States Led By Climate Deniers Stand To Gain The Most From New EPA Carbon Rule

Fri, 2014-07-25 13:00Mike Gaworecki
Mike Gaworecki's picture

States Led By Climate Deniers Stand To Gain The Most From New EPA Carbon Rule

A rising tide lifts all boats — even boats that, contrary to all evidence, openly doubt the moon's gravitational influence.

A new study released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Rhodium Group concludes that the EPA's proposed carbon rules for existing power plants will benefit states like Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma the most — states where climate denial is not just rampant but often a policy officially boosted by high-ranking officials.

In fact, Texas Governor Rick Perry, who once dismissed climate change as a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart,” led a group of Republican governors in blasting the EPA's regulation, which assigns states greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and mandates that they devise a plan for achieving those cuts.

The group sent a letter to President Obama decrying the regulations as bad for the economy. “This is such a dangerous overreach in terms of the potential threat to our economy,” Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said.

But as the New York Times reports:

The study… concluded that the regulation would cut demand for electricity from coal — the nation’s largest source of carbon pollution — but create robust new demand for natural gas, which has just half the carbon footprint of coal. It found that the demand for natural gas would, in turn, drive job creation, corporate revenue and government royalties in states that produce it, which, in addition to Oklahoma and Texas, include Arkansas and Louisiana.


States like Wyoming and Kentucky that have economies still largely dependent on coal production will certainly take a hit. But these are the growing pains of the emerging clean energy economy, and polls show not only that a “lopsided and bipartisan majority of Americans support federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions” but also that Americans are “willing to stomach a higher energy bill to pay for it.”

Image by Sylvie Bouchard

Previous Comments

I'm sorry, but when did carbon dioxide become “carbon pollution”? Seriously.

Lara,

There is plenty of data now on homes and lives destroyed by climate change.  You simply can't ignore it.  I gues if you''re not directly effected by it, then you are being impacted by indirect costs like increasing insurance, or unavailable insurance (Canada).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/no-flood-insurance-without-new-map...

Here's a great US story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/07/23/attack-of-the...

Notice the theme, the insurance companies are getting pilloried for inaction lead by people just like you Lara. So lead on.  (If you haven't been paying attention, insurance companies are pulling out of Eastern US.)

Lets not forget Sandy and all that extra flooding, and Lara as you know increasing wave height exponentially increases damage caused by waves.  At its simplest level, Sandy got a 1 foot boost from sea level rise.  That's 17,000(?) homes getting flooded, and an extra foot for others.

How about Anerican Climate Change refugees? People are being forced out of their homes now, today.  (I always assumed you're American, but maybe you're not.)

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/may/13/newtok-al...

I guess you'd have to be blind to the costs you are already incuring Lara. You know what?  Solar is cheap, clean, and offers energy independance. Perhaps you prefer paying money to monopolies?  Is that it Lara?  Gotta pay the man, 'cause.. you like it?

Taxing CO2 will NOT change the weather, ever! 

It is only an added burden on poor and middle class Americans who are struggling to make ends meet.

Besides, Global sea ice is the highest since 1996 and 8th highest on record for this time of year. US tornado count is far below normal for 2014, according to the NOAA

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/torgraph.png

And we already know that Hurricen activity has been WAY down for many years. So please explain again how taxing CO2 is going to help change the weather?

Please stop scare mongering and think of the poor people that these inane policies will hurt the most!

Lara

lara is a nasty combination of ignorance and dishonesty. it is not “these inane policies” which are hurting the poor people it is the ep;loicies advocated by fossil fuel companies and their band of ignorant and dishonest sycophants like lara and chas who are hurting the poor. Soon it will not even be the poor who are being hurt others will too.

Take for example my home town which suffered 6 billion dollars worth of damages a year ago because of spring floods augmented by AGW. The floods destroyed homes not only of the poor but some of the rich too who, despite warnings of not building the Mcmansions next to the rivers did exactly that and watched their homes being destroyed. Insurance companies would not cover the costs so various  levels of government i.e.. every tax payer has to cover the costs.

So lara, please don't spread your dishonest misinformation here, we are way too smart to trust what you say.

And to answer your first question;

when did carbon dioxide become “carbon pollution”?

“Pollution”

Definition:

Presence of matter (gas, liquid, solid) or energy (heat, noise, radiation) whose nature, location, or quantity directly or indirectly alters characteristics or processes of any part of the environment, and causes (or has the potential to cause) damage to the condition, health, safety, or welfare of animals, humans, plants, or property.


 

Wow there Ian, Ad Homm much? You reply is a perfect example of the warmist's only defense these days; if you can't offer anything rational to your CAGW argument, use name-calling and trying to belittle the “Denialist scum” who is talking sense.

In the minds of the warmist faithful, almost ANYTHING these days can be described as “augmented by AGW”. That's the beauty of the Global Warming meme, it's almost impossible to disprove because you guys keep moving the goal posts. 

It's too bad about the storm and flooding damage in your area. But it's not the first time and it is certainly not the last time that WEATHER has had such an effect. And by your own admission, people ignored warnings to not build on the flood plane.Just like folks in New Jersey and othe coastal areas where people continue to insist on building too close to the ocean. 

Well at least here on the East Coast, insurers are drastically raising flood insurance to discourage rebuilding. They are tired of paying out massive sums of money over the MANY years (not just since 'AGW') on these homes.

True believers in CAGW have no sense of history at all and VERY short memories whhen it comes to weather events. Please do some research!

Chas,

When a comment accurately describes the character of someone it is not an “ad hominem” comment. Why do you deniers always rush around like chickens with their head cut off shouting “AD HOMINEM, AD HOMINEM” when anyone gives an honest statement about them? If you deniers don't like the comments about your behaviour there is a very simple solution, start being honest and go and actually learn something about what you are discussing. Simple isn't it, but you people are too stupid to see that.

Ian, I challenge you to read the following article and see if ANY of it applies to you and your fellow defenders of the Climate Grail, it talks a lot about name calling and the reasons for it.

The Rage of the Climate Central Planners

Namecalling is a tool to stop debate. It works to keep the wandering minds in the square. But the flipside is that sooner or later the smallest crack, the tiniest doubt, elicts a bizarre over-the-top response and the mismatch reveals the game. How many passionate skeptics are created in the moment a fence-sitter realizes that those who say they love the environment will risk friendships and burn relationships in order NOT to discuss it? For surely there is only one possible interpretation of Climate Rage.

“They really can’t allow a debate, because they will certainly and absolutely and rightly lose.”

“When that is certain, the only way forward is to rage.”

If the shoe fits, bro, wear it!

Chas.
  

Let's hear all your science instead of arguing nonsense. I have never actually seen you refer to science, you just quote rubbish from denier sites. Do you actually get out of your cave and see what is really happening in the world? I guess not since you cannot accept how the climate/weather is changing and not in a positive way, at least for humans.

Try reading some honest material for once. Here is a good place to start:

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/state-climate...

And there is nothing wrong in getting angry with dishonest people such as you and lara, you are despicable people who give no thoughts to the negative effects that our children and grand-children will endure if we ignore the negative effects of increasing CO2 from burning fossil fuels as you are suggesting.  Why do ignorant people such as you think that you know better than scientists who understand the science? Just what are your qualifications to make us think that you should be listened to? ZERO!

Chas do you have a decent scientific source to back your arguements?  Answer: No.

Chas do you dislike the idea of a carbon tax? Answer: Yes.

Not liking a carbon tax will not and cannot make our reality go away.  Namely, Carbon Dioxide is trashing the planet.

Taxing Carbon, ending subsidy for oil and gas, and funding Solar will clear all this up, and provide energy independance, and create jobs.  What's not to like?

Here's the IPCC 5th assessment.  Its a good read its a good assessment of all the scientific data on this matter.  Its never too late for you to read it for the first time ever.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

I'm talking about Climate Change, Lara, not weather.  There is plenty of data on how cities and towns in America will be damaged by Climate Change;

http://cpo.noaa.gov/Home/AllNews/TabId/315/ArtMID/668/ArticleID/80/Globa...

And Lara, as you know the people who do suffer from Climate Change, are the poor and pretty much only the poor.  Especially American Poor.  Didn't they (poor Americans) have to wait 6 months for electricity after Sandy?  And then they lost their jobs, cause you know, the economy was wiped out.  The list goes on about major financial losses and costs for poor people.

http://www.ibtimes.com/six-months-after-hurricane-sandy-photos-manhattan...

Here's Canada's temperature graph… 3C hotter and a whole lot wetter;

https://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=8C03D32A-1

Did you catch the part about floods in droughts?  I find it very interesting.  We're suffering severe floods and one of the earliest fire seasons.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/n-w-t-experiencing-one-of-its-worst-...

As you know Lara “I don't personally use evidence to make decisions” Jorgensen, you always steadfastly refuse to offer any evidence that there is no concern for Climate Change.  Yet the harm from Climate Change is clear, blatant and obvious.

As you may remember, I have been looking for evidence that there are no concerns from climate change for a good 6 years now.  I really wanna walk away from it.  You refuse to offer that evidence because you don't have it. And I need a more reputable source than inventions from high schoolers like Anthony Watts, or scientists who are directly paid by the Oil and Gas industry, like Judith Curry, or Willy Soon.

When they needed to tax it!

Chas, I really am waiting for you to provide evidence that Climate Science is wrong. So far you steadfastly refuse to offer evidence for anyone to see. Never offering evidence is the most consistent thing about you Chas.

I beleive you are not using logic and inference to make decisions.  I feel that your decisions were already made by your political beliefs, and you are trying to make reality fit that.  Using terms like 'faithful' and 'religion' more than anything else fits your method of thinking.

What I'm getting at is that physics does not work that way. (Your way.)

Do you have any science to back your position?  Anything?  All the papers I've read support Global Warming and that we are the cause.

[x]

If the governments of the world get serious about tackling climate change and adopt aggressive limits on global warming emissions, many fossil fuel companies’ could see their assets become stranded, forcing them to fundamentally change their business models or go out of business altogether.

But there’s another reason why those companies are so desperate to forestall any and all attempts to rein in climate emissions by holding polluters...

read more