The US Chamber of Commerce is putting the full force of its polluter-funded war chest behind fighting limits on industrial carbon pollution set to be announced by the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday. Paul Krugman dives into their numbers and finds even by the Chamber’s biased analysis, the cost of climate action would be just 0.2% of economic growth:
You might ask why the Chamber of Commerce is so fiercely opposed to action against global warming, if the cost of action is so small. The answer, of course, is that the chamber is serving special interests, notably the coal industry — what’s good for America isn’t good for the Koch brothers, and vice versa — and also catering to the ever more powerful anti-science sentiments of the Republican Party.
Finally, let me take on the anti-environmentalists’ last line of defense — the claim that whatever we do won’t matter, because other countries, China in particular, will just keep on burning ever more coal. This gets things exactly wrong. Yes, we need an international agreement to reduce emissions, including sanctions on countries that don’t sign on. But U.S. unwillingness to act has been the biggest obstacle to such an agreement. If we start taking serious steps against global warming, the stage will be set for Europe and Japan to follow suit, and for concerted pressure on the rest of the world as well.
Now, we haven’t yet seen the details of the new climate action proposal, and a full analysis — both economic and environmental — will have to wait. We can be reasonably sure, however, that the economic costs of the proposal will be small, because that’s what the research — even research paid for by anti-environmentalists, who clearly wanted to find the opposite — tells us. Saving the planet would be remarkably cheap.
Remember, this is the same U.S. Chamber of Commerce that has fought every single Obama administration effort to create jobs. Either the US Chamber’s sudden concern for jobs is a fraud, or they only care about saving jobs in the polluting industries that fund the Chamber. But you will never hear a reporter point this out, because connecting the dots has a well-known liberal bias.
The House of Representatives has approved the McKinley amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. The amendment directs the Defense Department to spend no money complying with any of the programs directing it to study the impact of global warming:
This is incredibly short-sighted, to the point of stupidity.
Four Democrats voted for this travesty:
Nick Rahall, D-W.Va
John Barrow, D-GA
Henry Cuellar, D-TX
Douglas “Mike” McIntyre, D-NC
Isn’t it the 1% with luxurious residences in the Hamptons and other ocean front locales which will be the first to feel the effects of rising oceans? You would think a little self-preservation might come into play. Besides, someone must be able to figure out how to make at least as much money off of clean energy as more traditional sources.
When you think about it, man has been trying to control the weather since Noah faced the great flood. Now we have to pay for our sins of using a car and a/c and not living in the dark like a North Korean. The elites will buy indulgences, I mean carbon credits, to offset their carbon footprint. But the rest of society could very well see a lower standard of living with this non-elected EPA.
George Will wrote ” Global warming is socialism by the back door. The whole point of global warming is that it’s a rationalization for progressives to do what progressives want to do, which is concentrate more and more power in Washington, more and more Washington power in the executive branch, more and more executive branch power in independent czars and agencies to micromanage the lives of the American people”.
I would also note the Dept of Defense has been BP’s #1 client of petroleum products and still buys vast amounts of petro for the war in Afghanistan. In 2011, Shell became our #1 supplier.
Attila the Hun said, “Always remember that worthy causes meet with the most resistance–even internal withholding of support and loyalty. If victory is easily gained, you must reconsider the worthiness of your ambitions.”
Benito Mussolini said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
Andrew Carnegie said, “He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave.”
Is that the university educated Krauthamer and Will are in a party that has gone to the boobs as Mencken would call them. Sad to see men who were once contrarian voices from the right get reduced to idiocy.
Daily Intelligencer:
He goes on from there fairly thoroughly.
Krugman, on his blog, points out Krauthammer’s misunderstanding of the relationship between Newtonian physics and relativity. The theory of relativity is not evidence that all science is somehow false. Krauthammer thinks it is. Perhaps he doesn’t want his beliefs inconvenienced.
Is on the conservative reality denial funding Mt Rushmore with Koch, Sciafe & DeVos
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation
…is the notion of supernatural deities influencing our lives when we worship them.
What a difference in leadership, Putin tells his energy companies to roll up their sleeves and get to work. This massive facility will supply energy to China and help Russia diversify their energy. If one googles coal plants in Africa, one will find how coal is providing necessary energy and provide some modern comfort o the poorest of the poor. Even Malaysia is building a coal plant.
Meanwhile, we inflict pain on the coal workers with idle mines and plant closings while having no impact on global CO2 output, let alone global temps. I still have a heavy quilt on the bed, its so cold.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/26/russia-interrao-plant-idUKL6N0OC30R20140526
When he was Governor, Romney thought burning coal was a bad idea.
Romney’s by no means the only one to find coal a harmful substance:
I’m sure the old coal plants were dirty but with scrubbers and retrofits, mostly steam comes out of the modern plants. In Mississippi, they have a coal plant that will capture the carbon. Give the industry some breathing room instead of hammering them.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/527036/two-carbon-trapping-plants-offer-hope-of-cleaner-coal/
How about if I give you mostly a serving of fish. Just a dash of mercury.
P.S. The Kemper IGCC plant to which you refer ended up costing far, far more than the equivalent in energy and capacity one could procure with wind and PV generators, to say nothing of energy efficiency.
I thought it was a balmy 80 degrees in your house because you burn coal for your heat? The kids are hanging around in shorts and tank tops when it’s below zero outside, aren’t they? You should need little more than a top sheet, if that…
It becomes a PIA to fire it up and then turn it off then fire it up again on the next cold day like we had on Wed.
n/m
I know, I know – but it was irresistible to poke him on his personal coal burning!