The President stated that the final Clean Power Plan is fair, flexible and designed to strengthen the fast-growing trend toward cleaner and lower-polluting American energy.
“With strong but achievable standards for power plants, and customized goals for states to cut the carbon pollution that is driving climate change, the Clean Power Plan provides national consistency, accountability and a level playing field while reflecting each state’s energy mix. It also shows the world that the United States is committed to leading global efforts to address climate change.”
Last year, even the United States military, an institution not generally known for its liberal thinking, declared that climate change poses a major threat to our national and global security. So this Plan was bound to be developed with climate in mind.
Critics claim that the Plan is inherently unfair, punishes taxpayers and will destroy our economy, similar to what was claimed for the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and a host of other environmental changes that have kept our country reasonable cleaner and safer than most other nations in the world.
Fair to say none of that ever happened. And none of that will happen if this Plan gets enacted. What would happen is the United States would get much cleaner and healthier air, regardless of what you think about climate change.
Skip to content
Even the archwarmist BBC gave plenty of space to critics of this plan. There’s also the intrinsic weakness of executive orders, and the fact that President Obama has made seven Big Announcements on climate change, one per year, none of them getting very much implemented.
I do hope next President will have the skill of being able to work with and not in spite of Congress.
DNFTT Please!
For my curiosity, how do you work with a Congress that states that its primary goal is to put you out of business? Uses the N word to your face. Calls you a liar on national television during a speech? Lies repeatedly on a host of issues? And is lead by incompetent leadership that has no idea what kind of votes it can deliver on any issue?
And what exactly is an “archwarmist”? You might do better in a debate here if you left the ad hominems to Bill O’Reilly and actually learned how to debate.
DNFTT!! PLEASE!!!!!
He’s had 8 years to figure that out. Being able to coerce Congress is part of the job spec for a President…remember Clinton after the 1994 election defeat, he still managed to do a lot in the remaining 6 years.
WHAT?
“WHAT?” isn’t feeding Omnologos, DOG. However, it is a snack.
True. Since he is here only to seek attention and not participate in any meaningful way, any little bit of notice (even negative) just gets his tail wagging, his tongue hanging out, and his chubby little body prancing up and down and looking for more. Kind of like a puppy—-not a smart and cute puppy, mind you, but a puppy nonetheless. I suppose a better analogy would be a cockroach, as in one who is trained to come out from under the refrigerator and beg for snacks.
You’ve trolled the blog three more times. Not sure if anybody is reading it, guess nobody. It’s especially ridiculous when you comment the comment to the comment, repeating the same words all the time or whatever you write
I’m not the one who is trolling this blog, Omno—-YOU are, and you have been doing it for a very long time now by forcing your way into discussions that you contribute NOTHING to.
I wasn’t talking to you anyway, but to Glenn Martin and Charles Zeller and others with brains, and your need to make this thread “all about you” with all your self-referential whining and posturing blinds you to the fact that you know little about the topics under discussion, are completely unaware of the level of your ignorance, and simply don’t have the common sense or decency to NOT go where you’re not wanted.
Peter allows you here only as a bad example, and those of us with brains DO use you as a punching bag—-you ask for it and subconsciously need it—-the fact that we “repeat the same words all the time” is because YOU make the same errors of knowledge, logic, and communication ALL THE TIME. To make a vulgar analogy, saying “S**T stinks” every time one encounters a steaming pile of S**T is what we do here on Crock when your inanities and maunderings appear.
“Not sure if anybody is reading it, guess nobody”, you say? IMO, lots of people read what you say and what those of us with brains say to you in return—-they just don’t want to waste any of their time on it. Trying to correct your stupidities is a waste of time—you don’t EVER pay attention—-and those few of us that do reply to your comments are able to tear you so many new anal orifices in so little time that it’s “over before it has begun”. Moron!
“Coerce Congress”? Really? Just how do you do that? With a gun? The word “compromise” is a swear word in Republican circles. Their idea of negotiation is total surrender. Maybe you live under a rock and haven’t been paying attention since 2009.
Omno has succeeded. You have answered his comment as if you took it seriously. He only makes these obviously stupid and ignorant comments so that we will pay him attention, and not because he wants to engage in a meaningful discussion. I have been one of the biggest “troll feeders” with Omno, but have come to the conclusion that he is here only for attention and to waste our time. Please do not feed the Omno troll. DNFTT
I think Michael Bloomberg mostly hits the nail on the head with this op/ed piece. The headline reads:
“Obama Didn’t Kill Coal, the Market Did”
http://tinyurl.com/nrbvd7h
In brief Bloomberg writes:
“Critics of the Environmental Protection Agency’s new Clean Power Plan are describing it in apocalyptic terms. But much of what they believe about the plan — that it will destroy the coal industry, kill jobs and raise costs for consumers — is wrong. And it’s important to understand why.
“The overblown political rhetoric about the plan tends to obscure the market reality that the coal industry has been in steady decline for a decade, partly as a result of the natural gas boom…” [Continues at website…]
Another more radical view of the White House initiative comes from Naomi Klein interviewed today on Democracy NOW!. I would have to say that with my present understanding of climate science and politics that Ms. Klein’s complaint about the inadequacy of Obama’s action (as opposed to his always marvelous yet specious rhetoric) regarding overall carbon reduction.
Here’s the essence of Klein’s complaint about Obama’s mendacity:
“So I think that what we’re seeing from Obama is a really good example of what a climate leader sounds like. You know, everything he’s saying is absolutely true about the level of threat, about the fact that this is not a threat for future generations, it is a threat unfolding right now around the world, including in the United States. It’s a threat that is about people’s daily health, with asthma levels, and also about the safety of entire cities, huge coastal cities. So he’s doing a very good job of showing us what a climate leader sounds like. But I’m afraid we’ve got a long way to go before we see what a climate leader acts like, because there is a huge gap between what Obama is saying about this threat, about it being the greatest threat of our time, and indeed this being our last window in which we can take action to prevent truly catastrophic climate change, but the measures that have been unveiled are simply inadequate….”
http://tinyurl.com/p856rz8
***
One of the real connivances that Obama engages in is the matter of creating a “shifting baseline” for the starting point on determining the level of pollution we hope to abate. Those of you with grey hairs will recall that the long-forgotten Kyoto Protocol used 1990 as the baseline date for CO2 emissions. While the U.S. Senate has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, most of the world understood 1990 to be an important date. What as Obama done? He substituted 2005 as the baseline date for his calculation. Why? Because U.S. emissions had gone up on the order of 30% from 1990 to 2005. Which means that the proposed 32% reduction in CO2 between now and 2030 means we are backsliding tremendously on the goals of the Kyoto Protocol. Obama is essentially giving the U.S. a free pass to keep on polluting, take no real steps to cut back, beyond what is naturally occurring simply because of capitalism’s “market conditions”. In essence, Obama would have his rules simply follow the market in cutting back on coal, shifting to natural gas generation of electricity, along with now market competitive solar and wind solutions. This is not leadership in my book. This is pandering on the one hand to the Democratic Party liberal base who will be placated that Obama is taking the lead on CO2 reductions (not true). And on the other hand, we get a faux political argument between the White House and the Republicans who play at being enemies while the life of coal powered plants extends until they die a natural death due to market forces.
I see yesterday’s announcement as mostly a sham. As they say in Detroit, your mileage may vary.
***
Don’t believe me? Read about the bankruptcy of Alpha Resources, one of the nation’s largest coal miners in yesterday’s “and in other news” department. That’s a market ending an era. Time for West Virginia to put up some solar and wind generators on all the drastically devastated mountaintop mining moonscapes they’ve harmed themselves with.
Great comment, Ray.
Thank you Andy,
You might also appreciate this Scientific American article that sorts out the reasons why it is a false hope for half-way thinkers to say that fracked natural gas is the solution to carbon pollution.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-natural-gas-will-reduce-global-warming-pollution/
At best, natural gas can replace coal generated electricity. At worst, natural gas turbines are replacing nuclear power, and totally going the wrong direction on reducing atmospheric and oceanic CO2 overloads. Or else, new natural gas capital expenditures are putting off the day we get to the ultimate answer of zero-carbon electrical generation (mostly wind and solar) as the energy source of the future.
Good link Ray – added to my now extensive collection, thanks.
The connexion is between wildfires and DROUGHT, which is a normal part of California history, NOT fake climate change.
Drought dries out the bush and provides the fuel.
40yrs since “experts” blamed GLOBAL COOLING for California drought! pic.twitter.com/JfgfVcciEX
California Wildfires Not Unusual http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/california-wildfires-not-unusual/ …
Spot the portion of CaliforniaDrought caused by #climatechange pic.twitter.com/7xoesfMMfA
citing blog posts by retired accountants does not get you a lot of respect here. citing actual papers, by real scientists, in original context, is the basis for discussion.
thanks for playing.
Not sure what game GeorgeC is playing with the citation about drought and fire. It’s not relevant. He appears to be a ‘coupon clipper” that may not fully understand the science behind what he reads.
You losers know nothing about FDR, LBJ or even Clinton and Lincoln. Each one of them capable of great reforms despite hostile Congresses, because they knew how to overcome that hostility. That’s what Obama is a total failure at.
If you look at the history of American Presidents, nothing good is remembered about the ones who couldn’t get Congress on their side. And Congress inevitably has seldom been meek and compliant, for all too obvious reasons.
I guess people who believe in the great big oil conspiracy, they find solace in blaming Congress because of an impotent Presidency. It’s the easy and silly way out.
Ps whaaat and other idiotic bullying will surely follow
Omno, I’m afraid your ignorance does not constitute an argument.
Your empty verbiage even less so.
LBJ had to overcome resistance from his own party. Lincoln had a war and a restive Congress. Etc etc.
Quite correct. And Omno is too freaking stupid and self-involved to recognize that fact (or admit to it if he does in fact understand).
Those who are “feeding” him here are encouraging him to continue. It is no badge of honor to show that you are smarter than Omnomoron (unless you are under the age of 10).
And Omno is whining again, with “Ps whaaat and other idiotic bullying will surely follow”. To point out yet another of his language and logic fails, what is occurring here is not “bullying”, and it is being done TO an idiot by people who are WAY smarter than him.
I answered your post because it contains typical right wing talking points. As usual you can’t respond with SPECIFICS because the talking points are nothing but blather for the historically ignorant.
And by the way, Truman had to deal with a hostile Congress which didn’t end up well for the country. The “do nothing” Congress ended up with the Alger Hiss investigation that launched the career of that great American statesman Richard Nixon, resulting in the McCarthy era of the early 1950s. You can blame those idiots (and Truman’s failure to deal with them) ultimately for the Vietnam War.
John -you’ve asked how a President can work with a hostile Congress. I told you he ought have figured thst out. It’s not like he did not get any legislation through at all.
He’s also surrounded by highly experienced people who might know a thing or two of the way Congress works.
So the answer cannot just be “Bad Congress”. I am sure most of the US Congresses have been pretty bad 8-D
It’s like saying I cannot beat Usain Bolt’s world records against heavy winds, and then blame the winds.
More evidence of what a moron is our boy Omno. non sequitur is another thing we can work into a middle name for him—-Maurizio Inanio Maunderio NonSequiturio Morabito!
I’m constantly baffled as to why you have the confidence to comment about the intricacies of U.S. history, when you clearly know so little about it.
Your examples are LBJ, FDR, Clinton, and Lincoln. Look at the chart here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress#/media/File:Combined–Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png
And notice how the Presidencies of FDR (D), LBJ (D), and Lincoln (R) had clear majorities of party control during their Presidencies. Of course they could work with Congress!
Clinton is the one exception. He managed to pass a handful of liberal reforms before 1994, and after the Republicans took control, he only passed legislation that the Republicans approved of: welfare reform, balanced budget, commodities reform, defense of marriage, etc.
I’m not a huge President Obama fan. but he was able to pass some more liberal reforms in the first two years where he had Congress’s support, and the fact that he hasn’t bent over backwards to pass a lot of legislation that would have Republican support after that is actually pretty okay with me. You might have noticed the one bit that he might be able to pass, TPP, has practically rabid GOP support.
Clinton legislation by year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton#Legislation_and_programs
No, jimbills, there is nothing “of course” wrt Congress. See the JFK years compared to LBJ’s. The fact that it’d nominally be of the same party as the President is only tangential to the problem of getting legislation through.
See for example here Lincoln’s attitude to it all
http://abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincolns-contemporaries/abraham-lincoln-and-members-of-congress/
But Mr. Lincoln studied these men carefully – as he indicated to House Speaker Schuyler Colfax “one night in the telegraph office of the War Department, when he suddenly turned the subject form campaigns and battles to mental idiosyncrasies, discussing the individualities of Thaddeus Stevens, of Charles Sumner, and, last of all, Henry Wilson. After discussing the characteristics of others with a keenness of analysis that strikingly illustrated his own mental powers, he added that a peculiarity of his own life from his earliest manhood had been, that he habitually studied the opposite side of every disputed question, of every law case, of every political issue, more exhaustively, if possible, than his own side. He said that the result had been, that in all his long practice at the bar he had never once been surprised in court by the strength of his adversary’s case – often finding it much weaker than he had feared.”
it’s a long piece but that’s what Presidents should care about, details and Congress
Presidential favor was too important for many congressmen to want to be permanently alienated from Mr. Lincoln, no matter how much they differed with his policies. …how things have changed…
Yes. how things have changed! Except that you have NO understanding of the changes in American politics. You go maundering on about LBJ, JFK, FDR, and Abraham Lincoln (who has been dead for 150 years!) as if they are the most important influences on PRESENT day USA—-yes, they WERE influential, but that is all HISTORY, and even the lessons to be learned from the more recent Clinton years have to be taken in the context of what the Repugnants have been doing to this country for the past 40 years, and particularly with respect to the whole new “ballgame” that we have been in since 2000.
PS Nice cut and paste with the Lincoln link—-too bad you don’t understand its relevance and where “favor” is to be found in 2015 USA.
What you’re refusing to acknowledge is that politics within one’s own party are inherently far easier than politics between parties. There are always schisms within parties, sure, but you’re talking about a difference of 10-20 degrees as opposed to 150-180 degrees.
I don’t think history will claim President Obama to be on the same par as Lincoln as far as political acumen, but he’s dealing with a completely different political reality. Lincoln dealt with a Congress virtually devoid of a Democratic presence and were only arguing about how to deal with the South in specifics – not if they should deal with the South. Stevens, Sumner, and Henry Wilson were all Republicans of only slightly different ideology than Lincoln. They represented the more radical side of the Republicans, while Lincoln was more moderate. The modern-day equivalents would be like Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz to John Boehner.
Obama is on the completely opposite side of the field to the Republicans on many issues, though, such as climate change – with the Democrats arguing about how to deal with climate change, and Republicans arguing that there’s no need to deal with climate change at all.
This is obvious, but you can’t see it.
Not sure where I would have said that Obama and the Republicans are not at opposite ends on many subjects, Or that it’s not easier if the party commanding the White House is the same with majorities in the Capitol. Of course they are, and it is (what I said, is that “of course they could work” isn’t necessarily so).
All of this, however, was not news for anybody in 2008 either. Obama promised change, but forgot that change is difficult in places where many people don’t want to change. Sad perhaps, but one would have hoped he had some idea on how to get change enacted, when he was talking about it.
As far as I am concerned his political acumen is nil, beyond the extraordinary ability to attract votes. Or maybe he’s surrounded himself with too many people in awe of the Great Man, and has never understood why some other people aren’t in awe at all, rather the opposite.
In the meanwhile, a person is needed in the WH capable to implement what they were voted for. Next one, maybe.
More mindless babbling from the moron. When jimbills or one of the other folks with brains addresses you, it is necessary to say something intelligent in return—-if you don’t, you will be ridiculed yet AGAIN. (And isn’t it past your bedtime, over there in the UK, Omno? Have mommy come down to the basement and tuck you in)
35 comments to this post. 9 by me (3 of them about the idiot).
The idiot has posted 10 comments. 8 of them, about me. It’s trolling and bullying, for all intents and purposes. Expect a new one to come after this one, almost immediately (or as soon as he wakes up).
This is kind of useful, because whenever I need to show the ugly side of warmism, there he is, dumboldguy the perfect example.
Oh look, our boy Omno is keeping track of his comments and those made by me. Typical narcissistic behavior—-does he have a chart on the wall?. As I’ve said many times, he is really into “making it all about Omno” rather than discussing the topics at hand.
He conveniently neglects all the comments made by other “idiots”—-John Eric (3), Charles Z (1), jimbills (3)—-which brings the total of comments “about Omno” up to SEVENTEEN, and that’s 1/2 of ALL the comments made on this thread.
Notice the universal disdain and disagreement that Omno has garnered from everyone—-NO ONE has given him a “thumbs up” on any comment, and his original mindless comment is up to TWELVE thumbs down. Does Omno notice? No, he continues to whine and make it “all about Omno” rather than absorb the lessons we try provide about his factual and logic errors and his obvious personality disorder—-NPD, or Narcissistic Personality Disorder. To quote from one of the many sources on NPD:
“What traits and characteristics occur in narcissistic personality disorder?”
“The American Psychiatric Association’s manual (DSM-5) lists the following characteristics, when occurring together, as possibly diagnostic of individuals with NPD:
has a grandiose sense of self-importance
is preoccupied with fantasies of brilliance
believes he or she is “special” and unique
requires excessive admiration
has a sense of entitlement
takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
lacks empathy toward the feelings and needs of others
shows arrogant or haughty behaviors and attitudes
“Other characteristics of people with narcissistic personality disorder:
“People with NPD believe they are superior or special compared to others.
They are very sensitive to perceived criticism (NOTE: THAT’S A BIGGIE).
“How is narcissistic personality disorder treated?”
“There is no known cure for narcissistic personality disorder, but counseling might help the person learn to relate to others in a more positive and rewarding way. One goal of counseling is to provide the person with greater insight into his or her problems and attitudes in the hope that this will change behavior. Another goal of therapy may be to help the person develop sturdier, less inflated self-esteem and more realistic expectations of others”.
Through my comments, I have been attempting to offer Omno a type of “tough love” counseling to those ends, and all the other “idiots” who have joined me in “trolling and bullying” him have done the same, although most have focused on trying to get him to see his knowledge and thinking deficits rather than his personality.
Unfortunately, Omno appears to be too sick for our at-a-distance “counseling” and continues his mindless denial of his condition. This comment of his says it all—–“…whenever I need to show the ugly side of warmism, there he is, dumboldguy the perfect example”.
That tells us all we need to know—-the questions remain:
Are we going to feed Omno’s sickness by ignoring admonitions to DNFTT?
Is Peter going to continue to allow him to crap up so many threads on Crock?
Will Omno allow us to help him?
(The answer to the last one is a definite NO).