Wednesday, March 29, 2017

White House declares ‘the war on coal is over’ as Trump begins unraveling Obama’s climate agenda

Via Billy

President Donald Trump waves as he walks off stage after signing an Energy Independence Executive Order, Tuesday, March 28, 2017, at EPA headquarters in Washington, Tuesday, March 28, 2017. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

A central piece of President Trump’s executive order Tuesday nixes the federal government’s use of the obscure “social cost of carbon” calculation, ending an Obama-era experiment that put an official price tag on greenhouse gas emissions.

The metric, first established in 2010 by an interagency working group that consulted with scientists and others outside government, examined how carbon pollution would impact public health, food crops, infrastructure and a host of other parts of American life. The figure, which now stands at about $40 per ton of carbon, according to the latest federal figures, was a key way in which the Obama administration tried to financially justify its ambitious climate change agenda. The Environmental Protection Agency would, for example, claim that a given program, rule or regulation would save billions of dollars by cutting emissions, and it arrived at those estimates partly by using the social cost of carbon.


  1. I honestly have no idea how we have arrived where we are today. The idea that CO2 is a pollutant, is insane at best. Look at the geological history of planet earth. There were times when the CO2 levels were 10-times higher than today. And the effect?

    No, surprise all life did not die out (or we wouldn't be here, duh). The plant life flourished, planet earth turned green. Had farmers been around, harvests would have been huge. The idea CO2 is a pollutant is nothing but a lie. And lack of education is the only reason it is perpetuated.


  2. It's not simply whether CO2 is a problem, but what's the solution?

    We could reduce immigration into the US to reduce global CO2. No one wants that. *shrugs* And we could stop warring and selling weapons. No one wants that. And we could shorten the supply chain by making more goods in the US rather than China. No one wants that. And we could stop developing other economies, which would slow their adoption of things like cars and stable electricity. And we could stop feeding certain polities with massive overpopulation problems. Who could bear to do that though?

    So, I don't believe anyone actually wants CO2 reduced.

    Fearing CO2 could have an impact is a conservative concern. We're always wary of change, don't worship the free market.

    But I don't see much evidence of global warming, and I don't see anyone truly interested in reducing it. It's a scam.

    1. It's a scam.

      Absolutely, if you have the time.