Welcome to the poorhouse — new Obama regulations to raise gas, electric prices
In case you missed it, President Obama is coming out with some emission regulations today:
The proposed regulations Obama will launch at the White House on Monday could cut carbon pollution by as much as 25% from about 1,600 power plants in operation today, according to those claiming familiarity with the plan.
Power plants are the country’s single biggest source of carbon pollution — responsible for up to 40% of the country’s emissions.
The rules, which were drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency and are under review by the White House, are expected to do more than Obama, or any other president, has done so far to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions responsible for climate change.
They will put America on course to meet its international climate goal, and put US diplomats in a better position to leverage climate commitments from big polluters such as China and India, Obama said in a speech to West Point graduates this week.
These regulations are so important to the Left that the Center for American Progress (CAP) is once again abandoning all pretenses of non-partisanship in order to back the administration. The blog post at the link brings up many accusations against the Chamber of Commerce, The Heritage Foundation, and other groups that CAP says are being bribed to oppose the regulations. Not a word is mentioned about CAP’s lack of disclosure about its own funders.
How unnecessary and expensive are these regulations? Just Facts has the details. First,the cost, which liberals are saying will be modest and worth it:
The administration has issued a far-reaching regulatory decision that a metric ton of CO2 has a “social cost” of $38. This is the figure used by the EPA and other agencies under the authority of the president to assess and justify regulations on greenhouse gases.
As explained by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), such regulations “can have the same consequences for energy prices, production, and consumption as the direct payment of a cash subsidy or the imposition of a tax.” According to this same federal agency, a CO2 tax of roughly the same magnitude as Obama’s regulatory decision will add 11% to the price of gas and 30% to the price of electricity by 2022.
These are recurring annual costs to American consumers, not a one-time fee.
Second, about the emissions of America, which dropped despite the U.S. choosing to not sign the Kyoto Treaty:
“Between 1997 (the year Kyoto was adopted) and 2008 (the start of its compliance period), the combined annual CO2 emissions of the developed countries that ratified the treaty increased by 1.3%,” while those of “the U.S. decreased by 0.7%.”
Second, about “leverage” against India and China:
“In 2011, Russia, Japan, and Canada announced they would not extend their participation in the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 because developing nations were exempted from its conditions.”
“In 2010, the head of the head of the European Commission’s climate unit stated that the European Union’s participation in the Kyoto Protocol after 2012 will be based upon the participation of Russia and Japan.”
To summarize: The administration’s new regulations won’t do much to help the world’s emissions outputs. But it will hurt the economy, and especially poorer Americans for whom energy costs are a large part of their income. And, no, our “leadership” on this issue won’t be a kumbaya moment for the rest of the world.
Facebook62.5kTwitter76Email1 Considering how often we see horrific stories of animals being abused and murdered by sadistic monsters, it’s a nice break to see the often unnoticed acts of kindness towards...Read More
FacebookTwitterEmail Remember Van Jones, the self-described communist and “rowdy black nationalist” who admitted to having been “radicalized in jail”? Comrade
FacebookTwitterEmail I never got around to this Sunday, as websites noticed this quietly released study published in the UK Daily
FacebookTwitterEmail Seriously, how can anyone even pretend to support the UN IPCC anymore? The feckless response from the climate alarmists