The Right Conservative News Site | Right Side News

Switch to desktop Register Login

President Obama's Climate Change Speech Georgtown University

President Obama’s speech at Georgtown University today will undoubtedly be an attempt to re-ignite the efforts by the White House, the Official portrait of Barack ObamaEPA and other government offices to ramp up their war on coal, kill jobs and increase energy costs to industry and the American people.

You can download his “action plan” here and read all about it.

Previewing President Obama's Climate Change Speech Previewing President Obama's Climate Change Speech by Nicolas Loris, Heritage Foundation

When Congress rejected a cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, a frustrated President said that cap and trade was only one way of skinning the cat and that he would look for other avenues to curb greenhouse gas emissions.  SPEECH

On Tuesday, the President will outline how his Administration plans to address climate change without those pesky elected officials getting in the way. Here are three things you’re likely to hear and three things you won’t hear in President Obama’s speech.

1. What you will hear: We need greenhouse gas regulations on new and existing power plants.

What you won’t hear: Carbon dioxide regulations will drive up energy prices on American families and businesses for no change in the earth’s temperature.

Energy is the lifeblood of our economy and provides us with a healthy and comfortable standard of living that’s easy to take for granted. From heating and cooling our homes, taking our kids to soccer practice, and lighting our homes, most of America’s energy needs are met by carbon-emitting fossil fuels. New greenhouse gas regulations on new and existing power plants would reduce our standard of living by jacking up our energy bills and increasing costs for businesses to operate.

Americans are the punching bag here; they’re hit again and again with higher energy costs since everything we do and consume requires energy. Capping emissions from new coal-fired plants at 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour would effectively ban new coal plants, depriving America of an affordable reliable energy source. Regulations on existing plans would likely target both coal- and natural-gas-fired plants.

But let’s pretend we were able to stop emitting all carbon immediately. Forget the electricity to cool our homes in the summer months. Shut down the power plants. Stop driving our cars. No talking. The Science and Public Policy Institute found that the global temperature would decrease by 0.17 degrees Celsius—by 2100. These regulations are all pain no gain.

2. What you will hear: The federal government wants to help reduce energy use, reduce climate emissions, and save businesses and families money. Everybody wins!

What you won’t hear: Markets already incentivize Americans to be more energy efficient. Government mandates are inefficient and have unintended consequences.

Businesses and consumers understand how energy costs impact their lives and make decisions accordingly to be more efficient. They don’t need the federal government telling them how to be more energy efficient, nor do they need subsidies from the taxpayer to prod them along. The government likes to think that Americans are irrational energy users and that the energy mandates make consumers better off, but these mandates make us worse off by taking away our choices. They drive up sticker prices of vehicles, appliances, and everything else the federal government mandates and reduce product performance.

Further, the government calculates that only 2 percent of the benefits of its own environmental regulations goes toward climate change.

3. What you will hear: Let’s streamline renewable energy production on federal lands.

What you won’t hear: Let’s transfer the permitting and environmental review of all energy production on federal lands to the states, which have protected the environment and promoted jobs creation and economic growth.

Creating an efficient environmental review and permitting process for all energy projects, including renewable, is a step in the right direction. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce identified 351 energy projects stalled by “not in my backyard” suits, regulatory red tape, and, of course, endless challenges from environmental activists. Almost half these projects (140) are renewable-energy ones. So long as the renewable projects are not propped up with subsidies or are meant to help states meet their renewable electricity standards, we should create a regulatory environment that allows renewable energy to come online in a timely manner.

Streamlining the permitting process is a step in the right direction; however, the states should manage energy production on federal lands within their borders. They are the ones who have the most to gain when the management of natural resources and economic activity is done properly—but also the most to lose if they are mismanaged and handled without care for the environment. A critical component of The Heritage Foundation’s American Conservation Ethic is to devolve more of the responsibilities and rewards of environmental stewardship to states.

The danger of President Obama’s climate change speech is that, regardless of the economic burden these policies will inflict upon Americans and regardless of the barely noticeable environmental impact, this Administration is intent on moving forward. If climate change is a problem, although global warming has leveled off over the past 16 years (something the models failed to predict), increased economic growth here and abroad will help us deal with any costs associated with warming. These carbon-cutting policies, big or small, do the opposite.

It’s time for those pesky elected officials to get involved and stop the Administration from implementing climate change regulations.

 

Obama’s “War on Coal” Hits American Families Hard

by Nicolas Loris, David Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Kevin Dayaratna

Regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Interior, and the Department of Labor have been labeled President Barack Obama’s “war on coal.” A more precise label would be a “war on American families, businesses, and jobs.” Unnecessarily and artificially eliminating coal as a reliable, affordable energy source would dramatically harm the economy.

If the regulations on the coal industry are allowed to stand, they will almost certainly destroy the coal industry, with predictable, undesirable economic effects on the rest of the country.

Tomorrow, the President’s speech on climate change will likely discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon dioxide regulations on new power plants and announce CO2 regulations on existing power plants. Implementing those regulations along with other EPA regulations—such as the utility MACT rule, Cross State Air Pollution rule, coal ash regulations, and national ambient air quality standards—would make building a new coal plant extremely difficult, while significantly decreasing the lifespan of existing plants.

Analysis from the Heritage Foundation (in a forthcoming paper that will also examine the effects on natural gas prices and manufacturing jobs) finds that significantly reducing coal’s share in America’s energy mix would, before 2030:

  • Destroy more than 500,000 jobs,
  • Cause a family of four will to lose more than $1,400 in annual income, and
  • Increase electricity prices by 20 percent.

Even worse, the Americans forced into unemployment lines and those paying higher energy prices couldn’t even claim that their suffering is helping to save the planet. If America stopped all carbon emissions, it would decrease the global temperature by only 0.08 degrees Celsius by 2050.

The war on coal provides no hope for the economy and little change in the earth’s temperature. Not quite the hope and change Americans desired.

You are now being logged in using your Facebook credentials