President Takes Bold Step on Climate Change

Big Bend Coal Power Station in Apollo Beach, Florida in the United States.
Big Bend Coal Power Station in Apollo Beach, Florida in the United States.

Initiative Sets Carbon Pollution Standards For Power Plants

One Monday, President Obama announced his “Clean Power Plan,” calling it the biggest step taken to date to combat climate change. The plan sets the first-ever carbon pollution standards for power plants, while providing states and utilities with the flexibility they need to meet those standards.

“I am convinced that no challenge poses a greater threat, to our future generations, than changing climate,” he said at a press conference.

“We have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that’s not polluted or damaged. The effects of climate change are already being felt across the nation. In the past three decades, the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled, and climate change is putting those Americans at greater risk of landing in the hospital,” the White House said in a release.

It added, “Extreme weather events – from more severe droughts and wildfires in the West to record heat waves – and sea level rise are hitting communities across the country. In fact, 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all occurred in the first 15 years of this century and last year was the warmest year ever. The most vulnerable among us – including children, older adults, people with heart or lung disease, and people living in poverty – are most at risk from the impacts of climate change. Taking action now is critical.”

The Clean Power Plan establishes the first-ever national standards to limit carbon pollution from power plants.

“We already set limits that protect public health by reducing soot and other toxic emissions, but until now, existing power plants, the largest source of carbon emissions in the United States, could release as much carbon pollution as they wanted,” the release continued.

The final Clean Power Plan sets flexible and achievable standards to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, 9 percent more ambitious than the proposal. By setting carbon pollution reduction goals for power plants and enabling states to develop tailored implementation plans to meet those goals, the Clean Power Plan is a strong, flexible framework that will:

  • Provide significant public health benefits – The Clean Power Plan, and other policies put in place to drive a cleaner energy sector, will reduce premature deaths from power plant emissions by nearly 90 percent in 2030 compared to 2005 and decrease the pollutants that contribute to the soot and smog and can lead to more asthma attacks in kids by more than 70 percent. The Clean Power Plan will also avoid up to 3,600 premature deaths, lead to 90,000 fewer asthma attacks in children, and prevent 300,000 missed work and school days.
  • Create tens of thousands of jobs while ensuring grid reliability;
  • Drive more aggressive investment in clean energy technologies than the proposed rule, resulting in 30 percent more renewable energy generation in 2030 and continuing to lower the costs of renewable energy.
  • Save the average American family nearly $85 on their annual energy bill in 2030, reducing enough energy to power 30 million homes, and save consumers a total of $155 billion from 2020-2030;
  • Give a head start to wind and solar deployment and prioritize the deployment of energy efficiency improvements in low-income communities that need it most early in the program through a Clean Energy Incentive Program; and
  • Continue American leadership on climate change by keeping us on track to meet the economy-wide emissions targets we have set, including the goal of reducing emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

The Clean Power Plan:   

  • Provides Flexibility to States to Choose How to Meet Carbon Standards: EPA’s Clean Power Plan establishes carbon pollution standards for power plants, called carbon dioxide (CO2) emission performance rates. States develop and implement tailored plans to ensure that the power plants in their state meet these standards– either individually, together, or in combination with other measures like improvements in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The final rule provides more flexibility in how state plans can be designed and implemented, including: streamlined opportunities for states to include proven strategies like trading and demand-side energy efficiency in their plans, and allows states to develop “trading ready” plans to participate in “opt in” to an emission credit trading market with other states taking parallel approaches without the need for interstate agreements. All low-carbon electricity generation technologies, including renewables, energy efficiency, natural gas, nuclear and carbon capture and storage, can play a role in state plans.
  • More Time for States Paired With Strong Incentives for Early Deployment of Clean Energy: State plans are due in September of 2016, but states that need more time can make an initial submission and request extensions of up to two years for final plan submission.  The compliance averaging period begins in 2022 instead of 2020, and emission reductions are phased in on a gradual “glide path” to 2030. These provisions to give states and companies more time to prepare for compliance are paired with a new Clean Energy Incentive Program to drive deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency before 2022.
  • Creates Jobs and Saves Money for Families and Businesses: The Clean Power Plan builds on the progress states, cities, and businesses and have been making for years. Since the beginning of 2010, the average cost of a solar electric system has dropped by half and wind is increasingly competitive nationwide. The Clean Power Plan will drive significant new investment in cleaner, more modern and more efficient technologies, creating tens of thousands of jobs. Under the Clean Power Plan, by 2030, renewables will account for 28 percent of our capacity, up from 22 percent in the proposed rule. Due to these improvements, the Clean Power Plan will save the average American nearly $85 on their energy bill in 2030, and save consumers a total of $155 billion through 2020-2030, reducing enough energy to power 30 million homes.
  • Rewards States for Early Investment in Clean Energy, Focusing on Low-Income Communities: The Clean Power Plan establishes a Clean Energy Incentive Program that will drive additional early deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency. Under the program, credits for electricity generated from renewables in 2020 and 2021 will be awarded to projects that begin construction after participating states submit their final implementation plans. The program also prioritizes early investment in energy efficiency projects in low-income communities by the Federal government awarding these projects double the number of credits in 2020 and 2021. Taken together, these incentives will drive faster renewable energy deployment, further reduce technology costs, and lay the foundation for deep long-term cuts in carbon pollution. In addition, the Clean Energy Incentive Plan provides additional flexibility for states, and will increase the overall net benefits of the Clean Power Plan.
  • Ensures Grid Reliability: The Clean Power Plan contains several important features to ensure grid reliability as we move to cleaner sources of power. In addition to giving states more time to develop implementation plans, starting compliance in 2022, and phasing in the targets over the decade, the rule requires states to address reliability in their state plans. The final rule also provides a “reliability safety valve” to address any reliability challenges that arise on a case-by-case basis. These measures are built on a framework that is inherently flexible in that it does not impose plant-specific requirements and provides states flexibility to smooth out their emission reductions over the period of the plan and across sources.
  • Continues U.S. Leadership on Climate Change: The Clean Power Plan continues United States leadership on climate change. By driving emission reductions from power plants, the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Clean Power Plan builds on prior Administration steps to reduce emissions, including historic investments to deploy clean energy technologies, standards to double the fuel economy of our cars and light trucks, and steps to reduce methane pollution. Taken together these measures put the United States on track to achieve the President’s near-term target to reduce emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and lay a strong foundation to deliver against our long-term target to reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The release of the Clean Power Plan continues momentum towards international climate talks in Paris in December, building on announcements to-date of post-2020 targets by countries representing 70 percent of global energy based carbon emissions.
  • Sets State Targets in a Way That Is Fair and Is Directly Responsive to Input from States, Utilities, and Stakeholders: In response to input from stakeholders, the final Clean Power Plan modifies the way that state targets are set by using an approach that better reflects the way the electricity grid operates, using updated information about the cost and availability of clean generation technologies, and establishing separate emission performance rates for all coal plants and all gas plants.
  • Maintains Energy Efficiency as Key Compliance Tool: In addition to on-site efficiency and greater are reliance on low and zero carbon generation, the Clean Power Plan provides states with broad flexibility to design carbon reduction plans that include energy efficiency and other emission reduction strategies.  EPA’s analysis shows that energy efficiency is expected to play a major role in meeting the state targets as a cost-effective and widely-available carbon reduction tool, saving enough energy to power 30 million homes and putting money back in ratepayers’ pockets.
  • Requires States to Engage with Vulnerable Populations: The Clean Power Plan includes provisions that require states to meaningfully engage with low-income, minority, and tribal communities, as the states develop their plans. EPA also encourages states to engage with workers and their representatives in the utility and related sectors in developing their state plans.
  • Includes a Proposed Federal Implementation Plan: EPA is also releasing a proposed federal plan today. This proposed plan will provide a model states can use in designing their plans, and when finalized, will be a backstop to ensure that the Clean Power Plan standards are met in every state. 

Richard L. Revesz ,a professor and dean emeritus at the New York University School of Law, and Jack Lienke, an attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity, in an op-ed in the New York Times call this “the most important action any president has taken to address the climate crisis.”

They write, “Power plants are the largest source of such pollution in the United States, responsible for more than a third of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. This greenhouse gas is the main driver of climate change, yet, until today, most plants could emit the pollutant in unlimited quantities.”

“The president’s plan is important not only because of the reductions it will achieve in domestic emissions. It also signals to the international community that America is serious about reining in its contribution to the global problem of greenhouse gas pollution. This message is particularly salient as the world’s nations prepare to gather in Paris in December to negotiate a new climate agreement,” they add.

The New York Times editorial calls it a “tough, achievable climate plan” calling it “unquestionably the most important step the administration has taken in the fight against climate change.”

The Times argues that “new rules will codify and accelerate” existing trends that have seen “carbon emissions from power plants have been declining — a result of a shift in energy generation from coal to cheap and abundant natural gas, regulation of other pollutants, like mercury, which has caused utilities to shut down older plants, and investments in cleaner fuels and energy efficiency.”

The main goal “is a nationwide reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 32 percent by 2030, from a 2005 baseline.”

However, the future will likely depend on the coming presidential election.

The Times notes, “Even if the courts rule that the new regulations are fully consistent with the E.P.A.’s authority under the Clean Air Act, a future president could rescind or delay them. Hillary Rodham Clinton has said she supports the plan and will carry it out. Republicans are unanimously opposed.”

The stage has been set now.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts


  1. Barack Palin

    Save the average American family nearly $85 on their annual energy bill in 2030

    LOL, I about fell out of my chair when I read this.  Hilarious, the Liar-in-Chief will say anything to get his agenda through knowing that in 2030 when everyone’s energy bills are sky high they’ll never remember that he said this.

    So we now have the $2500 Obamacare savings lie added to the $85 energy savings lie totaling up to we’re all going to be paying a lot more.  Do I have that about right?

    What type of arithmetic are these Democrats using?

    Climate Math?

  2. Tia Will


    I think that you raise a good question. This is a claim that I would like to see addressed on

    Or maybe one of our own local “fact checkers” Don, Matt or another good information researcher would like to weight in on for the benefit of those who have not already made up their minds.

    1. Barack Palin

      How can one fact check some lie that’s supposed to happen in 2030?  Did they fact check the $2500 promised Obamacare savings that Obama lied about before we all now know that it was indeed a lie in order to push though his healthcare agenda?

      1. hpierce

        “How can one fact check some lie that’s supposed to happen in 2030?”  The technique is very similar to declaring something that will happen in 2030, is “a lie” in 2015.  

        1. Barack Palin

          Good point but I have proof that the man lies already, the $2500 Obamacare savings lie.  So the %$#&-in-Chief has a track record to go by when it comes to pushing through his agenda and unfortunately there’s enough Kool-aid drinking sheep out there that believe him.


  3. Biddlin

    Who knows what eighty-five 2030 dollars will be worth at 2015 standards?

    Do we need to do something about human-made planet warming? Of course,  so let’s get on with it.


  4. Dave Hart

    By 2030, the effects of climate change and the extent of human impact on climate will become more apparent and “provable” to even the most skeptical.  Anyone in political office who took a strong stand on limiting the factors that intensify the process of heat gain by atmospheric gases will be seen to be the most visionary.  While this is not a partisan political party issue (many Democrats are not fully on board) in backing the President’s initiatives, it is striking that there are practically no Republicans in support.  While I certainly don’t agree with everything this President has done, he will probably be treated very well by history when (and if we are still around as a species) people look back and assess his Presidency.  Too bad for the Republicans that none of the candidates for POTUS have the intelligence to see beyond the next election fund-raising cycle.  It’s an opportunity they have chosen to skip and their stance toward climate change will peg them for a long time like Herbert Hoover, oblivious to the obvious.

  5. TrueBlueDevil

    1. Our greatest threat is radical Islam, not so-called Climate Change. See Iran, see potentially WWIII.

    2. Google “warming hiatus” – and you will get results which show that we have had no warming for 19, 20, or 2 years.

    3. Imagine a stadium with 10,000 seats. Imagine that 4 of those seats are man-made carbon dioxide. Think they really have that much influence on so-called warming?

    4. Imagine Iran goes nuclear, and then the entire Middle East goes nuclear. Explain to me again how a clean coal plant is more dangerous than this scenario?

    5. The oceans emit vast amounts of CO2, enough to boggle the mind.

    6. China and India’s pollution makes anything we do moot.

    7. Due to #6, we will simply raise out energy prices, kill jobs, kill more industries, and shift more jobs to other countries. There go more working-class jobs.

    8. The CO2 created in China will still float our way, and the large container ships also emit pollution.

    9. FYI, wind turbines kill millions of birds and hawks. There is no “free lunch”. There are trade offs.

  6. Dave Hart

    Yeah, what do those collitch perfessers who study atmospheric physics know anyway?  For those Vanguard readers who seek intelligent thought on the subject, Margaret Atwood has a great piece out on the topic:

    One really great quote from the above article in reference to climate deniers: “What a practical idea for solving pesky problems: let’s not talk about it, and maybe it will go away.”


    1. TrueBlueDevil

      I believe the IPCC report said that we’d need to build 1,000 nuclear power plants worldwide (no Co2) to even dent the CO2 levels.

      If we built more, at the rate of Sweden and France, we could have a huge impact, but many Warmists are against nuclear, coal, and even NG.

      We can’t survive on wind and solar power, they are too intermittent and small. There are also plenty of scientists who reject the gloom-and-doom of the Warmists.

  7. TrueBlueDevil

    By today, 50,000 islanders were supposed to have been relocated due to rising oceans. Zero have relocated.

    Oceans potentially would rise 10, 20, 30 feet. They have not, and Al Gore bought beachfront property and has become very wealthy.

    There have been two situations where there was massive fraud where Global Warming cheerleaders cooked the books (numbers) to prove their hypothesis.


    1. jrberg

      El Diablo Azul, you have supplied exactly zero documentation to support your assertions.  Let me ask you for your proof of just one of your points above:

      5. The oceans emit vast amounts of CO2, enough to boggle the mind.

      How do you know that?  I’m willing to read any references you wish to provide.


  8. Frankly

    Obama is gifted at poking his finger in the eye of everyone that disagrees with him.

    That will be his legacy.  The most irritating US President ever.

    The scientific theory of anthropogenic climate change is simply a money-making scheme cooped by leftists as a tool to implement more government control of the economy.  Because they and their ilk are better positioned to profit when government has more control of the economy.

    1. jrberg

      The scientific theory of anthropogenic climate change is simply a money-making scheme cooped by leftists as a tool to implement more government control of the economy.  Because they and their ilk are better positioned to profit when government has more control of the economy.

      F, I invite you to join TBD in backing up your assertions with facts and references.  Until then, your accusations are irrelevant.


      1. Frankly

        Our federal government spends $22 billion per year on “global warming” research.  The scientific community has developed a nasty conflict of interest as the economy is not healthy enough to spur private R & D.  Scientists are not stupid here… they know where their bread is increasingly buttered from.   Anger the Dem politicians by going outside the party platform, and risk having your research funding cut.
        In 2001, before leaving office as vice president, Gore was worth less than $2 million. Since then, he has grown his wealth to $100 million . . . almost entirely by investing in a handful of “green-tech” companies . . . 14 of which received more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants, tax breaks, and more from the Obama administration.
        When $500 million in taxpayer money was given to Solyndra, both Goldman Sachs and George Kaiser benefited. Coincidentally, both have made contributions to Obama’s election campaigns adding up to roughly $1.25 million.
        The political left as led by Obama is moving forward on a policy agenda to push regulation on carbon led by authorities at the local, national, regional or global level; indirect regulation through increased pollution controls, constraints on water usage, or policies targeting health concerns; and mandates on renewable energy adoption and efficiency standards… etc., etc., etc.   What everyone needs to understand is that this is primarily a move by politicians, general Democrats, and government to create more tax and profit opportunity in their ongoing scheme to transform free enterprise to a greater “permission economy.”     When you need to go to government to get permission to start and run a business, they can legally shake you down for a bigger cut.  
        The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.5 trillion Washington is currently spending.  And this does not include the economic damage caused by all the uncertainty over the threat of increased regulations.

        1. Doby Fleeman


          Regarding the correlation between GHGs and Global Warming, I think enough research has been done to prove issue.

          The problem, however, as you point out is the cost of compliance with respect to both the initial investment and ongoing maintenance, monitoring and replacement of necessary scrubbers and related equipment to insure proper operation.

          I recently attended a briefing by two of Cal’s top researchers on GHG generation in China.  Bottom line, it doesn’t matter one scintilla what the US does until or unless China begins to follow suit immediately – particularly with respect to the maintenance side where they turned off most of their scrubbers.  Their numbers completely obliterate any and all efforts we might put forth over the coming decades.

          So, to your point, and reflective of the issues I have seen first hand with unemployment issues in the Midwest, how does the US intend to be competitive in the global market place?  We can’t if we keep piling on overhead and merely assume the manufacturers will be able to somehow recapture these mandated investments with higher prices.

          Bottom line, the US and our leaders face a real conundrum with respect to global trade initiatives.  The only place we are finding a path to lower costs is through automation – which means fewer and fewer manufacturing and production jobs (soon the robots will build the robots).

          The only option, it appears, would be serious negotiations with other major industrial powers to insure that we are all operating with the same effective “overhead structure”.   Maybe  then we could be competitive.   Otherwise, we end up migrating to superclean power and manufacturing – placing the US at a serious cost disadvantage – only to be faced with the equally/more serious threats of rising sea levels caused by massive and growing GHG emissions in China and India.

          The combination of continued cost increases associated with incremental gains in GHG emissions at home, with the increasing trend toward mechanization and related unemployment ramifications, pose serious challenges to economic growth at home.

          Arguing over the science of global warming is yesterday’s news, now we must turn to the much more difficult challenges of pushing China and India towards rapid gains in managing and containing their continued expansion of coal-fired power and damaging hydro-electric initiatives.

          Trade constraints and tariffs may be one of the few tools at our disposal – if we are serious, as a country, about forging meaningful progress on the GHG frontier.


        2. Frankly

          Regarding the correlation between GHGs and Global Warming, I think enough research has been done to prove issue.

          That’s fine, but it is the next step that is not yet proved.  That is the theory that one of the GHGs that happens to be the smallest percentage, and with a fraction of a fraction of that caused by man, is responsible for global warming and that we can predict the climate impacts.

          And unfortunately since that cannot be proved, the entire alarmist justification for more costly regulations is bunk.

          The combination of continued cost increases associated with incremental gains in GHG emissions at home, with the increasing trend toward mechanization and related unemployment ramifications, pose serious challenges to economic growth at home.

          Although I agree with this, I see another facet…

          Mechanism does not negatively impact economic growth.   But mechanism does impact jobs.  So unless you are for regulations to restrict mechanism, the only other way to ensure adequate jobs is to advocate for government policy that attracts and encourages greater real business investment.

          Related to this, I just came back from Oregon where I am required to wait for an employee to pump my gas for me.   It was not a positive experience from a customer perspective as I had to wait longer and the gas was more expensive than it would have been otherwise.  Oregon did this so people would have jobs pumping gas.  And since Oregon drivers would be captive customers (they have no alternative) this works out well enough.  They pay a bit more for gas since the gas station owner has higher labor costs and has to charge a premium at the pump.

          The problem is for business that has to compete on price…  and the fact that as the economic world grows flatter, and labor becomes more a global commodity, we cannot keep raising the cost of doing business to the benefit of domestic labor.

          But I do agree that there needs to be some global leveling of costs, wages, regulations, etc…  I think some of that happens organically as we go global.

          If you connect 100 car batteries together they will eventually all equalize in voltage pressure. That is the image to hold related to global trade agreements and their impact on domestic wages.  More advanced economies with higher wages are experiencing downward wage pressure, while emerging economies have wages on the rise.

          Obvioulsy US workers are unhappy with lower wages. Their anger is apparent with the popularity of a socialist-Marxist like Bernie Sanders. However, they are shouting at a wall. Globalism isn’t going back into the box. US labor needs to have this epiphany and begin to demand US policies that grow the economy and create more jobs. Because it is domestic labor demand that will produce sustainable wage increases; not anti-globalism demands to artificially prop-up wages beyond what the markets would otherwise be willing to pay.

          But global warming alarmism policies do the opposite… they make business more costly and because of this they chase capital away from business investment and it slows and stalls economic growth.


        3. TrueBlueDevil

          Frankly, I agree that we need a growing economy. We also need to close the southern border, which I believe Bernie Sanders also agrees with. He cited that we already have depressed wages and poor job prospects for our current citizens in the lower classes.

          More Americans working means more taxes paid, and less social services used. Win win.

          Imagine if we had cheap energy prices in sight for decades? Provide loans for new nuclear power plants, and extend supply lines for Natural Gas. Insulate 50 million homes. But we drag our feet, we lose billions on solar swindels, and the President blocks the XL Pipeline… is that because his buddie Warren Buffett makes so much money transporting oil by rail?

    1. jrberg

      First, you did not answer my direct inquiry about CO2 from oceans – you simply directed me to a classic propaganda website with multiple unsupported assertions.  The name, “Friends of Science,” is a classic way of hiding the site’s real purpose, much like a website advocating against women’s health could be named “Friends of Women.”  And they’re located in Alberta, Canada.  Hmmm, I wonder what else might be in Alberta with an interest in this kind of propaganda?  Here’s their position statement:

      Friends of Science Society Position Statement
      Our goal is to educate the public about climate science and through them
      bring pressure to bear on governments to engage in public debates on the
      scientific merits of the hypothesis of human induced global warming and
      the various policies that intend to address the issue.
      While FoS does not do any original scientific research, it draws on the
      worldwide body of work by scientists in all fields relating to global
      climate change.
      It is our opinion that the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of
      climate change. Variations in solar activity and cosmic rays correlate to temperature much better than CO2.  This may be because an electro-magnetically active sun diverts cosmic rays from hitting the atmosphere. Cosmic rays have been shown experimentally to assist in cloud formation. Fewer cosmic rays result in reduced low cloud cover, which allows more sunlight to warm the Earth’s surface.
      The United Nations – IPCC reports have been misrepresented by the non-
      scientific IPCC bureaucrats in preparing the Summary-for-Policy-Makers.
      Recent research casts doubt on historical data used by the IPCC. Urban
      effects have contaminated surface temperature data. Some measured CO2
      levels of the past 180 years appear to be in excess of present levels.
      Current climate computer models are unsuitable for making reliable
      climate forecasts mainly because they assume without justification that
      CO2 is the major driver of climate. The cosmic ray effects on clouds are
      ignored. The input assumptions are adjusted to make the temperature
      projections match recent temperature trends, thereby grossly exaggerating
      the effects of CO2 on the climate. The models, in response to CO2, predict
      a distinctive temperature profile in the atmosphere, which is totally absent
      from the observational record.

      The bolded paragraph above is a classic example of pseudoscientific claptrap which has been thoroughly debunked in the scientific literature.

      For a more nuanced view of this, you can read  Note that this site is fully referenced with peer reviewed papers.  Your propaganda site has virtually no references.  “Cosmic ray effects on clouds.”  I’d be embarrassed, as a scientist, to even say that out loud…..

  9. TrueBlueDevil

    This gets a little technical, but the graphs show just one event in the so-called “ClimateGate” and ClimateGate 2.0 scandals.

    The before and after charts show how the “scientists” adjusted the raw data to suit their political (funding?) needs. The first ClimateGate scandal was a turning point in many Americans turning a skeptical eye regarding the claims of Warmists.


    1. jrberg

      Any reference to Breitbart, The Daily Caller, or even the Huffington Post does not deserve a serious response.  Try finding some real references…


  10. Frankly

    To see where the collectivists want to take the US, just read about Germany’s Energiewende.   This was/is a national program to have the bulk of Germany’s energy supplied by renewable power sources by 2050, without endangering the country’s powerful industrial sector or an export-based economy.

    The results are in and Germany is heading toward serious challenges as the cost of energy has skyrocketed while carbon emissions have increased.

    Adding this to the fact that labor has grown to be more costly as German labor unions and government has demanded raise after raise, and Germany is just starting to see exports suffer from their inability to be price-competitive.

      1. Barack Palin

        Hardly an unbiased website:

        Since its launch in early 2012, has quickly emerged as Australia’s best informed and most read web-site focusing on clean energy news and analysis, as well as climate policy. It is read widely among the industry and policy-makers, and others with a strong interest in the transition to a low carbon economy. 

      2. Doby Fleeman

        I think you might be confusing sales with profits.   To Frankly’s real point, according to Forbes most recent edition:

        VW’s no exception to  the rule that the top slot carries a jinx. Its rise to No. 1 (if it ends the year ahead of Toyota) comes as the Chinese market, the biggest and most lucrative for Volkswagen, is losing steam.

        The Chinese market fell in June. Global middle market  brands are giving ground to local marques. Even luxury brands, such as Audi, are struggling, analysts say. For the first half of the year, reported on Wednesday, the group posted lower pre-tax profit, flat after tax. Audi’s operaing margin fell  slightly. The group is watching several markets closely, said Management Board Member Martin Winterkorn, the equivalent of CEO, singling out three countries — Brazil, Russia. and now China.

      3. Frankly

        Happy for you.  I just purchased a new Ford F150 and it is a wonderful American-made truck.

        You really should consider the source before posting links.  This is from a source that exists only to promote renewable energy.

        First, they did nothing close to a true economic analysis.  Second they failed to mention that the German government is currently subsidizing the true cost to a tune of about $26 billion per year.  Those price guarantees are binding for 20 years… or until about 2021.

        There are also exceptions for surcharges given to some industries that will terminate as early as 2017, when the EU is set to rule on them being unfair.

        Exports are way down.  The cost of energy is a big reason why.  And if the REAL cost was absorbed by all German business… which it will eventually… the German economy would likely be in a REAL recession at this point.


        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Yes, the solar panels newly built cause lots of eye pollution, and it takes years to replace the energy it took just to manufacture them. (I once heard 7 years.) They also need replacement.

          Windmills kill millions of birds. Both are intermittent sources of energy… they don’t work well in Cleveland in the middle of winter. Most of the wind also happens far from most major metropolitan areas, so that would require lots of transmission lines.

          High speed rail also produces a ton of Co2 during construction.

        2. Frankly

          Frankly, I’ve had an F150 for 16 years now.

          I’m close.  2001 going for sale after the 2015 I ordered is delivered in a week or two.

          Reading in the WSJ that a lot of import luxury SUV owners are going over to the F150 with all the bells and whistles.   I call it my “Cowboy Cadillac”!   With a camper shell I can load up on supplies from my shopping trips to Woodland, Sacramento, Dixon and Vacaville.

          That 700 lb lighter (aluminum frame) and one foot longer (all given to more leg room front and back seat) paired with that 3.5L Ecoboost V6 is awesome.  23 MPG.  365 HP and 420 ftp torque.

  11. TrueBlueDevil

    To try to explain the 20- or 21-year Global Warming hiatus (or pause), some theorists how have placed a theory on top of a theory – that the oceans are magically absorbing more carbon dioxide, which will somehow be released sometime in the future.

    I’ve also heard new mentions that we may be entering a new Global Cooling Phase.

    1. Doby Fleeman


      Why do you allow yourself to get trapped in the weeds – focusing on the science behind GHG and their effects on the planet?

      I encourage you to try taking it as a given – then move on.

      Obama is correct, LA is an incredibly more liveable place if you like to exercise than it was in the 1960s and 1970’s.  I know, I played competitive sports throughout those years.   Run a 100m footrace and puke your guts out for 10 minutes – unable to catch your breath from the smog.

      Point is, China is pumping out GHG’s at an unparalleled rate.   By some estimates, 4,000 residents are dying every day in China from respiratory complications due largely to air pollution.   It’s unbelievable the condition of their skies.

      Bottom line, power is a lot cheaper to produce when you don’t have to maintain the catalytic converters and scrubbers that were originally designed into the units.   These are our global economic competitors.   This is how they value the lives of their residents and their obligations as a global neighbor.

      The real challenge for the rest of the developed world is how do we get the Chinese to toe the line on their obligations as the world’s largest polluter?   That should be our focus.  That should inform our strategy.

      As for the changing chemistry of the world’s oceans, that too is no longer in doubt.  Check out the health of the world’s reef’s if you have any doubt.

      IMO, living now in 2015, denying the reality of the environmental impacts is not the place to pitch your battle.

        1. jrberg

          The oceans are absorbing both heat and CO2.  The heat is contributing to more intense storm events, while the CO2 is acidifying the ocean, which affects coral reefs and many other ecosystems.  Basic chemistry, guys.


        2. Frankly

          The heat is contributing to more intense storm events, while the CO2 is acidifying the ocean, which affects coral reefs and many other ecosystems.

          And the polar bears are dying too.

          Geesh… alarmism is alive and well in this space.


          New research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades, contrary to some recent studies.

          So now this alarmist theory that the oceans cannot absorb enough CO2 to keep up with emissions is bunk.

          But never fear… we have the backup alarm of acidifying the oceans.

          By the way, the polar bears are fine.

        3. jrberg

          Wow.  Just wow.  Frankly, do you really want your chemical, physics, and math illiteracy on display like this?  If you hadn’t called my factual comment “alarmist,” I might have let it pass.

          Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

          So what does this mean?  It means that both the atmospheric CO2 concentration and the dissolved CO2 concentration can increase, which has happened, but the ratio (fraction) is not changing.  The atmospheric concentration has gone past 400 ppm, and the oceanic concentration has also increased, reducing the pH.

          Sorry to be blunt, but if you’re really not qualified to analyze scientific data, you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

        4. TrueBlueDevil

          jrberg: “more intense storm events”.

          2015 Hurricane Season: One of the Least Active in Decades?

          The 2015 Atlantic hurricane season may be one of the least active in decades, according to an initial forecast issued Thursday by Colorado State University.
          “The early outlook released April 9 calls for seven named storms, including three hurricanes, one of which is predicted to attain major hurricane status (Category 3 or stronger on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale).
          “This is well below the 30-year average of 12 named storms, six hurricanes, and three major hurricanes….”

          In the 2013 season, for the first time since 1994, no hurricanes stronger than Category 2 developed. Since the satellite era began in 1960, only four other seasons failed to produce a single Category 3 or stronger hurricane (1994, 1986, 1972, 1968).”


  12. tribeUSA

    jrberg–good clarification, but to be fair to Frankly, the term ‘airborne fraction’ is a bit obscure to the nonspecialist who might not be familiar with its definition as a ratio.

    I remember seeing a recent article stating that the mean residence time of CO2 in the deep ocean is circa 50 years (based on C14 data, if I remember correctly). This suggests that changes in concentrations of CO2 in the deep ocean lag behind those changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere  by roughly 50 years; so if we were able to drastically reduce fossil-fuel emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere, transport to the deep oceans over the following few decades should result in some decline in atmospheric CO2 levels–would be interesting to find out what the steady-state levels of CO2 would be in the atmosphere, if fossil-fuel sources were completely cut off, such that some of the excess CO2 currently in the atmosphere is eventually transported to the deep ocean. Henry’s Law might give a rough estimate, but because of the dynamics of the ocean:atmosphere system equilibrium would not be be achieved; however a quasi steady-state might be achieved.
    A complication in such an investigation is the concurrent warming and acidification of the oceans; which changes the Henry’s Law partitioning.


    1. jrberg

      Good points.  I hadn’t seen the 50 year number, but I’m not surprised.  The Earth’s atmosphere/ocean system isn’t exactly a laboratory flask…


  13. TrueBlueDevil

    How many predictions by the Warmists have to fail before the believers question their prophets?

    Polar bears were supposed to decline in numbers – they increased.

    Oceans were supposed to rise up to 6′ – 8′ – they haven’t.

    The Hockey Stick was inverted – the wrong way.

    ClimateGate 1.0 lies.

    ClimateGate 2.0 lies.

    Forty (40) computer models by Warmists all failed to predict the temps / trends.

    21-year Global-Warming hiatus (pause).

    Didn’t temperatures drop during the Industrial Revolution?

    Global Warming “scientists” studying the “thinning” ice were caught in record ice.


    But Al Gore is filthy rich now, and how much do you want to bet Obama will be pulling in the BIG bucks from the “clean energy” companies when he leaves the White House?

    (We need to pass a law against this, WH and Congress.)

    1. jrberg

      TrueBeliever, I’m now beginning to think you failed chemistry and physics in high school.  I’m still waiting for your documentation on oceans emitting massive quantities of CO2.  Specific documentation, not a general reference to a propaganda site that doesn’t back up any of its assertions with real facts or data.

      Thanks, and have a lovely day.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for