Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Grand Prize in Obama’s War on Coal™
Watts Up With That? ^ | June 30, 2013 | Willis Eschenbach

Posted on 07/01/2013 1:05:46 PM PDT by neverdem

It’s a bad week for poor people around the planet. First, and with great fanfare, our President unleashed his patented climate plan, affectionately known as Obama’s War on Coal™. He hasn’t said yet how much Obama’s War on Coal™ will cost, but we can be sure that it will not be cheap. And as in any war, it is guaranteed that the poor will suffer the most.

Sadly, this was followed by even worse news. The World Bank has decided it wants to keep the developing world from having inexpensive electricity. They will not make any more loans for coal-fired power plants.

anthracite coalYou remember “inexpensive electricity”? When I was a kid, the US Government used to be in favor of inexpensive electricity, because it was rightly seen as the savior of the poor farmer and the poor housewife. That’s why the Tennessee Valley Authority came to be. I wash the clothes around our house, and I don’t do it by hand. I have inexpensive energy to do that. Now, however, the government and the environmental NGOs and the climate alarmists are doing every single thing that they can to make energy more expensive. And the World Bank has just officially joined the baying chorus.

The World Bank thinks that inexpensive energy will harm the poor … not now, of course, but in fifty years. And on that basis, the World Bank thinks it is justified to harm the poor now.

This is the madness at the base of the climate alarmists policy—it actively harms the poor now, with the justification that it might help their grandkids avoid harm in 50 years.

The wealthy fat-cats running the World Bank are unwilling for school kids in India to have cheap electricity to study by, on the grounds that it might, not will but might, make those students’ grandkids a bit warmer in a century. I doubt that the poor in India would vote for that plan, but I guess the World Bank is our economic paterfamilias who knows what the poor need, much better than the poor know themselves, and it’s not cheap electricity …

The same thing is going on in the US. Where I live, California, the resident burglars are called the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, known as PGE. They are a monopoly utility, and supposedly they are run for the benefit of the ratepayers.

Now, if you had a monopoly public utility for say water, and your water supplier said they were going to charge twenty times the going price for a glass of water if you were really, really thirsty, would you think that was in the public interest?

That’s exactly what’s happening to Anthony, PGE is gouging him on the price because that’s when he really needs the electricity … what kind of a screwed up world has this become? A public utility is supposed to provide cheap energy, not gouge the customers at the time they really need the electricity.

Now, the East Coast and the Powder River country is going to feel the pain, as coal-fired plants close and their electricity costs start to creep up. So, since war has been declared, let’s see if Obama’s War on Coal™ is worth the billions and billions of dollars it will cost … what are we buying for our money?

Well, fortunately I don’t have to go through all the math to figure it out. There is a strong supporter of the Obama climate plan named Chris Hope, who has done the math for us. His blog says:

Chris is a climate change policy researcher, PAGE model developer, and faculty member at Cambridge Judge Business School, interested in environment and energy.

He has used his whiz-bang model to do the calculations. His assumption is that the US will do the following

1) Lower the CO2 emissions to 83% of the 2008 level over the next seven years, and

2) Maintain that low level of emissions for the succeeding 80 years.

Now, absent a huge technological breakthrough or another depression, there’s little chance of us getting to 83% of 2008 emissions in the next seven years.

But that pales before the improbable idea of the US maintaining that low a level of emissions for the next 80 years.

So to start with, we see that Mr. Hope has made the most hopeful assumptions about the climate plan—first that it will meet its initial goal, and second that it will maintain that goal for over three-quarters of a century.

And with those likely unattainable assumptions, what does Mr. Hope calculate as the effect of Obama’s War on Coal™?

Well … um … well, he says that by the year 2100, nearly a century from now, that the temperatures will be much cooler.

How much cooler, you ask?

Well … two …

Two degrees C?

Er … no …

Oh … so, it’s two tenths of a degree C, then, not two degrees C?

Um … no.

I have to confess, in writing this I find that I am very reluctant to reveal the expected outcome of Obama’s War on Coal™ for a simple reason—it is at times like this that I’m embarrassed to be an American.

Because the reality is that Chris Hope, an ardent supporter of the War on Coal™, using the most optimistic (and unattainable) assumptions, says that IF we win the War on Coal and we put hundreds of people out of work and increase the cost of electricity for poor and wealthy alike (although obviously, Obama and his rich pals don’t care about the cost increase), here’s our prize. Here’s what Chris Hope says we’ve bought for the all the pain and suffering:

In the year 2100 the world might be 0.02°C cooler.

Two hundredths of a degree in a century. Maybe. That’s the prize. That’s what Chris Hope has proudly announced will be the reward for the job loss and the pain and suffering of the poor.

Two hundredths of a degree of cooling. An amount that is far below our ability to even measure …

Me, I think that that one fact alone should be our emblem and our rallying cry in opposition to this gob-smacking lunacy. So the next time someone says they think the War on Coal™ is a brilliant plan, gently point out to them that they are advocating spending billions and billions of dollars to cool the planet by two hundredths of a degree in the year 2100, and in the process harming the poor … and ask if that strikes them as the most rational of plans …

Or you could just shake them until their teeth rattle and say “You think we should spend billions of dollars to cool the planet two hundredths of a degree a century from now, while hurting the poor today? Have you gone barking mad? Billions for a reward that’s too small to be even measured, while pensioners shiver in fuel poverty? Unhand my wallet, you thieving varlet, and slink back to your hole!”

I swear, this unremitting attempt by Obama and the activists and the environmental NGOs to crush the poor back into their hovels, while they proudly declaim the noblest of motives, turns my stomach and threatens to fair unhinge my reason … how can they do that?

Billions and billions of dollars for two hundredths of a degree … bad news, folks, the Emperor not only has no clothes. He’s lost his mind entirely.

Grrrrr, bad for my blood pressure … in any case, here’s what coal did while Obama was declaring war on it …

what coal did today


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: carbon; climatechange; coal; energy; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; obama; waroncoal

1 posted on 07/01/2013 1:05:46 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

All of their meager estimates don’t even take into account the fact that people will start heating and cooking with wood, charcoal, and dung and that smoke will go up chimneys with no emissions controls whatsoever. The net result of taking away coal-powered electricity is more greenhouse gases than ever!


2 posted on 07/01/2013 1:14:41 PM PDT by Bryanw92 (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This 0.02 degree of cooling could easily be offset by a single volcanic eruption about which we can do nothing. Our climate does does not have a tipping point...there are feedback mechanisms that have kept our climate on a relatively even keel for millennia. We have in the past seen massive global cooling which caused three ice ages where the northern hemisphere was basically covered by glaciers and global warming that melted those glaciers...all with no possible input from humankind. our puny measures to change CO2 concentrations by parts per million will not do anything.


3 posted on 07/01/2013 1:24:29 PM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

When I was a kid they told us that nuclear energy would make electricity so cheap it wouldn’t even need a meter....................


4 posted on 07/01/2013 1:26:38 PM PDT by Red Badger (Want to be surprised? Google your own name......Want to have fun? Google your friend's names........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

Some states have outlawed fireplaces.
Some states have outlawed any burning at all on private land.
Some states have outlawed BBQ grills that use charcoal and lighter fluid.

Do you see a pattern developing here?.............


5 posted on 07/01/2013 1:28:27 PM PDT by Red Badger (Want to be surprised? Google your own name......Want to have fun? Google your friend's names........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
President Obama's Plan to Fight Climate Change
6 posted on 07/01/2013 1:45:31 PM PDT by Sender (It's never too late to be what you might have been.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Do you know that Lewis Strauss was talking about Fusion, not Fission, nuclear energy when he said that in 1954?


7 posted on 07/01/2013 1:52:49 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thackney

No I didn’t know that. But it makes no difference, since neither has come about.........


8 posted on 07/01/2013 2:03:56 PM PDT by Red Badger (Want to be surprised? Google your own name......Want to have fun? Google your friend's names........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

By the way, “too cheap to meter” is another way of saying, so expensive to hook up, the fuel cost are insignificant...


9 posted on 07/01/2013 2:08:46 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Well, I'm still waiting for Mr. Fusion.............

10 posted on 07/01/2013 2:16:54 PM PDT by Red Badger (Want to be surprised? Google your own name......Want to have fun? Google your friend's names........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
[The World Bank has decided it wants to keep the developing world from having inexpensive electricity. They will not make any more loans for coal-fired power plants.]

Coal represented 25 percent of total U.S. exports in 2012.

11 posted on 07/01/2013 2:27:00 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
Coal represented 25 percent of total U.S. exports in 2012.

Can you provide a little more info on that?

12 posted on 07/01/2013 2:39:41 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

In 2012, the US exported 125,745,662 tons of coal.

http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/pdf/t7p01p1.pdf

Our total 2012 exports equaled $1,546,455,000,000.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/2012pr/aip/related_party/rp12.pdf

Coal prices widely vary perhaps $75~150 per ton depending on quality, location, etc. Even at $150/ton, it would be about 1% of our exports.


13 posted on 07/01/2013 2:51:24 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: thackney
[Can you provide a little more info on that?]

I thought I read it the other day but when I Googled I couldn't find anything. I did find out that U.
S. exports last year were roughly $2 trillion while coal exports were around $16 billion. So I'm way off. Sorry.

14 posted on 07/01/2013 3:15:29 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Thanks for the links. I stand corrected.


15 posted on 07/01/2013 3:17:08 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
This is the madness at the base of the climate alarmists policy—it actively harms the poor now, with the justification that it might help their grandkids avoid harm in 50 years.

There won't be any grandkids if their grandparents freeze to death.

16 posted on 07/02/2013 12:28:16 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Do you see a pattern developing here?.............

My mother had an euphemism for the total collapse of civilization: "burning the books".

I see books as fuel before long.

17 posted on 07/02/2013 12:33:02 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

One volcanic eruption can, and will, forever skew the data rendering insolvent....


18 posted on 07/02/2013 3:17:06 AM PDT by Jumper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; alrea; ...
DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Watching the EPA Coup In Progress: New Report

EPA sends White House revised emissions rule for new power plants

Chemical, oil companies fear potential EPA rule will expose trade secrets

Obama administration denies waging a ‘war on coal’

Interior climate science program ripe for misuse, favoritism. watchdog warns

Liberals blame Ariz. firefighters’ deaths on global warming

Obama’s Climate Action Plan: emphasizing what doesn’t work while ignoring what does

Obama’s Green Agenda is Political Hot Air

Obama's global-warming claims demolished

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

19 posted on 07/02/2013 9:17:58 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (I don't always vote, but when I do, I SURE AS HELL DON'T VOTE DEMOCRAT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

This is a massive election opportunity for the GOP and not just in Coal Country. This is an attack on jobs and the poor and on economic liberty.

People no longer by into the ‘global warming’ hoax and climate change is a garbage word. They do view coal as dirty, but smart PR from coal producers and energy users could undermine that and pronto.

We need to start now, though, because you have to challenge the idea that coal is belching dirty black smoke into the air. Couple that we an economic liberty message and you win.


20 posted on 07/03/2013 3:24:28 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
I see books as fuel before long.

I burned a large stack of books and several large boxes of old reports from the office during March. It works pretty well as long as you get the stove well heated before the paper, then put wood under rhe paper to elevate it and heat it all the way through. If you do it right the outcome is a very small pile of fine white ash. Do it wrong and you have a mess of black char and unburned paper.

21 posted on 07/03/2013 4:15:00 AM PDT by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

These folks are going to be extremely pissed

22 posted on 07/03/2013 4:17:53 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Who will shoot Liberty Valence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

That is still true, but not in Amerika


23 posted on 07/03/2013 4:18:47 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Who will shoot Liberty Valence?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

>>They do view coal as dirty, but smart PR from coal producers and energy users could undermine that and pronto.

The Left has countered anything we say with the myth that “Clean Coal is an oxymoron” and the sheeple believe it.

I work for a utility company and we have two 300 MW clean coal units (Circulating Fluidized Bed) that only produce a fraction of the emissions that a conventional coal plant produces. Are we bragging about it? No. We shut them down as much as we can so we can brag about our natural gas units. We produce about 1 MW from solar panels and we brag about that. We produce another MW from landfill methane and we brag about that.

But our 600 MW of clean coal power is like our crazy old aunt that we hide in the attic.


24 posted on 07/03/2013 4:20:14 AM PDT by Bryanw92 (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
People no longer by into the `global warming' hoax and climate change is a garbage word.

People need to be taught over and over because there are misinformers on our side (and inserted into our side) to make us look anti-science and/or illiterate.

I would start with slides from Christy: http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/05/31/john-christy-climate-change-overview-in-six-slides/

The takeaway is that the warming from CO2 is not a hoax but a non-issue. The small amount of warming so far is a net benefit. Also I would note that climate models predict less storminess, not more.

25 posted on 07/03/2013 4:36:31 AM PDT by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: palmer

My understanding is that the warming, if any, caused by CO2 is insignificant and the argument that ‘global climate change’ is driven by human activity absurd. CO2 levels are, in the long history of the earth, at historic lows.


26 posted on 07/06/2013 5:59:08 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

Brag about it or find a company willing to reopen those outstanding shuttered plants. Obama and the Dems won’t hold power forever.


27 posted on 07/06/2013 6:00:32 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

>>Obama and the Dems won’t hold power forever.

After amnesty they will!


28 posted on 07/06/2013 6:20:12 AM PDT by Bryanw92 (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
When I was a kid they told us that nuclear energy would make electricity so cheap it wouldn’t even need a meter....................

Aah! What could have been, but for the environazis.

29 posted on 08/10/2013 7:46:39 AM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson