Obama’s Climate Policy Thought: “Are we ready for battle?”

As I noted yesterday, I’m not going to get to worked up when it comes to Obama’s climate change plan. There are many things we could discuss, such as

  • The EPA admitting that it will raise the cost of energy by 6.5% by 2020, regardless of any spin by Obama and EPA head Gina McCarthy
  • That the plan would seriously harm the poor and middle class
  • That the supposed health benefits from the regulations are really from other regulations already in place
  • That the regulations will hurt jobs and the economy. This should be no surprise to anyone, since that’s what has happened to the majority of countries that attempted all sorts of “climate change” regulations post-Kyoto, especially in Europe, which, unshockingly, is moving away from these types of regulations.
  • That the public does not want nor care about this
  • There being no statistically significant warming for 17 years and 9 months, which is half the satellite record, despite rising CO2 levels
  • That 95% of the climate models have failed

And much, much more. The little plan threw the news media and pundit class into a tizzy Monday. Comments on Twitter and stories via Yahoo News (the only ones I can read while at work) were brutal against Obama and the EPA over the plan. Let’s look at this Politico article to see what was going through the minds of Obama and his team

The EPA’s proposed carbon emissions standards rule released Monday is one of the most significant actions the federal government’s ever taken on climate change. If finalized next year and put in place, it would be one of Obama’s largest legacy achievements.

Making sure that it didn’t seem like a big deal or all about Obama was all part of Podesta’s plan.

Interviews with Podesta and other senior White House aides on Monday portrayed a White House that had been closely involved along every step of the way, from drafting the rule to the roll-out and messaging effort surrounding it.

Lap after lap that evening in mid-May, Podesta and McDonough talked the president though the proposed rule. He wanted to know how it squared with promises he had made in Copenhagen in 2009, would hold up against the inevitable court challenges and how they’d attempted to balance the concerns of business, labor, Democrats and green groups so that everyone walked away not too disappointed and excited enough.

Last week in the Oval Office, Obama signed off on the outreach and messaging strategy Podesta and climate adviser Dan Utech briefed him on. The president wanted all the groups they needed bought in. He wanted the White House to be ready with whatever rebuttals they’d need. And most of all, he wanted to minimize the prospects of this becoming yet another flashpoint.

“He wanted to know,” Podesta said Monday evening, relaxed after a successfully calm roll-out day, “‘Okay, how are we prepared for battle here?’”

Let me ask, if this plan is supposed to be so super-awesome for the American people, why do they need to be “prepared for battle”? Possibly because Dems from energy producing states want nothing to do with this plan? Let’s not forget that the climate change plans passed and initiated in Australia by the ruling Labor Party first saw Labor decimated in the Queensland 2012 elections, to the point that Labor had so few seats that they no longer were considered a recognized political party in the parliament. Labor was similarly blown out during the national elections in 2013. In both cases, the cause was the climate change legislation.

As I wrote Monday prior to the release of the 665 pages of rules

Essentially, this is no more than throwing a bone to the unhinged Warmists, and not much different from the “spreading awareness” campaigns Warmists have engaged in for 25 years. It will do little, and possibly never be initiated. If a Republican wins the White House, he/she can throw the rules out immediately. Lawsuits will surely be filed by the end of this year, and they will continue on easily through 2016. Funny how the rules do not have to be in place prior to Obama leaving the White House, eh?

This is Obama’s legacy: plans that are bad for American’s, and they know it. Hence, Obama wants nothing to do with actual implementation during his presidency.

From EPA Facts. No worries, though, because Team Obama is prepared for battle. At the end of the day, this will not be implemented. And Obama can say “hey, I tried”.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “Obama’s Climate Policy Thought: “Are we ready for battle?””

  1. Jeffery says:

    “The EPA admitting that it will raise the cost of energy by 6.5% by 2020, regardless of any spin by Obama and EPA head Gina McCarthy” — The next sentence in the article you cited (and incorrectly quoted) stated that retail electricity prices would decrease 9% after 2030. You trust computer models for projecting price increases in 2020 but don’t trust computer models to project temperature trends or prices in 2030, lol. —

    “That the plan would seriously harm the poor and middle class” — This is your unsupported opinion. Evidence? —

    “That the supposed health benefits from the regulations are really from other regulations already in place” — Huh? Please explain yourself. I suspect you are intentionally conflating the acute health effects of coal pollution, e.g., asthma, associated with particulate pollution, with the long-term global warming from carbon dioxide pollution.—

    “That the regulations will hurt jobs and the economy.” — Even the industry-friendly Chamber of Commerce concluded little impact on jobs and the economy. Do you have other secret evidence? —

    “That the public does not want nor care about this” — We are working successfully to change the minds of the public. Do you think we should base all our policies on opinion polls, or just climate? —

    “There being no statistically significant warming for 17 years and 9 months, which is half the satellite record, despite rising CO2 levels” — This is misleading. Of the several global temperature datasets, the RSS satellite dataset shows the least warming, which is why Mr. Teach uses RSS and only RSS to support his prejudice. The land, oceans and atmosphere continue to warm, even for the last 17 years 9 months. Mr. Teach picks 17 years 9 months because that interval begins with a massive El Nino year which resulted in one of the warmest years on record. He is not being honest with his readers.—

    “That 95% of the climate models have failed” — Mr. Teach uncritically repeats this claim from the increasingly unhinged Roy Spencer. Mr. Spencer constructed a graph, and by fudging the baseline claimed that the atmospheric temperature record fell below 95% of the climate models. He cheated. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html

    As the world comes to the realization that global warming is real and significant, the extremists with a direct and acute stake – the conservapundits, politicos supported by industry, industry – will become increasingly unhinged and shrill. Picture the T-1000 in Terminator-2 when, forced by Arnold into the vat of molten steel – shrieking, imploring, realizing it was over. That’s what we can expect from the denialists over the next couple of years.

    It will be fun to bang on the denialists but we need to make sure they have a face-saving way out of the corner they’ve backed themselves into. But not yet

  2. john says:

    OMG the cost of electricity is going to go up at less than 50% of the rate of inflation
    Teach you say that like it was a BAD thing.

Bad Behavior has blocked 4632 access attempts in the last 7 days.