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
May 6, 2014

More Scare Tactics From The White House

May 6, 2014
Print Friendly
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
  • 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”!


    • 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.

  • 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,

      • 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,

          • 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

            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,, and the second link describes why the prices went down, rather than up, Never count out innovation!

  • Oldpeoplemakingprofits

    Yay for the economies of the world. I’m 22 and none of the people making decisions that will affect the planet will likely not be around to see their demise from their actions. They will, however, profit now from it and be able to live a life of pure luxury. Take the monetary hit now so our beautiful planet and our beautiful kids and grandchildren can see Earth the way it was supposed to be. Thanks ‘Murica.

Back to top