The White House climate change
propaganda report published to coincide with the Senate hearing out. The report seems to be something along the lines of climate insurance and looking active even if it has no effect.The new propaganda push for the coal plant rule can be found at this link and has such glittering gems as “The signs of climate change are all around us.” Since “climate change” has been so overused and misused that can mean anything. What are the “signs of climate change.”
- The average temperature in the last decade is 0.8°C higher than the 1901-1960 average.
- Sea level rise of 1.25″ per decade
- Heavier downpour rain events
- Increasing heat waves
- The scientific consensus is all of this is largely caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses.
So, when it rains hard that is climate change? If we fix this CO2 thingy the seas won’t rise?
The supposed damage to the economy assumes a 3°C rise in global temperature from preindustrial levels which would create an annual 0.9% hit to the US GDP, $150 billion/year. Where does the 3°C come from? It seems to be the mid-point of the IPCC Working Group III AR5 estimate of 1.5°C-4.5°C estimate. The cost of delay is supposedly 40% per decade of delay.
Reducing GHG’s is supposedly climate insurance to protect us against all the evils of doing nothing. Does the proposed rule for existing coal plants solve these problems? It’s hard to say from this report. The report parrots IPCC atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature change but I can’t find anywhere in the report where the proposed rule is associated with any level of temperature or atmospheric CO2 concentration. Generally the report is full of assumptions on the evils of more GHG and estimates of harm. The only association is this paragraph:
This appears to be the only association in a 33-page report with the proposed coal plant rule and the danger from CO2 and essentially says there is no real benefit from the dangers of GHG in the rest of the report. The supposed benefits from particulate are not based on any real evidence. If the proposed coal plant rule had any real benefit other than looking active, it would be more prominently cited in the report. The I’m sure the propagandists will have a field day referring to this report.