Obama wants to squeeze out US coal power plants

Posted: August 2, 2015 by oldbrew in Energy, government, Politics, propaganda
Tags: , ,

Wyoming coal trains [image credit: energycatalyzer3.com/

Wyoming coal trains [image credit: energycatalyzer3.com]

The ‘fight against global warming’, as reported by AFP/Fox News below, is more like shadow boxing but the impact on the real US economy from the enforced shutting down of coal-fired power stations could be significant.

President Barack Obama will impose steeper cuts on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants across the country than previously expected, senior administration officials said Sunday, in what the president called the most significant step the U.S. has ever taken to fight global warming.

The Obama administration is expected to finalize the rule at a White House event on Monday, a year after proposing unprecedented carbon dioxide limits. Obama, in a video posted on Facebook, said the limits were backed up by decades of data and facts showing that without tough action, the world will face more extreme weather and escalating health problems like asthma.

“Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said. “Not anymore.”

Initially, Obama had mandated a 30 percent nationwide cut in carbon dioxide emission by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. The final version, which follows extensive consultations with environmental groups and the energy industry, will require a 32 percent cut instead, according to White House officials.

Opponents said they would sue the government immediately. They also planned to ask the courts to put the rule on hold while legal challenges play out.

Full report: Obama set to announce steeper emissions cuts from US power plants | Fox News.

Comment: Once again the demonization of a harmless trace gas causes leaders to make irrational policy decisions. The US government has apparently learned nothing from the mistakes of EU countries trying to implement expensive policies that weaken their own economies and make their power supplies less reliable.

  1. jccarlton says:

    Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
    Actions have consequences. Washington DC should be taken off the grid and kept in the dark for a month to emphasize that.

  2. BLACK PEARL says:

    The guys just a puppet of his benefactors

  3. Graeme No.3 says:

    Time for the Generators to ‘shut down’ a coal station each. After 3 days of blackout they can come back on and nothing will be heard of this irrational idea again.

  4. J Martin says:

    If it led to investment in Thorium technogy it wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Someone on some blog once said that if the thorium and uranium were extract end from the coal and that was used to generate electricity, then we’d get 100 times as much energy from the same amount if coal, leaving us with coal to use as a chemical resource instead if wasting it by burning it.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Every time the wind doesn’t blow it will be the same as 1,2,3 – you name it – power stations going offline.

    It’s not rocket science 😐

    J Martin: there seem to be cost and/or tech issues with thorium, but maybe they can be sorted out.

  6. tgmccoy says:

    Bird shredders and fryers are far more green.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Consumers Will Pay Big for Obama’s Alternative Energy Push
    By Dr. Larry Bell, University of Houston

  8. It’s now being heavily pushed as a major news item by the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33753067

  9. I don’t think you should describe CO2 as “a harmless trace gas”. You should describe it as a “trace gas vital for plant, animal and human life”.

  10. oldbrew says:

    The BBC reporter conflated CO2 with pollution, but that’s a different issue related to sulphur dioxide. The purpose is served if the public believe that ‘carbon’ is the pollution problem, which it isn’t.


    That’s why they keep showing sunset pictures of power stations, so they can make steam from the cooling towers look black when it’s obviously not. Cheap propaganda tricks to fool the gullible.

  11. Perhaps someone should let oh-so-behind-the-times Obama know that in the hot-off-the-press new, improved and approved 17 point UNEP “Agenda” (aka “Transforming Our World”), Goal 13 (of all numbers!) reads as follows:

    Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
    * Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC -hro] is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

    And considering the UNFCCC’s “performances” to date, if I were at Obama’s keyboard, I would definitely refrain from uttering such, well, high hopes!

    Then, again, considering that his primary achievement seems to have been establishing himself as the empty suit that walks like a man, why should anyone expect a more informed “view” from Obama, eh?!

  12. Obama seems determined to make climate change his legacy – and it is interesting how much braver he is during what is widely acknowledged as the lame duck period of US presidencies. It is one thing making these statements but obviously quite another getting it through the Senate and Congress. I can’t see it happening.

    I find the recent trip to Africa interesting – I wonder how much of it was spent on unofficial talks about the Paris summit in December. By making pledges now Obama will save himself a lot of time in Paris – a head-start if you like – to avoid the chaos that happened in Copenhagen in 2009 when government leaders just didn’t have enough time to finalise details.

  13. oldbrew says:

    All ‘urgent action’ means is more wind turbines and solar panels. Nobody wants to answer these questions:

    1) what happens when it’s dark and not windy, especially in winter?
    2) where are they going to put them all?

  14. oldbrew says:

    The price of dogma…

    ‘Higher costs, fewer jobs, and periodic blackouts … all to prevent a temperature increase of less than a one-hundredth of a degree.’