fact, in 2009, the Obama administration was pursuing legislation, not regulation, on carbon emissions.)
Benyon also cited prepared testimony in 2016 by former Obama assistant energy secretary for fossil fuels Charles McConnell.
"What is also clear both scientifically and technically is that the EPA’s (Clean Power Plan) is not a plan that will significantly impact global CO2 emissions." McConnell wrote. He cited calculations that the Clean Power Plan would reduce global temperatures by 0.01 degrees Fahrenheit and that the reduction in sea level rise would be only as wide as two human hairs. "These are facts, and facts are stubborn things," he said.
But again, Santorum wasn’t citing just any senior Obama administration official but specifically the head of the EPA.
Does Santorum have a point anyway?
Some researchers have expressed skepticism about the Clean Power Plan’s value. Benjamin Zycher of the conservative American Enterprise Institute and Patrick Michaels and Paul Knappenberger of the libertarian Cato Institute, have pointed to calculations using a model known as MAGICC, which EPA itself has used. The model suggests that the Clean Power Plan would reduce temperatures by small fractions of a degree, varying by the assumptions made.
A wide range of climate scientists and policy experts we checked with offered some counterpoints. First, they said the United States needs to take its own steps to curb carbon production if the rest of the world is going to follow.
"Everyone acknowledges that the Clean Power Plan alone isn't enough to stop climate change, but that's a rather ridiculous bar to hold for a single regulation," said William Anderegg, a biologist at the University of Utah. "What is clear, however, is that the Clean Power Plan is likely the single most critical piece of U.S. action to fulfill our commitments under the Paris Agreement."
Second, they argued that even a small reduction would be preferable to the upward trend line the world would likely see otherwise. "Reducing the temperature of the atmosphere by 1/100th of a degree is in fact really significant," said Harold Wanless, who chairs the department of geological sciences at the University of Miami. "We shot up several hundredths of a degree last year alone. Every hundredth of a degree cooled is a step in the right direction."
Finally, Santorum's perspective "misses the thousands of lives per year we're already saving each year by cutting coal use," said Rob Jackson, a professor at the Stanford University School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences. And tallying up the impact of just the Clean Power Plan ignores other carbon-reduction policies pursued by the Obama administration, including higher vehicle fuel economy standards, regulations on other greenhouse gases such as methane, and heightened energy-efficiency requirements for buildings and appliances.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether the costs on utilities, their employees and local economies justify such benefits. But focusing only on the global warming impact of the Clean Power Plan, as Santorum did, ignores these other considerations.
Our ruling
Santorum said, "The EPA director under Obama said the Clean Power Initiative would have no effect on man-made CO2 emissions. That's what she said. Go look it up."
Many scientists would acknowledge that the climate-change impact of U.S. action by itself would be modest. However, McCarthy didn’t actually say that, and few experts would peg the impact at zero, as Santorum did. We rate the statement False.
CORRECTION, April 6, 2017: This version corrects the academic affiliation of Rob Jackson.
About this statement:
01 April 2011
PLEASE take part in this action by EarthJustice calling on Pres Obama to reject any budget legislation that cuts EPA funding and the enforcement of laws and regulations protecting our health and the environment. Call the White House to express your views, or send them an e mail, see the contact information below.
©2011 Earthjustice | 426 17th Street, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 | 510-550-6700 | action@earthjustice.org
 | |||
| TAKE ACTION! Tell the White House: Stop Dangerous and Deadly Policy Riders on the Budget Bill! | |||
 | Please tell Pres. Obama to push strongly against any efforts to inject harmful environmental policy riders into the budget bill! Call the White House today (202-456-1111), or send a letter! | ||
| |||
 | |||
31 March 2011
Will the White House agree to weaken EPA? Now everyone disputes the story, from CLIMATE PROGRESS. 31MAR11
WHAT sad comment on the gop / tea-baggers that not one of them can committ to protecting the EPA, and so all of us.......their corporate masters just won't allow it!
Because I thought the story was wrong, I didn’t blog on it. But enough readers have raised concerns that it’s clearly worth a post.
I should also note that the Senate vote on the amendments to limit EPA’s power to regulate CO2, which were supposed to be held this week, have been pushed back until next week. At the end, I’ll post a release from the office of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that make clear The Senate has enough votes to sustain a veto of any bill on this issue.
As for the White House story, Sargent has done the heavy lifting, so I’ll excerpt his story, which continues:
Here’s the release from Sen. Sanders office:
34 Senators, enough to sustain veto, call for continued implementation of the Clean Air Act.
Is the White House, in the quest for a budget deal, quietly preparing to accept some aspects of a House GOP effort to roll back the regulatory power of the Environmental Protection Agency, which would represent a significant weakening of the Obama adminstration’s commitment to combat global warming? So reported the Associated Press, but in a statement sent my way, the White House is denying it….
UPDATE: Dem Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus (a member of which was the source on the AP story), has also released a statement denying it: “The anonymous source who contributed to the Associated Press story was inaccurate.”That’s the WashPost’s Greg Sargent who blogs at “The Plum Line.” When I first saw the story reported at places like Grist and then Alternet, it seem unlikely and incorrect to me and the folks I know who are familiar with these discussions.
UPDATE II: The Associated Press, which originally reported this story, did a subsequent version that watered down the original claims, so it seems like there’s no one out there on any side vouching for the original assertion.
Because I thought the story was wrong, I didn’t blog on it. But enough readers have raised concerns that it’s clearly worth a post.
I should also note that the Senate vote on the amendments to limit EPA’s power to regulate CO2, which were supposed to be held this week, have been pushed back until next week. At the end, I’ll post a release from the office of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that make clear The Senate has enough votes to sustain a veto of any bill on this issue.
As for the White House story, Sargent has done the heavy lifting, so I’ll excerpt his story, which continues:
There’s a nugget buried in an AP story on the budget wars that claims the following:Precisely. That’s why it seemed unlikely.
A Democratic lawmaker familiar with a meeting Wednesday between Obama and members of the Congressional Black Caucus said the administration made it clear that some House GOP proposals restricting the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory powers would have to make it into the final bill. In order to characterize the White House’s position, the lawmaker insisted on anonymity because the meeting was private.If true, this would be striking. It would mean the White House may part ways with Chuck Schumer, who has adamantly insisted that Dems will not support any budget deal containing “riders” on Planned Parenthood or weakening the EPA’s regulatory powers. And as Kevin Drum notes, this would also amount to major capitulation: “It would mean that Obama has essentially given up completely on anything other than token action to address global warming.”
It’s not clear which proposals the White House might accept, but those backed by Republicans would block the government from carrying out regulations on greenhouse gases, putting in place a plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and from shutting down mountaintop mines it believes will cause too much water pollution.
But White House spokesman Clark Stevens emails that the White House is still committed to opposing any EPA “riders”:It is always possible that the Obama administration will do the wrong thing at the last minute, lord knows, but if they were to stand firm they can certainly block these amendments. And given the the public’s strong support for EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, this is a winning issue if the Administration will do the kind of messaging on it that it has intermittently in the past (see 63% of Americans say “EPA needs to do more to hold polluters accountable and protect the air and water”).
As the administration has made clear, the funding bill should not be used to further unrelated policy agendas, and we remain opposed to riders that do that, including as it relates to the environment.It’s also worth noting that the original AP story said that it wasn’t clear which of the GOP proposals on the EPA the White House was supposedly prepared to support. The original story floated the possibility that the White House might only give on EPA plans to clean up Chesapeake Bay or shut down mountaintop mines — and not on the core GOP proposal of scuttling EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gases.
As a side note, even Republicans I’ve spoken with privately concede that they’re well aware that it’s unlikely that the latter is a concession they could win, since it would be very hard for many Congressional Dems to support any budget deal containing it.
Here’s the release from Sen. Sanders office:
Senators Stand up for Clean Air ActOf course, 34 is the number of senators needed to block a veto override, if it should come to that (that is, if Obama vetoed a bill that had language restricting EPA).
WASHINGTON, March 31 – Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), John Kerry (D-Mass.) and 30 colleagues today introduced a resolution calling for continued implementation of the Clean Air Act.
In the face of efforts by House Republicans and some senators to weaken the nation’s clean air protections, the resolution which specifies the benefits of the Clean Air Act has 34 original cosponsors who and will continue to seek additional support from their colleagues.
The landmark law saves 160,000 Americans from premature death every year and helps avoid tens of thousands of cases of lung disease, heart attacks, and emergency room visits. The act also has reduced major air pollution by 41 percent over the last 20 years even as the economy grew by 64 percent.
Sanders said, “It is absolutely unconscionable that in the year 2011 the Congress is debating amendments to gut the Clean Air Act and I am going to fight back. I also think that at a time when House Republicans might force a government shutdown unless the EPA backs down from protecting public health, we must not let the budget process be used to deregulate polluters.”
Whitehouse said, “Americans are expecting us to roll up our sleeves and get to work, solving today’s pressing issues – putting America back to work, and reducing the federal deficit. Instead, radical Republicans are using the budget process to push for extreme policy positions that would gut the Clean Air Act and roll back important public health protections. These same Republicans are literally demanding that we compromise our children’s health to get a short-term budget deal.”
Carper said, “For the last forty years, the EPA has use the Clean Air Act to foster economic growth and protect Americans from life threatening air pollution. Since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the EPA has saved thousands of lives and saved billions of dollars in health care costs, while keeping electricity rates – adjusted for inflation – constant. At the same time American jobs in engineering and design, as well as in manufacturing, installing and operating pollution control and clean energy technology are being created to meet our clean air needs. Put it another way, the Clean Air Act benefits outweigh the costs by a margin of 30 to 1. Talk about a return on investment. It just doesn’t get much better than that.”
Kerry said, “Ever since Richard Nixon signed it into law, the Clean Air Act has saved tens of thousands of lives by curbing air pollution and helped jumpstart new technologies that created millions of jobs in the process. But somehow our political environment has become so divorced from reality, facts, science and history that today even a commonsense law like the Clean Air Act can be used as a partisan punching bag. This Resolution showcases just some of the Clean Air Act’s many achievements, and I hope it will remind my colleagues that under this law we were able to grow our economy and cut harmful pollution that threatens our families.”
The Senate is expected to vote soon on up to four amendments that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to reduce carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. An amendment by the Senate Republican Leadership would overturn EPA’s scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a public health threat and allow the biggest polluters to spew carbon pollution without restrictions. It also would undermine fuel economy standards that are projected to save drivers of new vehicles up to $2,800 at the gas pump, save more than 2 million barrels of oil per day (roughly as much as the U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf), and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
House Republicans are also reportedly pushing for riders attached to their budget bill, which would shut down Clean Air Act enforcement of big polluters’ greenhouse gas emissions, to be included in a congressional budget deal.
Sanders’ resolution is also sponsored by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Environment Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Democrat Conference Secretary Patty Murray (D-Wash.), and Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)