3°C from the “carbon” rules?

A new PR push on the “carbon” reduction from power plants rule sure makes it seem like they are claiming that, until you read the sentence carefully. The Hill reports that the White House is beginning an new PR campaign in support of the proposed rule for existing power plants.  The piece contains the following sentence:

With the battle over the rules heating up, the White House on Tuesday released a new report that says the costs of inaction on climate change would be massive for the federal government and the economy.

If the U.S. delays acting and the global temperature increases to 3 degrees Celsius, the economic damages will cost the U.S. and other nations $150 billion per year, the report says.

A casual reader could take the 3°C as the temperature increase from existing power plants.  Or does the White House believe the temperature reduction?  Since the effect of this rule on global temperature is not measurable, it is a nice PR stunt.  The $150 billion claim to the global economy represents about 0.02% of one year. 

It seems as though they are throwing spurious numbers and claims against the wall to see what sticks.

8 responses to “3°C from the “carbon” rules?

  1. The cost of his actions will far exceed the cost of inaction. Alleged cost of inaction, I should say.

  2. 3 degrees Celsius?! The ‘snowball earth’ is doomed!
    Has anybody told them that “the global temperature” is already an average of about 14 degrees Celsius?

  3. “It seems as though they are throwing spurious numbers and claims against the wall to see what sticks.”

    Why not? that has always worked for them in the past.

  4. a thermodynamics analysis indicates that CO2 contributes about 3 degrees C to the absolute temperature of the “climate”. In order to get another 3 degrees you would need to double the CO2 level to about 800ppm. Not one person presented with that seems to think we’ll hit 800ppm even with the current growth in population around the world. At least not in the next 100 years anyway.

    In addition the NASA Saber Project indicates that CO2 acts as a reflector/protector of Earth from direct solar heating – more CO2 less direct solar heating.

    With the advent of “good” solar installations in deserts and other suitable locations, the building of thorium based reactors and other fast neutron nukes to go with cleaner traditional power plants it seems highly unlikely to rise much past 600 ppm in the next 100 years.

    To top that off, the IPCC source reports and other research indicates that UP TO 3 degrees of rise will cause NO HARM, just some relocation/dislocation of crops and animal husbandry that will occur with painful slowness over 100 years – a non event.

  5. Rubbish! We do not know enough about the variables to predict anything with accuracy. I have yet to see any government report that is accurate. They have not shown by actual measurements that increasing CO2 will increase the Earth’s temperature.

  6. “If the U.S. delays acting and the global temperature increases to 3 degrees Celsius”
    Nice typo. If they say the global temperature will increase TO 3 degrees Celsius, then what do they think the temperature is? Something BELOW 3 degrees Celsius, is how it reads. So, it was actually supposed to read “increases BY 3 degrees Celsius” I presume?

  7. It’s all pontification based upon someones opinion and is not worth the paper (or flashdrive0 its writen on – still it gives them something to bleat about and would it it not be strange if thay all started telling the real truth i.e. “We Don’t Know”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s