Google+ Followers

Friday, October 30, 2015

Wow… Obama Tax, Spend. Foreign Aid Obama pledges to cost $73 billion per year to possibly reduce warming by 0.02 degrees C. Here we go again Foreign Aid - The cold war foreign aid program, 1947–1953 Truman's initiatives were incorporated into the Mutual Security Act (MSA) of 1951, which succeeded the Marshall Plan and offered a new program of economic and, especially, military aid both for Europe and the developing world.




n its first year, for example, the act extended to Europe a combined military and economic package of $1.02 billion; in 1952, as the Korean War ground on, it included $202 million in military support to Formosa (Taiwan) and Indochina. In the wake of National Security Council document NSC 68 of 1950, which had called for large-scale military aid along with an enormous defense buildup, security-related assistance would become a hallmark of the Eisenhower era (1953–1961). Thus, while military assistance had been a little more than a third of the $28 billion in aid that the United States had extended during the Marshall Plan era (1949–1952), during the succeeding eight years, it was almost 50 percent of a larger, $43 billion total. Meanwhile, technical assistance under Point Four went to such countries as Liberia, Ethiopia, Eritrea (where the United States had a large surveillance post), Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, and Iran. Latin America was largely left out of Point Four until the end of the 1950s, although certain countries in which the United States countered perceived communist threats received significant security assistance.


Read more: http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Foreign-Aid-The-cold-war-foreign-aid-program-1947-1953.html#ixzz3q5JcMNE7


Introduction

As the world meets in Paris at the United Nations (UN) Conference on Climate Change during the first two weeks in December, it is important to take note how the U.S. has already regulated greenhouse gases (GHGs). According to American Action Forum (AAF) research, regulators have already imposed $26 billion in annual costs to limit GHGs and have proposed an additional $1.7 billion. However, to meet President Obama’s climate goals the nation will have to spend up to $45 billion more each year by 2025.
What are the benefits of these investments? According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates, previous actions will avert a combined 0.0573 degrees Celsius of warming. Meeting the president’s 2025 goals could add reductions up to 0.125 degree Celsius. In other words, full achievement of the president’s climate goals will cost more than $73 billion in annual burdens to alleviate less than two-tenths of one degree of warming.

Past GHG Regulation

President Obama and EPA have aggressively regulated greenhouse gases from a variety of sources. AAF research counted at least 15 final rules designed to ensure proper reporting of GHGs, increasing fuel economy for cars and heavy-duty trucks, methane reductions from fracking, and limiting GHG emissions from new and existing power plants. These rules have consumed more than 3,000 pages in the Federal Register. The total cost from these 15 measures is $230 billion in net present value costs, more than $26 billion in annual burdens, and 2.9 million paperwork burden hours. These totals omit Department of Energy rules that also limit GHG emissions (and impose substantial burdens) and EPA’s Mercury Air Toxics and Cross-State Air Pollution measures. The recent regulatory burdens fighting climate change act essentially like taxes, raising the cost of energy for consumers and manufacturers.
Below is a list of the five most significant GHG regulations since President Obama took office:
Regulation
Total Cost (in billions)
Annual Cost (in billions)
CAFE Standards: 2017-2025 Cars
CAFE Standards: 2012-2016 Cars
GHG Standards for Power Plants
CAFE Standards: Heavy-Duty Trucks
CAFE Standards: 2011 Cars
Totals
$229.2
$26.1

Combined, all 15 major rules aim to eliminate more than six billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) during the life of the rulemakings or roughly 860 million annually. For comparison, the U.S. emitted 6.1 billion tons in 2005. Yet, despite the heavy costs of regulation now and the questionable future benefits, regulators will continue to issue new rules to address climate change.

President’s Climate Goals

At the beginning of his administration, President Obama set a goal to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 17 percent, below 2005 levels. Based on the latest Energy Information Administration (EIA) projections, the U.S. will emit 5.49 billion tons of GHG in 2020. (This baseline includes all regulatory and legislative actions as of October 2014.) A 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels means the U.S. needs to emit just slightly more than five billion tons in 2020, so the U.S. is still 303 million tons away from the goal.
That might not appear to be difficult, given the nation has already cut more than 900 million tons annually, but consider that time is hardly on the administration’s side. What’s more, relaxing the initial deadline for power plant compliance means the “Clean Power Plan” will only save 81 million tons of CO2 by 2020. Any similar regulation affecting stationary sources of GHG will likely reap only marginal cuts in the remaining four to five years.
The 2025 goals are even more daunting. According to EIA, the nation will emit 5.5 billion tons, barely an increase above 2020, but President Obama has called for a reduction of up to 28 percentbelow 2005 levels. This puts the president’s goal at 3.9 billion tons or a reduction of more than 1.2 billion tons by 2025. This includes EIA’s baseline, in additional to the Clean Power Plan, and pending proposals for a second round of heavy-duty truck efficiency and a new fracking measure. With all of these reductions assumed, the nation must still double its GHG cuts to date and then find additional reductions of more than 400 million tons of CO2. Even though the Clean Power Plan is scheduled to cut 265 million tons of GHGs by 2025, it is just a fraction of the remaining goal.
The graph below displays the heavy lifting required to meet the president’s targets:
 

Cost of Achieving Goals

What will it cost to cut an additional 1.2 billion tons by 2025? If history is any guide, up to $45 billion in annual regulatory costs. To arrive at this figure, AAF examined the cost of reducing past GHG emissions from the Obama Administration. For example, examining the full slate of the administration’s regulatory actions on climate yields $261 billion in total costs to reduce more than seven billion tons of GHG. This yields a cost of $37.04 to prevent one ton of CO2from entering the atmosphere. Comparing annual costs ($28 billion) to annual GHG reductions (902 million tons) results in a slightly lower figure: $31.11 to prevent the release of an additional ton of CO2.
With these figures in mind, we know in 2020 the nation will need to eliminate 303 million tons above EIA’s baseline and what is currently in proposed form. By 2025, that figure grows to 1.2 billion tons. Assuming the cost of eliminating CO2 remains constant for the next decade nets the following figures: $11 billion in additional annual costs by 2020 and $45.5 billion by 2025. Using the lower figure of $31.11 to reduce emissions could impose costs of $9.4 billion (greater than the burden of the Clean Power Plan) and $38.2 billion, respectively. The 2025 goals are the equivalent of two to three years’ worth of government-wide regulation.
With those costs pending, what’s left to regulate?
The administration has already targeted oil and natural gas wells twice, existing and new power plants, and the transportation sector. Yet, there are obviously more sources of GHG left for regulators.
EPA has already put out a proposed “Endangerment Finding” onaircraft emissions, although eminent regulation is unlikely until international regulators conclude their work. The fracking boom has generated plenty of sources of methane, beyond the well sites, that could be attractive for the Department of Interior or EPA.
In addition, the regulation of refineries or large manufacturing plants could be an attractive target in the future, although controlling GHG emissions from those sources will hardly net significant cuts. For example, the largest refinery (by emissions) in the U.S. emits 10.5 million tons of equivalent COand there are only 145 refineries that report to EPA. Compare that to the power plant sector, where the largest facility emits 22.2 million tons and there are 1,572 facilities that report to EPA. In total, power plants emitted2.1 billion metric tons of equivalent COin 2013compared to just177 million tons for refineries. Suppose the nation eliminated 100 percent of refinery emissions by 2025; that would reduce the amount needed to reach the president’s 2025 goal by just 14 percent. 
Finally, according to EPA data, electricity generation and transportation generated 58.5 percent of U.S. GHG emissions in 2013. Industrial emissions, which regulators will doubtless address during the next decade, consumed 21 percent. The next closest contributor of GHG emissions is the agricultural sector, at 8.8 percent. Hardly a popular villain, regulating farms, large or small, will be politically difficult for any administration, expensive, and likely to yield few returns. Regardless of which industry is next for regulators, the price of reducing an additional 1.2 billion tons will remain high.

Benefits

There will be benefits from continuing to reduce GHGs. Some industries will flourish and others will shrink. There will be indeterminate health gains and some climate benefits. EPA admits climate benefits will remain small because climate change is a global problem and there is only so much a nation with four percent of the world’s population can do to avert the problem.
EPA has produced estimates from its past efforts to alleviate climate change. In five previous rules, EPA projected temperature declines ranging from 0.0042 Celsius to 0.0176 Celsius by the year 2100. Combined, previous EPA action to limit climate change could avert just 0.0573 degrees by 2100 (including the second round of heavy-duty trucks in this baseline). Those small reductions come at the total cost of more than $208 billion.
There are also GHGs reductions associated with these five measures. Combined, EPA projects they will eliminate 546 million annual tons of CO2. Using these metrics as a baseline, AAF assumed the same ratio of GHG reduction to temperature reduction for the president’s 2025 goal. Assuming the rate remains constant for the next decade, reducing emissions by an additional 1.2 billion tons could avert 0.125 degrees of warming. In other words, unless there is a drastic change in EPA’s modeling, meeting President Obama’s 2025 climate goal will reduce global temperature by 0.1823 degrees Celsius; a number that is difficult to measure, much less halt drastic climate change. This is also a high-end figure, as agencies typically give a range of temperature declines and AAF always assumed the most beneficial climate scenario.
What about monetizing the benefits? According to the White House, the “Social Cost of Carbon” (SCC) represents “an estimate of the economic damages associated with a small increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, conventionally one metric ton, in a given year.” It also represents a per ton monetary equivalent of the value of avoided climate change. For example, if a regulation reduced emissions by 265 million tons in 2025, it could yield $13.5 billion in climate benefits, assuming a discount rate of 3 percent.
The latter is important when comparing costs and benefits because costs are likely incurred initially and benefits are typically years, decades, or in the case of climate change, generations away. White House guidance dictates a discount rate of three and seven percent. “As a default position … a real discount rate of 7 percent should be used as a base-case for regulatory analysis.” However, for climate change, the administration has ignored its own guidance. It SCC analysis uses 5 percent, three percent, 2.5 percent, and an extreme that represents the most catastrophic effects of climate change. EPA completely omits a seven percent rate and instead concocts a 2.5 percent rate.
Assuming a discount rate of five percent, (the average of three and seven) as EPA does in one analysis, yields a $16 benefit per ton of COeliminated in 2025. Given AAF’s analysis that the cost of eliminating a ton of COranges between $31 and $37, it appears the costs far exceed the benefits, at least at the five percent rate.

Conclusion

After $28 billion in annual regulatory costs to address climate change, the U.S. is hardly finished if it wants to meet the president’s goals. As much as $45 billion per year in regulatory burdens will likely be required to meet the 2025 benchmark, with just a 0.125-degree temperature reduction as a reward. As the U.S. approaches another round of climate negotiations, these figures demonstrate the American people have already shouldered a heavy burden to reduce emissions. 

Al Gore Dumbest Global Warming Study Ever Wins Raves From New York Times? “Greenland Is Melting Away”

 climate deniers Now? Really? L.M.A.O climate deniers? liberal, that funny as hell, climate deniers?, how about living in the real world liberal climate deniers? R.O.T.F.L.M.A.O At climate deniers. just lol at liberal ever time that play the climate deniers? card make fun of it and liberal will learn that the climate deniers card is not working any-more



The Paris climate conference is only about six weeks away, and evil Republican “climate deniers” are looking to slash federal funding of what passes nowadays for climate science. So what’s an agency like NASA to do?



Call in the New York Times for a junk science-fueled airstrike.
as Times columnist Nick Kristof tweeted, “a visually amazing piece,” featuring impressive aerial and satellite imagery of the Greenland ice sheet. The underlying story, on the other hand, is much less amazing.
The article spotlights the efforts of a group of researchers who are collecting data on summertime melt of a river in Greenland. Readers are told:
[The] scientific data could yield groundbreaking information on the rate at which the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, one of the biggest and fastest-melting chunks of ice on Earth, will drive up sea levels in the coming decades.
This, the Times worries, could raise sea levels by … 20 feet.
Stunning visuals and melodrama aside, what’s really melting faster than a river during summertime is the Times’ credibility. The notion that these “researchers” are doing anything close to collecting data that could predict future melting of Greenland’s ice sheet is absurd.
These researchers are taking measurements at a single river. One.
They claim they can then somehow extrapolate this data into a prediction of the fate of the entire ice sheet. But thousands and thousands of these summertime rivers appear on the Greenland ice sheet, which is 660,000 square miles in size.
Four times the size of California.
Data from one section of one 60-foot wide river is going to tell us precisely zero about anything related to the ice sheet’s future.
“We scientists love to sit at our computers and use climate models to make those predictions,” one of the researchers told the Times, but it was time to get out there and collect some actual data on the ground. Somehow, they progressed from that noble idea to this Quixotic effort – a three-year study costing taxpayers $778,000 – to measure one river among thousands and to somehow derive accuracy from that.
Of course, that earnest researcher hasn’t though this through. This pointless experiment would nonetheless require them to … sit at computers and use climate models.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/dumbest-global-warming-study-ever-wins-raves-from-new-york-times/

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Obama And Al Gore says pumpkins cause global warming?



How scary are your jack-o’-lanterns? Scarier than you think, according to the Energy Department, which claims the holiday squash is responsible for unleashing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Most of the 1.3 billion pounds of pumpkins produced in the U.S. end up in the trash, says the Energy Department’s website, becoming part of the “more than 254 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) produced in the United States every year.”

Municipal solid waste decomposes into methane, “a harmful greenhouse gas that plays a part in climate change, with more than 20 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide,” Energy says.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/28/pumpkins-cause-climate-change-energy-department/

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

New York City hires Al Gore Consultant to advise on risk of Global Warming to nvestments In Coal







New York City’s $55 billion civil-employees’ pension approved hiring a consultant to evaluate the risk climate change poses to its investments, seeking to avoid losses that could result from the ripple effects of rising temperatures.
The retirement systems’ board on Tuesday also directed the Bureau of Asset Management in the Comptroller’s office to measure and disclose the “carbon footprint” of the portfolio, according to the text of a resolution approved by trustees.
“A four degree increase will affect emerging markets, real estate, infrastructure, agriculture, timber, most asset classes -- and will affect most countries in this world -- in negative ways,” said Larry Schimmel, who represents New York City Public Advocate Tish James on the board of the civil employees’ fund. New York City has five public pension funds with assets totaling about $164 billion as of July 31.
study released Oct. 21 and co-authored by economists at Stanford University and the University of California Berkeley estimated that average global incomes would be reduced by about 23 percent by 2100 if warming continues unchecked.
Last month, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio called for all five of the city’s pension funds to sell about $33 million of investments in coal companies. The mayor, a Democrat, has set a goal for the city to reduce total carbon emissions 80 percent by 2030.?

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Gov. Moonbeam and Janet Napolitano have a plan to combat Global Warming?



SAN DIEGO -- The University of California's top researchers have drafted a blueprint that they say outlines concrete action the state and the world should take to tackle climate change -- including reducing the carbon footprint of the wealthiest 1 billion.


UC President Janet Napolitano and Gov. Jerry Brown will discuss the blueprint Tuesday at a two-day climate change summit at UC San Diego.


UC officials say global warming could be slowed dramatically by reducing greenhouse gases such as methane emissions by 50 percent and black carbon by 90 percent over the next 15 years.


According to the plan, the wealthiest need to cut back dramatically while green energy needs to be made more available to the poorest 3 billion people.



UC experts are asking religious leaders to help foster change.

http://www.dailydemocrat.com/general-news/20151027/university-of-california-climate-change-experts-create-blueprint-to-tackle-problem


AP-WF-10-27-15 0606GMT

No Al Gore,Trying Ater Global Warming IS Not lLke Not Apollo Space Program Are You A Space Nut That Say Lauch Instead Of Lunch?






Oft-heard nonsense uttered in the Financial Times.
Here it is.
Screen Shot 2015-10-27 at 4.17.12 PM copy
The Apollo program was a well-defined, manageable and affordable challenge involving well-understood physics and conceivable/feasible engineering. None of that applies to global warming.
Click for the FT article.

Monday, October 26, 2015

Al Gore New York Time's Claim: Global warming causing Sierra Nevada mountain range to grow higher? L.M.A.O, is Funny As Hell?




I knew there was something familiar about this thought from the moment it occurred to me in Yosemite National Park. My sister and I started going to those mountains 40 years ago with our parents, who taught us to see the Sierra Nevada as a never-changing sanctuary in a California increasingly overrun by suburban sprawl.
Once we had our own families, we indoctrinated our kids in the same joys: suffering under backpacks, drinking snowmelt from creeks, jumping into (and quickly back out of) icy lakes, and napping in wildflower meadows. Yosemite remains my personal paradise, but the impact of drought and climate change has become overwhelming — smoky air from fires, shriveled glaciers leaving creeks dry and meadows gray, no wildflowers.
The big new forest fire didn’t help, as we hiked back to our car in mid-August. We were never in danger, but smoke from that so-called Walker fire filled the sky and turned sunlight orange. At the surprisingly good restaurant attached to the Lee Vining Mobil station just outside the park, ashes fell like apocalyptic snowflakes onto our fish tacos. We watched a DC-10 air tanker carpet bomb flames a few miles off. We had intended to stay in a nearby motel, but Highway Patrol officers told us they planned to close the road, so we joined the line of vehicles escorted past red walls of fire.
We slept at a friend’s house on the western flank of the Sierra Nevada. The next morning, as we began our drive home to San Francisco, this sense of unraveling — of California coming apart at the seams — worsened by the mileThe air was more Beijing than Yosemite, and the Merced River, normally a white-water pleasure ground, was a muddy sequence of black pools below mountains covered with dead ponderosa pines, a tiny sample of the more than 12 million California trees killed by drought and the bark beetles that thrive in this now-warmer climate.
The San Joaquin Valley, still farther west, is depressing on good days, with its endemic poverty and badly polluted air and water. But driving in freeway traffic through endless housing developments on that particular weekend encouraged a fugue state of bleakness in me. Somewhere in that haze lay an industrial-agricultural plain where the unregulated pumping of groundwater has gone on for so long that corporate farms pull up moisture that rained down during the last glacial period — with two paradoxical and equally strange geological effects.
First, the evacuation of so much water from underground pore spaces is causing the surface of some parts of the valley floor to collapse downwardby nearly two inches a month. Second, the lifting of water weight — all those trillions of gallons from underground, and more vanishing from reservoirs and snowpack throughout the West — is now causing the rocky crust of the Earth, which floats on our planet’s molten interior, to push upward.
As a result, the Sierra Nevada mountain range is gaining about 1 to 3 millimeters in elevation annually. San Francisco, normally cool and clear, completed the picture: air so murky we could barely see the bay below the bridge, yet another scorching day in a freakishly warm summer — thanks in part to the immense blob of warm ocean water parked against the west coast. Roughly five hundred miles wide and thousands long, this warm water carries subtropical plankton that may be related to the accelerated decline of the Pacific sardine population, the failure of pelicans to mate and the mass die-offs of baby shorebirds and sea-lion pups. Concomitant blooms of toxic algae have shut down crab fisheries on the coast and, inland, befouled our rivers so much that, on at least two occasions this year, dogs jumped in to swim and promptly died.
We were nearly home, inching through Sunday-afternoon traffic (rush hour is now everywhere and always), when I realized that I had become my parents. Put another way, it was finally my turn to suffer the sense of loss that made my mother weep over every strip mall obliterating every once-lovely farm during family road trips in our 1971 VW micro-bus. My father’s nostalgia was more for 1950s Los Angeles: Bing Crosby living down the street, the Four Freshmen on the radio, a T-shirt filled with oranges as he rode the bus from his family’s Westwood home through sleepy neighborhoods to a completely separate town called Santa Monica.
Confusing one’s own youth with the youth of the world is a common human affliction, but California has been changing so fast for so long that every new generation gets to experience both a fresh version of the California dream and, typically by late middle-age, its painful death.
For Gold Rush prospectors, of course, that dream was about shiny rocks in the creeks — at least until 300,000 people from all over the world, in the space of 10 years, overran the state and snatched up every nugget. Insane asylums filled with failed argonauts and the dream was dead — unless you were John Muir walking into Yosemite Valley in 1868. Ad hoc genocide, committed by miners, settlers and soldiers, had so devastated the ancient civilizations of the Sierra Nevada that Muir could see those mountains purely as an expression of God’s glory.
“I’m in the woods, woods, woods, and they are in me-ee-ee,” Muir wrote about the giant sequoias, in a Whitman-esque letter to a friend. “I wish I were so drunk and Sequoical that I could preach the green brown woods to all the juiceless world, descending from this divine wilderness like a John the Baptist.… Come suck Sequoia, and be saved.”
Muir got his turn when San Franciscans dammed his beloved Hetch Hetchy Valley inside Yosemite National Parkpart of a statewide water grab that included Los Angeles developers’ swindling Owens Valley farmers out of both their water and their economic future. But all that water helped create the coastal urban paradise that lured my grandfather west in the mid-1940s, when there were fewer than 10 million people in the state: abundant jobs in defense and entertainment, middle-class families buying homes with sunny backyards, plenty of room on wide highways to seaside coves where good surf peeled across reefs with abundant lobster free for the picking.
Dad went to the University of California, Berkeley, spent three years in the Navy and three more in law school, then moved to Washington, D.C., with my mother to work for L.B.J.’s anti-poverty program. He came back in late 1968 to find Los Angeles buried under a concrete megalopolis. Up in San Francisco, meanwhile, where Mom grew up, methamphetamine and violence were already darkening the hippie dream.
Photo