Climate Scientists Question Signficance of Obama’s New Carbon Rule

gina hillDays after the Obama administration finalized plans to reduce carbon emissions, some climate scientists have criticized the administration for failing to detail how the regulations will lower global temperatures.

These critics suggest the administration used the plan more to inspire global climate action, rather than using it as a concrete step to make the earth cooler.

On Monday, the Obama administration finalized the Clean Power Plan, which would overhaul America’s energy system by striving to reduce carbon emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030.

Chip Knappenberger, assistant director at the Cato Institute, argues that if the administration’s plan was implemented to perfection, the amount of climate change averted would amount to insignificant levels.

“The Clean Power Plan is only going to avert close to .002 of a degree of future warming over the course of this century,” Knappenberger told The Daily Signal. “What the EPA doesn’t like to advertise is what the mitigation will be.”

In June, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, asked Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy to justify the costs of regulations in comparison to the proposed benefit in global temperature reduction.

“Do you consider one one-hundredth of a degree to be enormously beneficial?” Rep. Smith asked.

“The value of the rule is not measured in that way. It is measured in showing strong domestic action which can trigger global action,” McCarthy responded.

McCarthy’s response indicated the administration’s intention to use the plan as an opportunity to position itself as a global leader in tackling climate change.

Judith Curry, an American climatologist, argued in a blog post that the Obama administration sold the Clean Power Plan as an economic and public health issue, purposely leaving out specific temperature reduction targets.

“The one thing you don’t hear President Obama mention is how much his proposed emissions reductions will reduce global warming,” wrote Curry. “The social costs of carbon estimates made by the White House require assumptions out to the year 2300 for drastic carbon dioxide reductions to be cost effective.”

The Climate Action Tracker, a project of four environmental research organizations, praised the administration’s plan, but acknowledged that these regulations alone would not affect global temperatures.

“Even if the current national target and the plans are not a sufficient contribution to hold global temperature increase below 2 degree celsius, it shows that the world’s second largest emitter is taking action at home to reduce emissions.”

Read rest…

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (2)

  • Avatar



    To make matters worse, any claimed ability to mitigate claimed warming is purely theoretical. Nobody can show any real-life cause and effect [b]results[/b] in changing the climate.

    Nevertheless, we’re now expected to spend trillions, give up prosperity, and surrender Constitutional rights and U.S. sovereignty for a TINY [b]theoretical[/b] result!

    Only in Obama’s America…

  • Avatar

    David Lewis


    If Gina McCarthy admits this draconian plan will be insignificant in reducing warming, let’s consider what it would do as far as world leadership in encouraging others to reduce emissions.

    This sort of thing has worked soo well with China. The United States agreed to make emission reductions and the Chinese agreed to no reductions at all. They simply said theirs would peak in 2030 which is probably when their economic growth will peak.

    India has already said it wouldn’t allow action on climate change stop it from providing power to the hundreds of millions of its citizens who still don’t have it.

    The third world nations have said again and again that the industrial nations need to cut back on emissions by 80% so that the third world emission will have room to grow.

    Canada and Australia are both in a back lash reaction to previous administrations efforts to reduce emissions. These nations are not going to respond to U.S. leadership.

    I believe the European Union has a goal of 30% emissions and this applied to their entire economy, not just power generation. As such they are trying to do more than the U.S. Are they going to follow the leadership of a nation that is doing less?

    As far as encouraging other nations to take more action, reducing U.S. power plant emissions will be a total failure.

    As I stated in another post, there is one way a greater influence will help. As bad as Obama is, most at the Paris conference will be far worse.

    There will be an effort to enact a surtax on imports based on the carbon emitted to produce it. They think it is certain that the Paris conference will result in a carbon tax in all nations, or at least the developed ones. The non-industrial nations, making up far the majority of the conference, will be pushing the concept of climate debt where the developed nations pay them for past emissions. They also want the industrial nations to pay them for all damage done by extreme weather events.

    The one good impact will be better influence will in opposing these measures. That is not what McCarthy told Congress, and she might not even to smart enough to realize it.

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.