Obama Climate Plan: “Myths vs. Reality”

Below is Obama climate advisor Heather Zichal’s effort to explain the Myths vs. Reality of the Obama climate plan. Our comments are in [bracketed bold].

###

The President’s Plan to Reduce Carbon Pollution: Myths v. Reality

Heather Zichal
June 26, 2013
03:00 PM EDT

Yesterday, at Georgetown University, President Obama laid out his Administration’s broad-based plan to cut carbon pollution and meet the climate change challenge.

It’s a plan that starts with responsibility. While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, President Obama believes we have a moral obligation to future generations to do what we can. After all, this is no longer a distant threat – we are already feeling the impacts now.

The 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15 years. Asthma rates have doubled in the past 30 years and our children will suffer more asthma attacks as air pollution gets worse. [So asthma is caused by global warming? BTW, asthma rates have increased while air pollution has decline substantially.] And increasing floods, heat waves, and droughts have taken a toll on our nation’s farmers, which is raising food prices. [No. Food prices have increased because of higher energy prices, ethanol and a number of other factors that have nothing to do with climate.] These changes come with far-reaching consequences and real economic costs. Last year alone, there were more than 11 different weather and climate disaster events with estimated losses exceeding $1 billion each across the United States. [As the insurance industry recently admitted, these losses are a function of development in always-risky areas — 100-year floods do happen every 100 years or so.]

During President Obama’s first term, we took a number of important steps to reduce carbon pollution and spark innovation in cleaner forms of energy. For example, we doubled our use of renewable electricity from wind, solar, and geothermal sources and set the toughest fuel efficiency standards in American history. [Who can forget Solyndra?] Thanks in part to these actions, in 2012, U.S. carbon pollution from the energy sector fell to the lowest level in nearly 20 years. [No. Emissions are down because of the lousy economy that Obama has fostered, plus the glut of natural gas.] To build on this progress, the President’s Climate Action Plan has three pillars: cut carbon pollution in America; prepare the United States for climate impacts; and lead international efforts to combat global climate change.

Now, we’re already seeing many Republicans and some of the nation’s biggest polluters attack the President’s plan. [Four Senate Democrats have denied Obama’s plan. Some enviros also admit the plan will accomplish nothing for the environment.] And they’re recycling the same tired and empty arguments that we’ve heard time and time again. To separate fact from fiction, let’s dig a little deeper and compare their rhetoric with the reality.

CLAIM #1:
Reducing carbon pollution will hurt the economy and cost jobs.

FACT:
Over the last three decades, we have reduced carbon pollutants by more than half and have doubled economic growth. [False. Carbon emissions are down slightly — nowhere near by 50%.]

Our own history shows us that we can protect our environment, reduce harmful pollution, and promote economic growth all at the same time. And the numbers speak for themselves: between 1970 and 2011, aggregate emissions of common air pollutants dropped 68 percent, while the U.S. gross domestic product grew 212 percent. Private sector jobs increased by 88 percent during the same period. [This is a testament to the past strength of the U.S. economy, relative ease and affordability of reducing emissions, and constant state and industry efforts to keep the EPA under control.]

What’s even worse about this claim is that it suggests a lack of faith in American businesses to innovate. When we banned cancer-causing chemicals in our toys [Never happened.], and leaded fuel in our cars, it didn’t end the plastics industry or the oil industry; American chemists came up with better, cheaper substitutes. [Unleaded gas was not cheaper than leaded gasoline.] When we phased out chlorofluorocarbons – the gases that depleted the ozone layer – it didn’t kill off refrigerators and air conditioners; American workers built better ones. [Ozone depletion was another exaggerated crisis, egged on by Dupont wanting to sell new, more expensive refrigerants.]

The bottom line is that we don’t have to choose between the health of our children and the health of our economy. [Environmental taxes are regressive.] Those goals go hand in hand. And by taking action to reduce carbon pollution, we can spark new jobs and industries building cleaner and more efficient American-made energy technologies. [You mean like the economically struggling Europe under the Kyoto Protocol?]

CLAIM #2:
Regulating carbon pollution will increase energy bills for consumers.

FACT:
Utility industry leaders say they can reduce carbon pollution without raising bills. [Only if they can also ration electricity use.]

We know how to use the tools of the Clean Air Act in a way that reduces pollution and protects American families and businesses. [Right. I’m from the gooberment and I’m here to help.]

For example, when the President announced historic fuel economy standards, the critics said cars would get smaller, more expensive for consumers, and hurt sales. They were wrong. [No. They are smaller, lighter and more expensive.] Today, car sales are at multi-year highs, people are already saving money at the pump thanks to greater efficiency, and we’ve preserved consumer choice. [Another myth. People with fuel efficient cars drive more, compensating for the improved mileage.] In March, EPA released a new report which showed that, compared to just five years ago , Americans have twice as many hybrid and diesel vehicle choices, a growing set of plug-in electric vehicles, and six times as many vehicle choices with fuel economy of 30 mpg or higher. [And they still mostly buy more affordable, conventional cars.]

When it comes to the power sector, the utility industry itself admits that they can reduce carbon pollution without raising bills. [That’s why many/most have been opposing Obama’s war on coal.] Moreover, to protect consumers, the President directed the EPA to develop standards in an open and transparent way, provide flexibility to different states with different needs, and build on the leadership that many states, cities, and companies have already shown. [EPA transparency? Ever heard of Richard Windsor?] And that’s exactly what they’ll do. Separately, the Administration will also continue efforts to make household appliances more efficient, savings consumers hundreds of billions on utility bills through 2030.

At the same time, renewable energy has never been more affordable. It’s not only creating good jobs across the country, it’s providing clean, safe, and secure power to millions. And as costs continued to fall, both the wind and solar industries had their best year ever in America in 2012. Today, nine states get more than 10 percent of their electricity from wind and two of those – Iowa and South Dakota – get more than 20 percent. These trends just wouldn’t be happening if clean energy weren’t competitive and cost-effective for consumers. [Energy efficiency rules just make appliances more expensive.]

CLAIM #3:
The Administration is waging a war on coal.

FACT:
President Obama has invested more in clean coal technology than any other Administration in history. [Stop. Ask the coal industry. Look at Obama’s actions. Listen to his words about bankrupting coal-fired power plants.]

The President believes that America must take a leadership role in developing and manufacturing technologies that allow us to burn coal more cleanly and efficiently. Achieving that goal will also boost our economy, promote public health, and position the United States as the leader in the global clean energy race. That’s why President Obama has invested nearly $6 billion in clean coal technology and research and development – the largest such investment in U.S. history. And as part of the President’s Climate Action plan, he announced yesterday that the Administration will make up to $8 billion in loan guarantee authority available for a wide array of advanced fossil energy and efficiency projects to support investments in innovative technologies. [So-called “clean coal” has gone nowhere and will go nowhere. It is physically, financially and politically impossible.]

Cutting carbon pollution will help modernize our coal power plants. [Modernize? We already have state-of-the-art plants.] It will help spark innovation to create new clean energy technologies and it will put Americans to work with good jobs that can’t be shipped overseas making our power plants more efficient, which will save families money. [This is all magical thinking.]

CLAIM #4:
President Obama won’t work with Congress.

FALSE.
Each year President Obama has been in office, he asked Congress to come up with a common-sense, market-based solution to reduce carbon pollution and speed the transition to cleaner sources of energy. And he’s still willing to work with anyone in Congress to make that happen. But as he said in his State of the Union Address, if Congress didn’t act soon, his Administration would because this challenge demands our attention now.
The plan the President released yesterday followed through on that commitment. For the sake of future generations we cannot delay efforts to reduce carbon pollution and prepare the country for a changing climate. We cannot afford to lose the clean energy race and the new jobs and industries that come with it. And we cannot miss the opportunity to engage the world and catalyze action to tackle this challenge. [There has never been a more my-way-or-the-highway president in U.S. history.]