EPA Chief concedes climate rule; it's about 'reinventing a global economy'

Here we have it folks, the evidence and facts regarding what the "extreme austerity measures to combat climate change" which the EPA, the Obama administration and on overall environmental groups want enforced in the U.S. will do. This video shows what these "extreme austerity measures" will actually do to the United States of America.



The impact of these extreme austerity measure on temperatures will be at best 1/100th of a degree. In other words, what these "extreme measures" will accomplish "at best" is a reduced temperature of 0.01C. Meanwhile the price of electricity will dramatically increase which will affect the lowest income Americans/residents the most, and the global economy will be reinvented making the rich richer, and the poor poorer. What's not to like about these extreme austerity measures right?...

When chairman Smith points this out and asks her how can she justify such a heavy burden on Americans when it won't do much good at all, the EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, implies that these extreme austerity measures cannot be measured in how "these measures would combat climate change, but would show a strong action by the United States which will supposedly make other larger nations do the same..."

Let's say all of Europe does the same and this will at best reduce temperatures from ALL of Europe by another 0.01C.
Let's say Russia decides to enforce such "extreme austerity measures as well" reducing temperatures at best by 0.01C
Let's say that China decides to enforce such "extreme austerity measures as well" reducing temperatures at best by 0.01C
Let's say ALL of Africa does the same and reduces at best temperatures by 0.01C
Let's say ALL of central and south America does the same and they reduce at best temperatures by 0.01C
Australia and New Zealand enforcing such measures would not have such a large impact.

So, if we were to theorize that all these countries would enforce such "extreme austerity measures", which they won't, China and Russia, and India etc have already stated they would not enforce such "extreme austerity measure". But let's assume that for some "magical reason" they do.

So that's a total at best of a reduced global temperature of 0.06C... Meanwhile the lowest income people around the world are hit the most since prices on electricity would increase dramatically...

How can anyone proclaim that this will "combat climate change"?...

These extreme austerity measures are simply an excuse to impose guilt on people to accept a new global economy which will only enrich the rich and make the lowest income people around the world even poorer...

Imagine what is happening right now in Venezuela happening all over the globe. That's what these "extreme austerity measures' will do to the world.

Here are some past statements by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy about these "extreme austerity measures".

EPA ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY:

"The value of this rule is not measured [by its climate impact]. It is measured by showing strong domestic action..."
-US House Science Committee
-July 9, 2015


"[T]here is absolutely no reason to" measure the climate impact of the Clean Power Plan "because we know it will take a lot of efforts to actually make those reductions".
-Senate Appropriations Committee
-April 20, 2016


"We don't have to prove that any reduction (in greenhouse gas emissions) will actually make a precipitous difference" in global warming.
-IHS Energy CERA Week
-February 24, 2016


The "benefit" of the Clean Power Plan is "in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris."
-House Energy and Commerce Committee
-March 22, 2016


"[The Clean Power Plan] is not about pollution control. [...] This is an investment strategy..."
-Senate EPW Committee
-July 23, 2014


"[The Clean Power Plan] is about advancing our ongoing clean energy revolution [...] That's what... reinventing a global economy looks like."
-Council on Foreign Relations
-March 11, 2015


"[The Clean Power Plan] is a fundamental way of relooking at where the United States is heading and how to maintain our competitive edge... That's what this is all about."
-Council on Foreign Relations
-March 11, 2015

www.youtube.com...

So what these "extreme austerity measures" will actually do is according to the EPA administrator Gina McCarthy...

...
"[The Clean Power Plan] is not about pollution control. [...] This is an investment strategy..."
-Senate EPW Committee
-July 23, 2014
...

It is an investment strategy for the rich to use the guilt they have instilled in people to enforce laws that will make the low income people, including the middle classes in the world poorer, and the rich richer... This is not "to combat climate change" as they proclaim...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This is why I will always be a "skeptic" and "denier" to the climate change crowd.

This is their "final solution"?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So you are just going to ignore the observations, the science and try to make this a political and economic debate.

The science is clear, we are changing the climate with our CO2 output. There is no debating this reality. Your only hope to hide the science is debate politics and economics in regards to the CO2 problem which are ultimately circular debates that accomplish nothing except cast doubt on the reality of human induced climate change.

a reply to: DBCowboy

And remember that "the best" these measures would do is according to their estimate on how much warming CO2 causes, which so far the majority of their GCMs (Global Circulation Models) have been wrong, and several scientists have pointed out the fact that they have no idea why the increased CO2 has not increased temperatures as much as they claimed it would do.

Their "best scenario" is based on their flaw models that have shown to be wrong. In other words, in reality what these extreme austerity measures would do to global temperatures is even less than a 0.06C temperature reduction.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Most of us know this, that is why they can't ever implement it here.

It is always about taking more from us, never about fixing a problem.

It is an invented issue used to suck in the weak minded gullible types.

Excellent video. S+F

The world must unanimously stand together on the issue and apparently, they don't. What will it take for our governments to realize that this problem cannot be solved through taxation? How about a reduction in military spending followed by an increase in renewable energy investment? Germany is setting the bar, why can't others follow in their footsteps?

Germany Could Be a Model for How We’ll Get Power in the Future

In the central space of the bunker, where people once cowered through the firestorm, a six-story, 528,000-gallon hot water tank delivers heat and hot water to some 800 homes in the neighborhood. The water is warmed by burning gas from sewage treatment, by waste heat from a nearby factory, and by solar panels that now cover the roof of the bunker, supported by struts angling from the old gun turrets. The bunker also converts sunlight into electricity; a scaffolding of photovoltaic (PV) panels on its south facade feeds enough juice into the grid to supply a thousand homes. On the north parapet, from which the flak gunners once watched flames rising from the city center, an outdoor café offers a view of the changed skyline. It’s dotted with 17 wind turbines now.

Further reading: Link

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So you are just going to ignore the observations, the science and try to make this a political and economic debate

No Obama's EPA has done this already
It's not about saving the planet
It is about control

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So you are just going to ignore the observations, the science and try to make this a political and economic debate.

The science is clear, we are changing the climate with our CO2 output. There is no debating this reality. Your only hope to hide the science is debate politics and economics in regards to the CO2 problem which are ultimately circular debates that accomplish nothing except cast doubt on the reality of human induced climate change.

Do not use the word "science " then say there is no room for debate, that is the epitome of idiocy.

There is always room for debate in science.

a reply to: shooterbrody

No, you are just reciting ignorant claims.

Judging by the star counts, ignorance is more popular than what the actual observations are telling us.

With our CO2 output we are most certainly changing the planet's climate.

a reply to: Sargeras

The observations are crystal clear, we are causing CO2 to rise sharply. There is NO DEBATING THIS REALITY!

But go ahead and strawman my statements and keep high fiving each other's ignorant but catchy and buzz worthy claims.

a reply to: jrod

So what are your solutions to reducing CO2?

a reply to: jrod

Yet there is no unanimous consensus amongst the scientific community how much human input affects the climate.

Show me some peer reviewed studies which effectively prove the contribution towards climate that man has

You can't because none exist

Is CO2 rising ? YES

Is the CO2 rise due to man or natural ? WE DONT KNOW

Holy out of context batman!

So that's a total at best of a reduced global temperature of 0.06C..

Yes because that what was being said, that all of the world in a combined effort could only do that. Did you even listen to what they were talking about? That was about one purposed action, not about the absolute limit of what we could do.
a reply to: eisegesis
We are trying, we have tried to put more money in the alternative energy, maybe once we are able to cut back subsidizing oil and gas so much we can make more steps.
The only people saying that taxation is the only answer being offered are the ones that want to set that argument up.
Not to say it isn't being said, but hardly the only answer or what they think will solve anything.

a reply to: DBCowboy

A simple ATS or even google search can give you 'solutions' that you seek.

The bottom line is we need to end our addiction to burning fossil fuels for energy. We have the technology to move on. A major problem is the industry of mining fuel is a major lobby power and it is there short term interest to keep mining that fuel for profit.

a reply to: Discotech

We know damn well with a great deal of certainly that our burning fuel is indeed causing the spike of CO2 we are observing.

nm post i replied to was edited.

a reply to: Sargeras

Of course there is room for debate in science,but that doesn't mean you can just say " Nope you are all paid shills by the gov and lying to us" and call that a debate.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: shooterbrody


With our CO2 output we are most certainly changing the planet's climate.

No you are wrong no matter how certain you are.

Oh and the ignorance is in DC
Another reason to be glad Obama is out
Another reason to make sure Hillary don't get in

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So you are just going to ignore the observations, the science and try to make this a political and economic debate.

One thing is for sure, you can't ignore the, 'science' Having said that, it's even harder to igonre some of the shiitehawks who call themselves scientists.