The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change

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:

 

 

 

The costs of inaction underscore the importance of taking meaningful steps today towards reducing carbon emissions. An example of such as step is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule (2014) to regulate carbon pollution from existing power plants. By adopting economically efficient mechanisms to reduce emission of the coming years, this proposed rule would generate large positive net benefits which EPA estimates to be in the range of $27-50 billion annually in 2020 and $40-84 billion in 2030.  These benefits incude benefits to health from reducing particulate emissions as well as benefits from reducing CO2 emissions.

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.

 

 

 

About these ads

4 responses to “The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change

  1. ‘ large positive net benefits which EPA estimates to be in the range of $27-50 billion annually in 2020 and $40-84 billion in 2030. ‘

    …just expect to pay out about 50 billion a year to supposedly DO something about it.

    Idiots.

  2. You can tell these guys have been in government too long.
    $27 to $50 billion? Like a difference of $23 billion is meaningless?
    $40 to $84 billion? Being off by $44 billion a year is considered accurate?
    Of course, none of the numbers are real – so why should they care if they are off by tens of billions.

  3. The reports major flaw is that it ignore the fact that a go-it-alone policy would do very little. If you plug reduced GHGs from go-it-alone US policy into climate models the projections remain the same and are only delayed them by a few months. If models show no change in future outcome there is no basis for claims of economic cost savings from go-it-alone action. If struggling Americans were educated on this fact they would see EPA policy as insane as it does nothing to prevent future projected climate outcomes and only enriches Democrat millionaires/billionaires who would gain from windfall government subsidies.

  4. siquijorisland

    wow more of the same misinformation cost benefit for co2 is 550 benefit to 1 cost this is 5oo/1 how uninformed can they really be.

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