Zero+Zero=Zero

President Obama seems determined to fight climate change even though the result will almost certainly harm the American economy while doing nothing about the climate.

Since he was not able to persuade  Congress to pass any climate change legislation in his first term, President Obama has decided to just use "executive authority " to get his way. 

"The question is not whether we need to act," Obama said in a speech at Georgetown University. "The question is whether we will have the courage to act before it's too late."

Of course, it is already too late if you were to believe Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as reported by the National Review Online.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), who represents the Miami area, warned that unless climate change is addressed “in a few short years,” rising sea levels will force her to represent areas more than two hundred miles away.

“I will eventually represent Orlando if we don’t do something about making sure we can reduce global warming,” she said on Fox News this morning. Wasserman Schultz’s current residence, Weston, Fla., is 224 miles away from Orlando

A "few short years"?  How long is that?  I would say it is longer than a couple of years but certainly less than a decade.  I just would like to narrow the time frame down a bit because it would be nice to purchase a nice beachfront property in Orlando for my retirement before the prices rise with the tides.

Here is the district map for Ms. Wasserman Schultz who represents the 23rd Congressional District of Florida.  I assume it was just a coincidence that her district is colored aqua blue.

Bear in mind that Wasserman Schultz is the Chair of the Democratic National Committee if you think that this is just some wacky left wing nut case.  However, then again, maybe that explains everything.

What are the facts on climate change?

First, note that we no longer hear about man-made global warming.  The operative term is now climate change.  How can you ever be wrong if you argue that the climate is changing?

Second, the "settled science" of global warming is no longer settled in that global temperatures have not increased for the last 15 years.

This chart of increases in global temperatures  based on the latest models of CO2 emissions compared to actual temperatures that was prepared by Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville that I saw on PowerLine.

Clearly, the models on what effects CO2 emissions were supposed to have on real world temperatures have proven wrong.  This seems to indicate that the forces of nature are much, much greater than any effects or affects that human beings may have on climate change.

Third, as I have written about before, natural sources of CO2 on earth produce between 140-160 gigatons of CO2 per year and all human produced CO2 annually amounts to 9 gigatons!   Human produced CO2 is so minimal compared to the naturally produced CO2 it is less than half of the margin of error of the estimate of natural sources.  Keeping this in mind, it is hard to believe that human beings could have any effect whatsoever on CO2 emissions that would make any difference to the climate.

Fourth, as to Wasserman Schultz's warning that her South Florida district has only "a few short years" before it is under water, consider this data on Sea Level Trends from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  This is the sea level data from Vaca Key, Florida which is the closest NOAA operating station to the Congresswoman's district.

It shows that sea levels are generally trending higher at an average of 2.78 millimeters per year based on the experience of the last 40 years.  However, at this rate, it would take over 100 years for the sea level to increase by 1 foot in South Florida.  And I have seen nothing to prove that the rise in sea levels is directly tied to CO2 emissions anyway.

So what is going to be accomplished by President Obama's heavy regulatory hand?  Nothing on the subject of climate change.  However, liberals will be delighted in extending greater government control over more of the economy and environmentalists will delight in the further destruction of the nation's coal business and the higher energy prices that will result in order to fulfill their dreams of world powered by green energy.

Why do I say none of this will have any affect on climate change?

A few more facts.

Between 2005 and 2011 (the most recent year in which data is available), U.S. greenhouse emissions were down 8.5% without any climate change legislation or regulations.    

However, China, which has an economy one-half the size of the United States, emits what is approaching nearly twice the greenhouse gases as either the U.S. or Europe. 

Just since 2005, the U.S. has reduced energy-related CO2 emissions by one billion tons but China has increased emissions by over two billion tons. Guess what? If you are concerned about CO2 emissions and you are on planet earth, you are losing.  And it is not because of anything that the United States is doing.  If China is not cooperating (and India and others) the problem will not be solved.

The irony is that as we shut down our coal powered generating plants, China and India are building hundreds of them.  In fact, a recent study indicated that over 1,000 coal-fired plants are planned around the world with 75% of them in India (455) and China (363).



Investor's Business Daily reports on what is happening to coal in the United States and where the trends are taking us.

Energy analysts say the administration's energy policies could push about one-third of the U.S. coal-fired fleet into retirement. In the first quarter of 2013, there were 900 active coal mines, down 17% from a year earlier. Last year, U.S. utilities burned 825 million tons of coal, down from 1.045 billion tons in 2007.

This would seem to be the fulfillment of Obama's goal of saving the earth by going green. Yet exports of American coal have increased as domestic production declined. Coal companies exported 126 million tons last year, up from 59 million tons in 2007, much of that to China and India. If we do not burn it here, they will burn it for us.

China's coal consumption soared to 4.33 billion tons last year, up from 2.97 billion tons in 2007. While the president hopes China and India will follow our example, such countries argue the West has had a long head start and they are not about to suspend their economic growth as they catch up.

Let's sum this up.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz may be concerned she will have to move to Orlando in a "few short years" but I have a bigger concern. What kind of mindset gives us the type of thinking that is taking us on this precarious path to nowhere?



Only in a liberal mind does it make sense to...


shut down your most cost-effective energy generating source,


shut-off your most abundant energy resource,


raise electricity costs on all Americans,


and risk losing hundreds of thousand of jobs in the process.


In an attempt to solve a problem...


that we are not even sure we have,


and if we do, we are not sure we can do anything about it,


because of natural or external forces that we cannot control, 

that may overwhelm anything we do anyway,


that ultimately works to the advantage of your biggest trade partner,


that will undoubtedly result in more job losses for Americans over the longer term.

Does that sum it up?


Liberal Thinking (Zero) + Climate Change Regulation (Zero) = ZERO