The Institute for Energy Research is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets.

About IER
Press
May 6, 2014

More Scare Tactics From The White House

May 6, 2014
Print Friendly
Facebook
WASHINGTON – IER Senior Vice President Dan Kish issued the following statement after the White House released their latest “Climate Assessment” report:

“This climate report bears a strong resemblance to the IPCC report, only with less science and more rhetoric. This IPCC ‘mini-me’ is just another attempt to justify more government intervention in Americans’ lives and more attacks on affordable energy and economic growth.  Americans have been hoping that in this so-called ‘year of action’, President Obama was talking about action on creating jobs. This report, combined with his inaction on Keystone XL, shows he is using his pen and his phone to kill more jobs.

“Throughout his entire presidency, Obama has promoted polices that have discouraged the use of our vast energy resources, including blocking the Keystone XL pipeline, slowing energy development on government lands and waters, and forcing new restrictions on all forms of energy that Americans have used to become the number one economy in the world. Under this Administration, even cows are not spared as emission sources that must be controlled in Washington.

“We are told that this is all done to combat global warming. But the President’s agenda is not about global warming at all, and the fact that they’ve changed the name of their campaign to increase government intervention to “climate change” is all we need to know. This is their project to put Washington in charge of our energy supplies and our economy. This document is less a look into the climate than it is a scare tactic designed to excuse the President’s agenda of centralizing power in Washington and making energy more expensive and jobs harder to find.

“With this report, the White House has continued its legacy of being one of the least transparent administrations in history. Instead of having an honest and open debate about climate change and energy policy in Congress, where the President’s Cap-and-Tax plan failed, the administration continues to make their decisions behind closed doors. And as has become standard procedure in Obama’s White House, this document is intentionally confusing and misleading. In fact, the original draft was so large and convoluted that it came with a disclaimer that warned against downloading it. The only transparent part of this whole process was finally making John Podesta’s influence in the White House official by bringing him over from the Center for American Progress to head this campaign against American progress.

“None of this should come as a surprise, however, as this administration has always shown a willingness to bypass Congress, the American people, and common sense in the name of their climate action agenda. After all, this is the same President who said, ‘there is more than one way to a skin a cat’ after the failure of Cap-and-Tax, and where only yesterday, John Podesta announced that Congress can’t stop the President on his global warming agenda.”

###

Print Friendly

View Comments
  • jojo

    Do you know, that it is most importantly to look on cow emissions? The whole animal production is producing over 60% of the greenhouse gases! So it is indeed very important to involve cows in the calculation!

    • Ellen williams

      I sure hope you are being facetious; I couldn’t tell.

      • Susan O’neill

        I think he is joking. All the cows in the world(including the five million buffalo slaughtered in the 1879’s) do not contribute to CO2. They do give nitrogen, potassium and phosphates and if bagged and confined will ferment and produce nitrates(the natural process of decay) and then nitrites which are poisonous in your fish tank. The NPK ratio of 7:7: 7 when cattle and horse manure are mixed with straw or other dead colenchaema(dead plant stalks)provide energy to fuel heating in strong enough concentrations(but by ‘eck, it do smell something terrible)

    • Scottar

      You mean methane? It’s only about 0.00018% of the atmosphere and oxidizes in 28 days.

      And the forcing effect of CO2 is greatly exaggerated:

      http://climateclash.com/?p=543

      G3. The Greenhouse Gas Effect Does Not Exist, Part 1

      But meat can be an inefficient food source over beans, rice, wheat and corn. But I like meat now and then as a supplemental food source, just don’t forget your vegies!

  • Christine Purdue Storms

    America consumes 1/4 of the world’s energy resources which is not in scale to our population. We are energy hogs! This nation is one of the most wasteful and extravagant consumers of everything! We need to become a more frugal society, less wasteful and more conscienscious of our consumption. We should be recycling more and coming up with less destructive ways to extract our natural resources that don’t pollute our soils, water, and air. We are a clever species that must start thinking proactively about our finite energy resources that we are dependent on and begin to develop other means of energy, because they will be gone. And perhaps in the process of extraction, we may have damaged ecosystems in which we need to survive as a species.Do you like eating uncontaminated healthy foods? Do you like having clean water to drink? Or how about clean air to breathe? We must strike a balance!

    • Dr Evil

      You must not have been alive during the 70’s. Boston Harbor used to be the city’s sewage dump. LA’s skies were brown.

      The US leads the world in cleaning up the environment.

      Btw, on your

      “America consumes 1/4 of the world’s energy resources which is not in scale to our population.”

      America’s economy makes up 25% of the total of all economies in the world. It’s not by population, it’s by what you produce.

  • mgeile

    I left the states to get a masters in renewable energy engineering and management in Germany. I currently live in a country where over 25% of electricity is generated with renewable resources. Its ignorant to ignore the energy advancements happening in the rest of the developed world, and I suggest politicians take notice soon. There are so many ways to easily reduce energy consumption that I wont even mention them here, the list is too long. Just look at Germany. It is basically one of the strongest countries in the EU, is an industrial powerhouse, has less unemployment percentages and has managed to maintain this global position while working towards better sustainable energy solutions. They are a successful example of that we Americans should strive to emulate.

  • Renee

    This is the negative politics that will continue to enslave U.S. to oil/gas destructive fraking. The strong economic future is clean energy.

    • Richard A. Fletcher

      There’s a reason renewables only generate less than… 10% of total energy in this country, and that is they can’t compare to the power density of oil, http://bit.ly/1FoACcM

      • SilenceIsConsent

        What it means, contrary to your remarks, is that inventors world wide should be hired to identify best of breed solutions to energy development. Not a single person here has brought up recycling, remaking, reusing and repurposing all the one-time-used plastic, glass, aluminum, rubber, building materials that are filling up landfills. There is an entire new economy just waiting to be developed.

        • Dr Evil

          They already recycle many of the things you listed.

          Most households have 2 or 3 containers supplied by waste companies to separate material. And go by a scrap yard some day.

          Here’s one.

          It takes more energy to produce corn based ethanol than you get out of it. When it’s burned it emits as much CO2 if not more than natural gas. And it places a large demand and therefore increases prices of a food crop, hurting lower income families. It also damages engine parts. And yet the government forces a minimum of 10% ethanol content in our gasoline.

          You haven’t mentioned anything about the government, particularly a presidential candidate that has to win Iowa (and other corn growing states) to become president, shutting down the waste that is corn based ethanol.

  • Susan O’neill

    This article has shown it’s true bias towards US hegemony with no consideration for the legacy they leave behind. Downplaying the importance of CO2 emissions and global warming is shortsighted, with the main beneficiaries promoting their own agenda whilst ensuring those who pay the price are the least informed. Some legacy to leave the children of the future(not that they will have one)

    • Richard A. Fletcher

      Can you explain why there hasn’t been any temperature increase in was 18 years, and yet we’ve pushed MORE and MORE CO2 into the the atmosphere?

      • Susan O’neill

        There has been temperature increase that is what concerns people so much, the Antarctic sea shelf Larsen C is in danger of snapping away(Larsen a and B have already broken and probably have contributed to the sea levels rising). Which temperature increase are you not aware of – there are several sources from marine and oceanic to deserts and micro climes as well as glacier and snow cap melt and also wind and dust particulate increase. Ehere would you like me to start and how much space do you have to download the terrabites of data available?

      • SilenceIsConsent

        Richard, are you a climate scientist? Most of us believe what qualified and educated scientific professionals who work directly in the field.

        • Richard A. Fletcher

          No, I am not a climate scientist, as you call ithem, but I can read and understand lots of things, please tell me why the UK Met office now saying that that the “Pause” is real but they don’t know how long it will last, http://bit.ly/1NGRgac

          • SilenceIsConsent

            The brightest men and women on the planet are advancing climate science work. If you have a question about a pause in heating you might want to contact one of them.

            These 2 brilliant men have dedicated their careers to climate science. Their work is peer reviewed.

            http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/socolow/
            http://www.princeton.edu/step/people/faculty/michael-oppenheimer/

            In case you’re interested in getting a degree in climate science. http://www.princeton.edu/cics/

          • Richard A. Fletcher

            I don’t have a question about the pause, I only pointed out that the UK Met acknowledges it and doesn’t know how long it will last.

          • SilenceIsConsent

            Want to mention that there are exceptionally brilliant people in the world. These are to students to go to MIT, Cornell, Cal Tech, Stanford. They embrace science, mathematics and physics. These are the people who worked on teams to develop semiconductors, printers, the satellites that can be seen at dusk and dawn, space station, vehicles, airplanes, refrigerators, missle technology, drones and everything else we use. We are able to communicate because of science. And something else. These men and women compete for excellence in what they do.

          • Richard A. Fletcher

            You already mentioned it, although I’m not sure what you’re trying to say other than there are some smart people in the world.

          • SilenceIsConsent

            You’re right. I kind of beat the intelligence of scientists to death. My point is that the men and women who are involved with measuring co2, methane and all the other pollutants in the atmposphere and ocean acidification and the rest are the same quality of individuals who developed all the technology since the beginning of industrialization.

            I don’t believe our planet has quit heating up. Glaciers around the world are receding – North and South America, Himalayas for example. I live in central California and until El Nino finally brought rain, the state had been in a severe drought since Jan. 8, 2012. Since it started raining in August, there has been severe and widespread erosion and mudslides where land was disturbed by things like thousands of wind turbines and wildfires where vegetation hasn’t grown back.

          • Richard A. Fletcher

            I do believe that the earth is still warming slightly, although not due to anything that man has done, rather it being the normal and natural since the little Ice Age. One particular document which talks about this is The Coming and Going of Glaciers: A New Alpine Melt Theory, http://bit.ly/1i07T5W. Another way of looking at this is the article, Understanding the Global Warming Debate, http://onforb.es/1kZaCOX, by Warren Meyer, virtually unheard of, but I think it’s well done and balanced. Obviously, I come down on the non-warmist side.

        • Dr Evil

          “Most of us believe what qualified and educated scientific professionals who work directly in the field.”

          I bet you said that about professional bankers, economists, and the politicians who ran the economy off the cliff.

          If you look at the “97% scientific consensus” claim, you’ll see that it’s actually 97% of 33% of abstracts (of peer reviewed papers) reviewed that mentions “climate change” or “global warming”.

          67% took no position (they were objective?), 33% said to some degree man is responsible.

          The authors and of course politicians use that study to claim there is a “97% consensus among scientists that man is responsible for climate change”.

    • Dr Evil

      Problems with the claim of mm climate change, beside the obvious fact it’s always changed-

      1. Last 18 year hiatus can’t be reconciled with the claim.

      2. Zoom out & since the industrial revolution, while CO2
      concentrations have skyrocketed 43%, temps have only increased about
      0.80 deg C or something the alarmists like to hide by only
      reporting anomaly temps, about a 3% increase (on the C scale or 0.3% on the K scale) in ave temps over the same
      period. We won’t mention the inconsistent decades of the 40’s to 80’s
      when falling temps & the fear of an ice age brought shivers to their
      spines.

      3. Let’s look at that comparison mentioned above closer. Their charts
      don’t graph CO2 to the actual temperature, but the full value of CO2 to
      the anomaly (or change in) temp. If the charts were plotted with full
      value CO2 & full value ave temps, the temp chart would be a noisy
      line with an insignificant slope compared to CO2’s 30 to 45 deg slope.

      4. Water vapor (wv) is 100X the green house gas CO2 is. Their claim is
      CO2, which makes up 0,04% of the atmosphere is the lever to the entire
      climate system.

      How? the objective reader might ask. Well a thing called
      the CO2-WVFeedback Loop. The claim is CO2 causes the atm to warm, which
      causes it to absorb more wv, which cause it to warm more, causing it to
      absorb more wv ad infinitum in a death spiral that results in the earth
      bursting into flames.

      By this mechanism then, ave atm wv should be
      skyrocketing along with CO2. Problem is ave atm wv has been on the
      decline the last 65 years. It turns out that the CO2-WVFL is negative,
      because wv has a dampening effect like a ballcock in a toilet valve. Water vapor creates clouds, which
      reflect the sun’s radiation back into space.

      5. Speaking of clouds, THE expert on this phenomena, Bjorn Stevens at
      the Max Planck Institute published 2 papers explaining why the IPCC
      climate models are complete drivel.

      6. And then we just had NASA come out an announce that burning fossil fuels actually cools the environment,.. temporarily at least. But the worst part for the alarmists is, they agree with the Max Planck Institute and claim on a doubling of CO2 concentrations (from 400 ppmv to 800) the resultant delta T would be from 1.0 to 1.7 deg C. Not the 1.5 to 4.5 deg C the IPCC claims.

      a. Now they just had a conference in Paris claiming everyone agreed to limit the temperature change to under 2 deg C by the end of the century. (I guess when it’s called climate change, it’s not clear if they meant +/- 2 deg). Well since it will take about 2 to 300 yrs for CO2 concentrations to double even on current parabolic emission trends, it’s a non issue,.. especially when it wouldn’t rise 2 deg by the end of the next century.

      b. We’ll be out of fossil fuels in 50 to 100 yrs, so the issue is doubly moot.

      c. The temperature has risen 0.8 deg C since the industrial revolution (well again except for the strange 30 yr period between the 40’s and 70’s when the alarmists were as equally worried we were heading into another ice age) and we’ve prospered. Sea levels didn’t rise 20 ft as Al Gore predicted. (I guess no one told him that the north pole has no land and therefore whether ice or water, it’s not going to change sea levels). Who’s to say that another 0.8 deg C rise will destroy us. Proxy records show it’s been warmer many times over the last 4 or 5 cycles of glacial – interglacials over the last 400K yrs. The same records that show CO2 lagging temperature.

  • This statement by IER Senior Vice President Dan Kish basically is saying: ignore science, ignore the future of the planet, ignore food supply, ignore rising oceans. Ignore everything except government intervention to promote alternative energy, but that argument doesn’t hold up under analysis. According to a recent IEA report, the US gives a $700 billion annual subsidy to the fossil fuel industry (once the negative externalities such as increased health care costs are included). By not forcing the fossil fuel industry to pay its true costs, the government is allowing a massive market distortion to take place. The best way to correct this market distortion is a fee-and-dividend on carbon. Of course, people like Mr. Kish would scream about how horrible it is to use government intervention to correct a market distortion. People of his ilk would prefer that we continue on a path that will eventually lead to extinction of the human species. Sometimes I question the sanity of these free market fundamentalists.

    • Scottar

      The renewable industry get far more in subsidies when you look at payouts on mw/h with less returns and virtually generates no tax revenue:

      http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/energetics/the-fossil-fuel-subsidy-red-herring

      The Fossil Fuel Subsidy Red Herring

      The renewable industry would do far more damage to the planets ecosystems due to the extensive mining and refining impacts to support the infrastructure costs.

      The more the renewable industry penetrates the grid the higher the electricity costs.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/03/obama-may-finally-succeed/

      Obama May Finally Succeed!

      And there is no consensus on AGW:

      http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&Itemid=67

      International Climate Science Coalition

      http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=1

      Climate Experts Who Signed Manhattan Declaration

      Over 200 prominent scientists who do climate research.

      Humans may have an impact on the ecosystem via numbers but not on the climate vi CO2 emissions. Look beyond the bureaucratic hype.

      • SilenceIsConsent

        I agree thorough about the renewable energy damage to the environment. A single 480 foot tall wind turbine weighs 134 tons. I live near a cement plant that is the 2nd highest emitter in the U.S. of coal fired kiln mercury. Now that the Tehachapi Pass is saturated with WTGs the plan is to continue north into the next county, Inyo. Also the desert is being converted to solar farms, absolutely destroying the most sensitive ecosystems in the country. Mojave Desert tortoises are moved while they hibernate. I just commented on a federal notice for one of the windfarms to get approved by Southwest Fish and Wildlife Services for 5 year TAKES of Golden Eagles that are protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1962. They have already been granted a TAKE permit to kill California condor. Not long ago they were nearly extinct. Their habitat is within range of all the local wind farms. Seven of the wind farms were supposed to install radar equipment to detect condors (tagged) from 16 miles away. No one has installed them and there’s a guy who watches for them 7 days a week. This is the weak, senseless approach they are taking. I never quit fighting.

        • Scottar

          Yeah but now your fighting big crony money. Once the grubmint gets involved in promoting favorites it’s like trying to stop a runaway 2 mile freight train. It takes a vast grassroots organization that threatens the establishment regimen. So many LIVs are sold on the clean and free energy faux.

          Here in NM, thank’s to former Governor Bill Richardson, we have the big money pit called the Rail Runner that was suppose to reduce auto emissions (IE congestion) when actually it was more for the state workers who commute to Santa Fe from Albuquerque as they can’t afford to live in Santa Fe. It also benefited the railroad unions.

          And although the majority of voters disapprove of auto licenses for illegals, every time the bill to revoke them comes up the Senate controlled committees table it and there’s probably big money behind that too.

          http://greencorruption.blogspot.com/

    • SilenceIsConsent

      Thank you for going the extra mile.

    • Richard A. Fletcher
  • SilenceIsConsent
  • blowinsmoke

    I have a degree from the great University of life over the last 71 years. This has taught me that almost all so say “expert scientists” who claim that their science is “settled” are “bull of fullshit”!

    Hugs.

    • Rey d’Tutto

      If it has been Settled, it ain’t Science, but Theology.

  • Alberto G.

    Dirty energy polluters poison, sicken and destroy life. They have the money to buy and own politicians. Also their PR spew their propaganda as if they care about jobs and economy- ha. Don’t they aim to do whatever is necesary for profit? Just like keep getting the billion$ and billion$ they get year after year in subsidies? Uuh, rare metals are bad, it is said. Can the author of this article write about the consequences of the oil spill by BP in the gulf of Mexico and many many other cases of pollution around the world? Like the poisoning of the land and water in Ecuador? I don’t think so, it would go against some special interest groups like the Koch brothers and alikes who are anti-innovation to mantain their privilege$. How about seeking after profit and at the same time having compassion and respect for the Lord’s creation? How about allowing the free market develop new technologies and competition without the dirty energy polluters owning the Government working to please and serve them so their privileges stay safe. There was a time when 13 colonies wanted to become free from a tyrant and the United States of America was born. The land of freedom, democracy and free enterprise. Not the land of people like the Koch tyrants and alikes. How about ending subsidies for dirty and clean energies?

    • Ralph1001

      Wind turbines now kill 3 – 5 million bats a year

      The slaughtering of bats by wind turbines isn’t slowing down; it’s
      getting worse. The 21st century wind turbine bat-killing rate has
      already begun to seriously threaten the long-term survival of the
      world’s 172 endangered bat species. According to scientists publishing
      in the journal Mammal Review (O’Shea et al., 2016), the spinning blades of wind turbines (together with white noise syndrome) are now the leading cause of multiple mortality events in bats.

      http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/08/bat-destruction-data-show-wind-energy-is-wiping-out-wildlife-and-not-saving-it/

  • jim.swanek

    .

    First, they will promise the poor will never pay more on an annual net basis for energy.

    Second, then you realize the middle class will pay higher per unit costs, will get back 5 cents on the dollar of their added annual costs, AND will pay special taxes to subsidize the poor.

    Third, the middle class, with their government-pushed higher food, energy and water costs, will no longer be able to save one dime for retirement.

    Fourth, the middle class will then be so completely at the mercy of government in retirement, that they will not even bleat…

    .

  • Only non scientists deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The science behind AGW is 100% fact. The uncertainties lie with the amount of feedback. And the solution is 100,000 “mini” modular nuke plants, about a million square miles of solar or tens of millions of sq mi of wind turbines (with land in between for other uses), or a combination of all three plus existing hydro.
    Only backwards thinking would want to continue with BURNING old fossils!

    • Richard A. Fletcher

      Disagree completely, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas but man’s contribution to warming (AGW) is still very much in dispute and is likely less than 1/30th the amount of natural warming. Don’t disagree that nukes could help stop this question from ever arising but enviros won’t consider them. Both wind and solar are too heavily subsidized to be an effective/cost effective power source. FF are still the most reliable for baseload power and backup for your wind and solar, http://bit.ly/2endZ3V.

      • Robert

        Nice to know you disagree. Nevertheless, we still have to replace fossil fuels because we are altering the CO2 content of the entire atmosphere (see CO2 graph) and, perhaps even more importantly, we will eventually run out of FFs. They need to be used for all the other things they are used for OTHER than for burning, so that future generating don’t have to synthesize it all.
        Solar will get cheaper as per history proves already.

        • Richard A. Fletcher

          Solar is getting cheaper and will always get cheaper but until there is a storage mechanism for it we don’t have any way to power homes at night or industry after hours. As far as running out of fossil fuels, we will always need liquid fuels because their power density. Here’s more Nonsense on Peak Oil, http://bit.ly/2esfvQt

          • Robert

            We should run out of conventional oil faster than wet think because it is being consumed at an exponential rate, hence the exponential increase of excess co2 in the air.
            Eventually, all of Asia, Africa, and rest of world will be powering each person to the levels that the rich enjoy today. Fossil fuels are meant to be a kick starter, not a forever fuel (because it takes longer to form than to dig up and burn).

            By the time we start seeing much higher fossil fuel prices (due to that increased demand versus supply, and due to fears of global warming), we should have a reliable flow battery or solid state battery that will be cheap enough to back the renewables at the entire grid scale. We might even have cheap deployable fusion by 2050 but all the moving parts (like with the stream turbine parts of nuclear, concentrated solar thermal and coal today) might not be as cheap as the solid state, no moving parts solutions of mass produced energy collecting and storing devices.

            If a billion people work at it, it’ll be like all things are possible with God.

          • Richard A. Fletcher

            Robert,
            Just because an increase number of people Are desiring an item does not mean the price has to increase. Several years ago a famous economist that Paul Ehrlich that he could choose any number of raw metals, and that over the course of time, those metals would go down in price. the bid was 15 Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich, http://bit.ly/1Mjq4Lu, and the second link describes why the prices went down, rather than up, http://bit.ly/2dAePsZ. Never count out innovation!

Back to top