Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[JimG]

Oh yes, freezing in the dark and saddling the poor with exorbitant utility bills is a great example for the rest of the world!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Oh yes, freezing in the dark and saddling the poor with exorbitant utility bills is a great example for the rest of the world!

And one all will be happy to follow.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Oh yes, freezing in the dark and saddling the poor with exorbitant utility bills is a great example for the rest of the world!

Speaking of (or for) the poor, how do you feel about “The Republican-run House of Representatives voted to cut spending on food stamps for the poor by $40 billion over 10 years on Thursday,”

 

[Michael_Mayo]

This might be of interest:

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=moon-landing-faked-why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories

 

[Ridgerunner]

Speaking of (or for) the poor, how do you feel about “The Republican-run House of Representatives voted to cut spending on food stamps for the poor by $40 billion over 10 years on Thursday,”

Cut it in what way?

I remember the hullabaloo attending the “announcement” that Paul Ryan wanted to cut food stamps. Children would be fainting of starvation in the streets,they said.

In reality, he proposed cutting the INCREASE in food stamp funding from the 12% Obama proposed to an 8% increase. At the time, inflation was supposedly at less than 2%.

We’ll see what the reality of it is in due course.

So, you’re not so much focused on MMGW as you are on supporting the Democrat agenda, right? How do you feel about the HHS Mandate? Are you with Obama on that too?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Not in the least…
I am not a Democrat, btw.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Speaking of (or for) the poor, how do you feel about “The Republican-run House of Representatives voted to cut spending on food stamps for the poor by $40 billion over 10 years on Thursday,”

Let’s see. Not a definite money cut at all, but a combination of proposals that will theoretically result in a cut in the amount otherwise already cemented into the budget to be spent. Might or might not result in a real reduction, though. Seems the Democrats only wanted to “cut” food stamps by $4.5 billion, probably theoretical as well.

“The bill’s savings would be achieved by allowing states to put broad new work requirements in place for many food stamp recipients and to test applicants for drugs. The bill also would end government waivers that have allowed able-bodied adults who don’t have dependents to receive food stamps indefinitely.”

Read more: foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/19/house-to-vote-on-big-cuts-for-food-stamps/#ixzz2fO9uByB0

Yes, yes, I know. You consider Fox an unreliable source. But at least it said SOMETHING other than simply its opinion on the matter.

 

[Seachange]

Rules that could ‘kill’? Safety, cost concerns over EPA’s new coal regs

New clean-energy rules pushed through by the Obama administration are raising concerns that they could cripple the coal industry – and may require power plants to use technology so risky that even the president’s former top energy official once warned it could “kill.”

Coal Industry Cries Foul Over Obama Emission Rules

“The Obama administration has been waging a war on coal and Kentucky jobs ever since the president was elected,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said yesterday in an e-mail. “If these reports are accurate, his latest proposal is not only an open war on coal jobs, but on all the residents, jobs, and businesses across the commonwealth that rely on this vital industry.”

Will coal survive the EPA’s new carbon rules?

As evidence, McCarthy pointed to four plants “now being constructed” that capture carbon dioxide and would, in theory, pass muster under an earlier version of the EPA’s new-power-plant rule. That includes the Kemper County coal plant being built in Mississippi by Southern Co. which is scheduled to begin operation in 2014.

Not everyone was satisfied with this answer, though. Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) pointed out that the Kemper County plant was capturing its carbon for use by the oil industry to defray costs — an option that may not be available to coal plants in, say, Pennsylvania. And Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) worried that the EPA was requiring power plants to adopt a technology that “has not been commercially proven by operation at commercial scale.”

Other analyses, meanwhile, have been less bullish on the viability of carbon capture. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that it was unlikely the technology would become cost-competitive anytime soon. Power plants that can capture and store their carbon are initially expected to cost about 75 percent more than regular coal plants. And those costs won’t fall unless there’s either a huge technological breakthrough or utilities invest a lot more of their own money in building new plants. Neither appears imminent.

Even those who believe in AGW and are against all fossil fuels think this is a bad idea -
from Coal is Dirty -
Carbon Capture and Storage is a Myth
Top 5 Reasons Carbon Capture and Storage is a Myth

#1: CCS cannot deliver in time to avoid dangerous climate change
#2: CCS wastes energy
#3: CCS is expensive
#4: “Capture Ready” coal plants are pure greenwash
#5: Storing CO2 underground can have unintended consequences

The world has no experience in the long-term storage of anything, let alone CO2. A 2006 United State Geological Survey (USGS) field experiment showed there is every chance that carbon dioxide will behave in ways that are totally unexpected.

The researchers were surprised when the buried CO2 dissolved large amounts of the surrounding minerals responsible for keeping it contained.

and from Greenpeace -
New Greenpeace report exposes CCS as a dangerous distraction

The report exposes CCS technology’s woeful inadequacy on numerous points. CCS wastes energy, for one thing, as it uses between 10 and 40% of the plant’s power output just to function. It is also expensive, and could possibly double the cost of constructing a coal-fired power plant, which in turn could lead to the raising of electricity costs for consumers. And despite its exorbitant cost, there is actually no guarantee that storing carbon underground is totally safe or effective - even a very low leakage rate could completely undermine the benefits of CCS. But most importantly, CCS simply can’t deliver on a large scale until 2030, according to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, whereas the scientific consensus about climate change holds that our greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2015 if we’re to avoid the worst effects of man-made global warming.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, maybe the WSJ is not regarded as quite as unreliable as Fox by some. Here’s what it says:

“The bill would cut nearly $40 billion over a decade, or about 5% in expected spending, from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs.”

So, it’s an expected reduction in an expected increase; a decrease in the rate of increase. And even that’s theoretical. All it really does is prohibit states from automatically qualifying anyone who receives any other form of aid, and requires at least 20 hours of work, (including community service if available) work availability or work training of any able-bodied recipient without dependents. That will affect 10% of the states that currently waive those requirements.

Draconian. Oh, the starving children!

 

[estesbob]

Speaking of (or for) the poor, how do you feel about “The Republican-run House of Representatives voted to cut spending on food stamps for the poor by $40 billion over 10 years on Thursday,”

There’s were no cuts.Food stamp spending is slated to increase every year for the most 10 years

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Well, maybe the WSJ is not regarded as quite as unreliable as Fox by some. Here’s what it says:

“The bill would cut nearly $40 billion over a decade, or about 5% in expected spending, from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs.”

So, it’s an expected reduction in an expected increase; a decrease in the rate of increase. And even that’s theoretical. All it really does is prohibit states from automatically qualifying anyone who receives any other form of aid, and requires at least 20 hours of work, (including community service if available) work availability or work training of any able-bodied recipient without dependents. That will affect 10% of the states that currently waive those requirements.

Draconian. Oh, the starving children!

With all the concern I have read on this thread about the plight of the poor due to Obama energy policy it would seem logical also to try to support them as much as possible by other means such as food.

Instead we hear, " —and the threat of losing food stamps would motivate people to become more self-sufficient."

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323342404579077471810553650.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

With all the concern I have read on this thread about the plight of the poor due to Obama energy policy it would seem logical also to try to support them as much as possible by other means such as food.

Instead we hear, " —and the threat of losing food stamps would motivate people to become more self-sufficient."

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323342404579077471810553650.html

Perhaps you might have a point if there was any truth to the “starving children” assertions. But there isn’t. There might not be any actual cuts in monetary terms at all. The “cuts” are theoretical reductions in the rate of growth of spending on food stamps, hopefully by requiring able-bodied adults with no dependents to work, be available for work, or be in job training, instead of just waiving those requirements.

And this “harms the poor” how?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Perhaps you might have a point if there was any truth to the “starving children” assertions. But there isn’t. There might not be any actual cuts in monetary terms at all. The “cuts” are theoretical reductions in the rate of growth of spending on food stamps, hopefully by requiring able-bodied adults with no dependents to work, be available for work, or be in job training, instead of just waiving those requirements.

And this “harms the poor” how?

This didn’t take long:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=824384

 

[qui_est_ce]

There’s were no cuts.Food stamp spending is slated to increase every year for the most 10 years

It’s a diversion. The topic is Obama’s climate plan.

There is NO REASON for anyone in this country to go hungry. NONE.

I have a senior friend that lives in a Catholic senior sec 8 housing around the corner from me. She was complaining about how poor she was and how she couldn’t eat the food they DELIVER to her building. Rice, spaghetti, etc.

 

[qui_est_ce]

With all the concern I have read on this thread about the plight of the poor due to Obama energy policy it would seem logical also to try to support them as much as possible by other means such as food.

Instead we hear, " —**and the threat of losing food stamps would motivate people to become more self-sufficient." **

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323342404579077471810553650.html

Do you disagree with this?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Do you disagree with this?

I recall some interview on TV of a young man whose ambition is to be a rock star. He plays in some band or other in low-end bars sometimes, but he thinks he’ll be a star someday. He doesn’t want a job and says so. He sometimes spends his day practicing his music, sometimes not.

He gets food stamps and doesn’t think a thing about it. He thinks real work is beneath him. After all, he’s going to be a rock star someday, you know.

And so, people for whom work is not beneath them, work to provide food stamps for this guy who disdains his benefactors.

Not saying all able-bodied adults with no dependents and who don’t work or look for work are like that guy. But one has to wonder about the societal obligation to support somebody who won’t even apply for work, take job training, or do community service if asked to do it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Trying to return to topic. I have, in the course of the various MMGW threads, been advised that some people have received a lot of money from the government to engage in “alternative energy” schemes. Possibly the most dramatic example would be someone who buys a Volt for $30,000 that cost taxpayers as much as a quarter million to produce. We know the government loaned Brazil millions to develop offshore oil resources while George Soros heavily invested in Petrobras of Brazil right before that. We know the government is spending a lot of taxpayer money on solar panels and such. Not so very different from a twenty-something aspiring rock star receiving food stamps because he doesn’t want to work, though he, at least, knows he’s sponging off the work of others and doesn’t care.

I remember when the government did those kinds of things before, back during the “oil crisis”, and none of it turned out to be anything but a subsidy to the rich who could afford those cute remedies-for-nothing, and all of that stuff is in landfills somewhere today. But the taxpayer paid for it all because nobody really gave him a choice in the matter.

And oil and gas production were stifled by governmental action. There really was suffering involved for many with all of that. For those who were near the oil and gas fields and pipelines (like me) it had little effect. For those more distant, it was really bad at times.

And so we now are doing it again, and likely with the same result. And for a disputed theory. At least back during the “oil crisis” the Arabs really did cut off supplies for awhile, and there were old pricing rules already in place that Carter just couldn’t bring himself to remove because he really believed fossil fuels were about to disappear.

But now, we’re going to cause suffering everybody knows is going to happen for the sake of a disputed (and increasingly disreputable) theory that isn’t panning out “on the ground” (using a surveyor’s expression of how theory and calculations are often falsified by reality when it’s confronted.)

And we’re doing it when we know for sure that the U.S. is the “Saudi Arabia” of coal and may soon become the “Saudi Arabia” of oil and gas, and when we know for sure how utilization of those resources could boost employment and widespread increases in wealth, as well as heat for homes.

Sometimes one can get the feeling that we’re repeating the denoument of the old Habsburg Empire. What could have been a prosperous “Common Market before its time” was, instead, a doddering and senile organization that thought surely it could demand unrealistic sacrifices of its people to accomplish a goal so unwedded to objective and knowable reality as to have its underpinnings supported only by the overweening vanity of its elites.

And like many in this country today (though a declining number, thankfully) many of the Empire’s citizens joyously marched over the cliff that spelled ruin, shouting slogans as empty as those of MMGW proponents today.

 

[TerryOfromCA]

…I have, in the course of the various MMGW threads, been advised that some people have received a lot of money from the government to engage in “alternative energy” schemes…

Thats because they are political cronies of Obama.

The biggest investors into alternative energy research are the Oil Companies. And yet Obama rails against them and the subsidies they receive.

That begs the question: Why rail against subsidies to the biggest investors into alternative energy research, and then turn around and subsidize other companies to do the exact smae thing?

Simple: Obama subsidizes those who share his politics.

 

[estesbob]

What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up
express.co.uk/news/uk/430649/What-climate-change-Fewer-people-than-EVER-believe-the-world-is-really-warming-up

 

[qui_est_ce]

Trying to return to topic. I have, in the course of the various MMGW threads, been advised that some people have received a lot of money from the government to engage in “alternative energy” schemes. Possibly the most dramatic example would be someone who buys a Volt for $30,000 that cost taxpayers as much as a quarter million to produce. We know the government loaned Brazil millions to develop offshore oil resources while George Soros heavily invested in Petrobras of Brazil right before that. We know the government is spending a lot of taxpayer money on solar panels and such. Not so very different from a twenty-something aspiring rock star receiving food stamps because he doesn’t want to work, though he, at least, knows he’s sponging off the work of others and doesn’t care.

I remember when the government did those kinds of things before, back during the “oil crisis”, and none of it turned out to be anything but a subsidy to the rich who could afford those cute remedies-for-nothing, and all of that stuff is in landfills somewhere today. But the taxpayer paid for it all because nobody really gave him a choice in the matter.

And oil and gas production were stifled by governmental action. There really was suffering involved for many with all of that. For those who were near the oil and gas fields and pipelines (like me) it had little effect. For those more distant, it was really bad at times.

And so we now are doing it again, and likely with the same result. And for a disputed theory. At least back during the “oil crisis” the Arabs really did cut off supplies for awhile, and there were old pricing rules already in place that Carter just couldn’t bring himself to remove because he really believed fossil fuels were about to disappear.

But now, we’re going to cause suffering everybody knows is going to happen for the sake of a disputed (and increasingly disreputable) theory that isn’t panning out “on the ground” (using a surveyor’s expression of how theory and calculations are often falsified by reality when it’s confronted.)

And we’re doing it when we know for sure that the U.S. is the “Saudi Arabia” of coal and may soon become the “Saudi Arabia” of oil and gas, and when we know for sure how utilization of those resources could boost employment and widespread increases in wealth, as well as heat for homes.

Sometimes one can get the feeling that we’re repeating the denoument of the old Habsburg Empire. What could have been a prosperous “Common Market before its time” was, instead, a doddering and senile organization that thought surely it could demand unrealistic sacrifices of its people to accomplish a goal so unwedded to objective and knowable reality as to have its underpinnings supported only by the overweening vanity of its elites.

And like many in this country today (though a declining number, thankfully) many of the Empire’s citizens joyously marched over the cliff that spelled ruin, shouting slogans as empty as those of MMGW proponents today.

Well said Ridge.