As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

White House Utility Bill Boost on the Way

The White House is about to move big on climate change.

No, I’m not going to make any stupid jokes about things starting to heat up.

All you Neanderthals in the Global Warming Denier crowd prepare to get socked directly on your square, protruding foreheads.

I’m sorry, not global warming. That got revised to “climate change” after it became clear the world had inconveniently stopped warming. Planet earth has not cooperated with the enlightened ones’ temperature increase models for about 15 years now.

But no matter.

Friday, according to Politico, President Obama will launch a full frontal attack on your electricity bills with rules that will force expensive upgrades to new – and eventually existing power plants.

From the Politico piece:

The proposed rule, expected Friday from the Environmental Protection Agency, won’t cut any carbon immediately and won’t come anywhere near the sweeping mandate of the cap-and-trade plan that died in the Senate three years ago. But it will force the first-ever limits on greenhouse gas pollution from yet-to-be-built power plants, requiring costly carbon-cutting technology for those that burn coal.

The White House-vetted proposal is also the legal precursor to a far more ambitious draft regulation due next year that would seek cuts to climate-changing emissions at existing power plants.

Cap and trade didn’t pass, so Obama will do as much as he can directly from the Oval Office. And so as long as you’re not killed in one of the lighter, fuel efficient new cars of the future, you’ll get to make your contribution to the Cro Magnons’ carbon emissions reductions scheme through your utility bills in a few short years.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

30 Responses to White House Utility Bill Boost on the Way

  1. I get awfully tired of him thinking he has legislative authority. It would be nice if Congress came in from the cold and took a stand. Maybe sue him for overstepping his powers. Anything to dethrone King Barack the Arrogant.

  2. Your naivete is showing if you don’t know what the “CC” in IPCC stands for.
    (a 1988 report)

    The argument “they changed the name” suggests that the term ‘global warming’ was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term ‘climate change’ is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass’ 1956 study ‘The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change’. Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply ‘Climate Change’. The journal ‘Climatic Change’ was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the ‘CC’ is ‘climate change’, not ‘global warming’. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term ‘climate change’ many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.
    ===================================
    Those who perpetuate the “they changed the name” myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change. Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term ‘global warming’ is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term ‘climate change’ is more frightening.

    The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat. Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.

    The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’, Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

    It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

    “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

      • Good one, Sadie. Betcha the Al Gore clone expels a heck of a lot of carbon dioxide bleating that phony propaganda too. Frank Luntz is a global warming expert? Bwahaha!

        • I’ve had it with the experts and predictors of this n’ that. When it doubt, I always go with Carnac the Magnificent, aka Johnny Carson. ; – )

          “I hold in my hand the envelopes. As a child of four can plainly see, these envelopes have been hermetically sealed. They’ve been kept in a #2 mayonnaise jar on Funk and Wagnall’s porch since noon today. No one knows the contents of these envelopes, but you, in your borderline divine and mystical way, will ascertain the answers having never before seen the questions.”

  3. President Pivot and Planet Earth – that’s a combo. Focused like a laser on ignoring jobs, Iran’s centrifuges, Syria’s sarin gas, a dollar that’s devaluated, Keystone XL … but always has time to suck on the teats of the Sierra Club between golf dates. Whatta guy!

  4. This whole thing is not about “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” – it’s about control or people, what type of energy they use, what type of car they drive, what temperature to set their home thermostat, how many bedrooms they can have, etc. Because carbon dioxide is about the only significant greenhouse gas which man creates, it was the one latched onto by the communist watermelon crowd. It simply fit their narrative. Most honest climate scientists and physicists have known for decades that nature has more control over climate than man ever will. Sir Herschel the British astronomer, wrote in 1820 that sunspots cycles controlled the global temperatures, and he was correct. That was recently proven by an experiment at the CERN lab in Switzerland by the Danish scientist who linked sunspots to cloud formation, to the amount of sunlight reflected, to global temperatures. All the alarmist “Models” have failed and the global temperature has been essentially flat for the past 15-16 years, even though CO2 levels have continued to rise. “It’s the SUN, stupid.” (Along with longer term orbital and cosmic cycles.) A couple long volcanic eruptions puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than man has ever. And BTW – CO2 follows changes in temperature – it doesn’t lead it. EVERY time the earth has entered an Ice-Age, the CO2 levels remained at their peaks for 700-900 years before falling to much lower levels, then remaining low for hundreds of years as the earth warmed up again. How can that be if CO2 “Controls” temperature.

  5. China pollutes more than we EVER could, but are they going to cut THEIR carbon emissions anytime soon? No. India? No. ANY developing country? Highly doubtful.

    So, even if we COULD “save the world” by changing human behavior–a premise that is open to dispute–without developing countries choosing to stay undeveloped–fat chance!–we’ll accomplish absolutely nothing on the climate front, wreck our economy, and spend ridiculous sums of (probably borrowed!) money to do so.

    An amateur for a president is one thing. We’ve got an amateur with a god complex.

    This won’t end well.

  6. The whole deal behind cap and trade was the trillion dollar carbon trading market that the ruling class elites like Preezy Revenge and greedy commie greenies once saw as a huge cash cow. The Chicago Climate Exchange is dead for now. Sadly, the left never stops their march to totalitarianism. They’ll keep pushing with the rules and the regulations, waiting for the next opportunity to raise that phoenix from the ashes. Unfortunately for us common Americans, the regime and the EPA environazis were given carte blanche by 5 judicial activists on the Supreme Court, whose twisted logic labeled carbon dioxide as a pollutant – the same stuff we humans exhale, and that plants need for photosynthesis.

  7. The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

    “He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

    SNIP

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/29/the-age-of-obama-heat-for-me-but-not-for-thee/

  8. If I were the coal mine owners I would head the upstart off at the pass and call a general strike. Shut the whole East coast down.
    You’ve heard how 40% of the country gets it’s electricity from coal, well 40% they were talking about is the 40 % Obama lives in.

    Let President Momjeans fumble around in the dark for awhile, literally, along with the usual figurative.

  9. I live in a coal state. It used to be a tobacco state, but, well, we all know how that’s turned out. No one wants dirty air, but coal is not as dirty as it used to be. However, this admin’s regulations are wiping out hundreds of coal jobs in an area that doesn’t have too many options for other jobs. And the coal companies are threatened with fines for not complying with reduced emissions, and not using equipment to do so, even though such equipment does not exist yet, or if it does it is too expensive to implement. “Folks” here have been frustrated for a long time over this.

    He is only doing what he promised… doubling our electric bills.

    • I have always been curious how liberal policies designed to raise the cost of all forms of energy help the middle class that Obama proclaims to be fighting for?

      As far as climate change goes, it seems fairly obvious that the majority is naturally occuring based on the recorded historical tempature swings dating back tens of thousands of years. Every time I ask a global warming cult member about the historical tempature swings all I get is blank stares and comments about being anti science….never a rational thought out response.

      Personally I am a heck of alot more worried about the next ice age than the earth warming a couple of degrees.