Coal's Inevitable Future

A number of years ago, there was a pretty good movie called Other People's Money. Danny DeVito plays the part of this corporate raider who buys worn-out companies and sells off the parts. In the case of the particular company in the movie, he is portrayed as the villain who simply wants to put people out of work. That is, until the stock holder meeting comes along and he explains his position. Suddenly, he isn't the villain anymore. The company manufactured copper cables for telephone lines and there wasn't enough business anymore. As DeVito's character explained it, he wasn't the one putting the company out of business, fiber optics and new technology were.  The company was dead but no one would admit it. The movie has a happy ending when they convert to making the copper mesh that goes into automobile air bags, but the message is clear - times change and companies that don't change with them go away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_P4xOiEREk

Hello, coal! Anyone listening?

Coal is dead but no one wants to sign the death certificate. It wasn't the EPA and government regulations that did it, either. It is new technology. If it was the case of government regulation coal wouldn't be dying in countries all over the world. Yes, some countries are building numerous coal-powered plants, but every one that I've been following has been canceling plants and turning to alternative fuels. It will take a while, but this is an industry on the way out.

Now, like DeVito's character, we simply need to help end it.

Tom Harris Deceives About Ontario Electricity

Tom Harris continues his Trail of Deceit with a letter to the editor of the Moab Sun Times. In this letter, Harris states the Ontario electric rate has gone up over 300% and implies this was due to the cancellation of coal generation. Neither statement is true. You can read the letter here. Or, read my submitted response below.

The author of the August 3 letter, “In praise of Pruitt,” is trying to deceive the readers. The letter implies that the electricity rate in Ontario rose by over 300% because coal generation was banned, but this isn’t true or accurate. Global News, in Toronto, investigated the rates and found that, over the last 10 years, rates have gone up 70% for peak, 85% for mid-peak and 150% for off peak rates.  The average household electric bill went from $40.03 to $83.18 between 2006 and 2016 (not including taxes and fees), an average of about 108%.

Importantly, this rate increase was not due to canceling coal generation. The increase is attributed to infrastructure upgrades, privatization of the hydroelectric dam, and long-term contracts to the private sector. Interestingly, part of the increase is attributed to the politically-motivated cancellation of two gas-fired power plants, which would’ve lowered the rates. And, that’s coal’s real problem – there are cleaner, cheaper alternatives.

The only way coal can be affordable as a power source is if someone else pays for the pollution. Mercury pollution, coal sludge, sulfur dioxide leading to acid rain which destroys wildlife and lakes and streams, particulate pollution that causes lung disease and other health issues, CO2 leading to climate change. These are all problems associated with burning coal. And, they want someone else to pay for the damage.

The International Climate Science Coalition is a fossil fuel advocacy group and is heavily associated with climate changer denier organizations. The writer has a long employment record of working as an advocate for the fossil fuel and tobacco industries. His job is to place pieces in the news media undermining climate science and promoting fossil fuels, especially coal.

I am a professor of physics and have conducted research in planetary geophysics, including climate science, for over 25 years.

Dr. Christopher Keating

Tom Harris' Latest Deception About Coal

Tom Harris, the fraud and paid shill of the fossil fuel industry, recently posted a letter to the editor in the Durango Herald, "N.M. lawmakers should question utilities’ coal exit."

Here is my response to this latest bit of deception:

I wish to respond to the letter of August 1, “N.M. lawmakers should question utilities’ coal exit” to inform the readers of the deceptions of the letter. The International Climate Science Coalition is not “non-partisan” as claimed. It is a fossil fuel advocacy group and is heavily associated with climate changer denier organizations. The writer has a long employment record of working as an advocate for the fossil fuel and tobacco industries. His job is to place pieces in the news media undermining climate science and promoting fossil fuels, especially coal.

Coal is called an “affordable supply of energy.” But, the only way coal can be affordable is if everyone else pays for the pollution. Mercury pollution, coal sludge, sulfur dioxide leading to acid rain which destroys wildlife and lakes and streams, particulate pollution that causes lung disease and other health issues, CO2 leading to climate change. These are all problems associated with burning coal. The only possible way for coal to be affordable is if someone else pays for the damage.

Meanwhile, jobs in renewable energy in New Mexico are booming with thousands of jobs already created in the state. The job market is expanding at double-digit rates, creating jobs for the people of New Mexico and increasing the tax revenue for the state. Strange how the fossil fuel advocate never mentioned that.

I am a professor of physics and have conducted research in planetary geophysics, including climate science, for over 25 years.

Dr. Christopher Keating

Tom Harris the Fraudulent Scientist

fraud·u·lent

/ˈfrôjələnt/

adjective

unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities.

Synonyms: dishonest, cheating, swindling, corrupt, criminal, illegal, unlawful, illicit

Now we can say for absolute certainty - Tom Harris is a fraud. The subtitle on this posting should be "How many lies can one man tell in 30 minutes?"

Take a look at this remarkable Skype interview he did on May 19, 2017. It's remarkable in the number of false statements he makes. It is also remarkable in that he allows himself to be called a scientist and a climate expert. He is neither. Harris is a mechanical engineer and a lobbyist. He does not have credentials as a scientist, has never performed as a scientist, and is not currently working as a scientist. In short, Harris is allowing himself to be unjustifiably credited with qualities he does not possess. That is the definition of fraud and it is not the first time he has done this. He is a repeat offender, so we have a pattern of behavior.

If you are not fully aware of Harris' resume, you can read a lot more about him at the clearing house web page: Tom Harris Paid Shill

There are so many false and misleading statements in this video that it's hard to list them all, but I'll comment on some. I apologize for the length of this post, but there are just too many lies in this interview to let them go unmentioned.

At the 2:00 mark, Harris states, "Even if you believe we are causing an enormous problem, which I don't, ..." 

Response: This is from a man who has stated he has never denied climate change. 

At the 2:50 mark, "We don't actually know we are causing significant climate change anyway. We have not seen a significant increase, or decrease for that matter, in the global average temperature, which they calculate, it's not a real thing, it's just a statistic. We don't actually see any change since about 2000."

Response: Once again, Harris is denying the existence of global warming and climate change. But, why doesn't Harris tell you that 16 of the 17 hottest years ever recorded have happened since 2000? And, why is Harris trying to cherry-pick the data and not discuss the whole temperature record? You can make any point you want, if you limit the discussion to only the data you want to discuss and eliminate the rest.  

And, don't forget, Harris just stated that temperature is not a real thing. Maybe he needs to tell the oceans, the ice, the birds, the fish, plants, the... well, you get the picture. Everything in nature thinks temperature is a real thing and that it's changing.

At 3:15 "The models are not working."

Response: Really? This is one of the most often quoted lies in the denier-sphere, and one of the most easily debunked. Read about climate models here. You can read my posting on this topic at: Let's discuss climate models. Meanwhile, take a look at this graphic:

Source: Benestad and Schmidt

This is figure 2 from the paper Solar Trends and Global Warming, by Benestad and Schmidt. The blue line is the model output and the red line is the observed global average temperature (<T>). As you can see, the model and measured values are in very good agreement.

At 3:25. Harris goes off a diatribe that addressing climate change is costing $1 billion per day. He says this doesn't make sense when there are many problems that could use a $1 billion per day. 

Response: Take note, he doesn't say anything about where this $1 billion figure comes from and where any the money is going. Not to mention that this is an irrelevant discussion. How does the cost of addressing climate change affect the science? It doesn't. So, why is Harris raising this issue if not to create an emotional response in the listener?

The $1 billion per day figure is actually outdated and probably comes from a 2013 report you can read about here. Interestingly, this same report discusses how in that same year, the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry amounted to $523 billion - more than $1.4 billion per day. Wow! We could address a lot of problems simply by cutting subsidies for the fossil fuel industry! (In case you were wondering, the total amount of subsidies for the renewable energy industry was only $88 billion - about one-sixth as much.)

According to the GAO, the US federal government spent $24 billion on climate change in 2014 - much less than what Harris wants you to believe. When he talks about this $1 billion dollars, that includes things like crop damage (which we can't do anything about), damage due to rising sea level and storms (which we are stuck with), spreading disease (which we are stuck with), etc. In other words, there is no decision to be made regarding spending money on climate change. When a storm wipes out your house or business or crops, you don't get to decide if you're going to spend that money. It already disappeared. So, why doesn't Harris talk about this, unless he wants to deceive?

And, he fails to ever address the coming cost of climate change that we will be stuck with if we don't do something now. After all, the reason we have to address climate change today is because people like Tom Harris worked so hard to prevent us from addressing it in the past.

At 3:50 the host asks Harris about the risk that the US will lose as much as 25% of its sovereignty due to the Paris Agreement. Harris never actually confirms, or denies, this figure. But, after stating the Paris Agreement is not a legally enforced treaty, he goes on about how environmentalists can use agreements like this to engage in legal actions in an attempt to force the government to conform to environmental laws. 

Response: Well, the reason we have to go to court is because people like Harris work so hard to help people break the law. If Harris, and people like him, wouldn't work so hard to block actions to address the problem there wouldn't be a need for legal actions. Having our own courts is not a threat to our sovereignty. This is a false, strawman argument.

At 8:10, Harris goes on about how helping people in the future is "immoral". 

Response: This is a simply mind-boggling statement. If nothing else, remember those people in the future are us. We're not only talking about people 100 years from now, we're talking about helping people tomorrow. Tomorrow is the also in the future. Let's not even get started on the issue of taking care of our own children. According to Harris, helping anyone beyond today is immoral. That's because the only thing that matters to Harris are the profits of his employers - the fossil fuel industry, especially the coal industry.

At 13:20, the host goes on about how 'global warming, or is it climate change this week...It seems like it changes every single week.' 

Response: That's because this guy is more interested in denying science than trying to understand it. Climate change is not another name for global warming - it's a different issue. They are both what they sound like - global warming is about the rising temperature while climate change addresses all of the changes in the climate, including, but not limited to, global warming. For instance, acidification of the oceans is not global warming, but it is climate change. This was shortly after this same host said Trump has 'been excellent' in regards to environmental laws. How is allowing coal companies to dump their poisonous waste in our drinking water 'excellent'? When you meet people who say things like what this guy said it merely shows they are truly anti-science and not the least bit interested in the facts or the science. They've made their minds up and no amount of logic or scientific evidence will ever change it. It is a mental illness.

At 15:20, the host, after making all sorts of bizarre statements, says to Harris, "I'm not the scientist here, you are." Harris does nothing to correct him. 

Response: As I said earlier, Harris is not a scientist and never has been. By allowing himself to be addressed as a scientist, he is committing fraud by allowing himself to be credited with accomplishments and qualities he doesn't possess.

At 15:40, Harris makes a mind-numbing statement, "Actually, warming is beneficial." 

Response: I'm not going to go into all of the damage that is resulting from global warming and climate change. I'm merely going to point you to Harris' comment about how we're spending $1 billion per day on climate change and there are other problems that could benefit from that money. Amazingly hypocritical!

Immediately after this statement, Harris produces the report from the Nonscientific Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The NIPCC is a completely debunked pseudoscience organization. I like to compare them to the horoscope in the daily paper - they are both equally scientifically valid. If you are using the NIPCC as your reference, you might as well use your daily horoscope as one. Notice how Harris always refers to this organization and it's publication, but he never produces any science. That's because there is no valid science to support the NIPCC, or Harris, either.

18:40 - 'The fear of warming is a bit silly."

Response: Harris' logic is that if one guy doesn't have to shovel snow from his driveway, global warming must be good. He's wrong. Take a look:

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/are-effects-global-warming-really-bad

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-impacts#.WSAIOcYlFpk

17:10 "Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, our science advisor..." 

and

17: 15 "Dr. Tim Ball, he's a well renowned climatologist..."

Response: Tim Ball is not a climatologist, he's a geographer. Harris is committing fraud again by giving unearned attributes to someone else. Ball has never worked in climate science, was never a member of a climate science department and has never earned any credentials as a climatologist.

According to the courts, where Ball was able to present all of his evidence, Ball "never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming." 

And, referring to Ball as 'The Plaintiff", the court said: 

"The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the
issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media;

and

"The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

17:30 Harris states the entire Arctic archipelago is covered by only one weather station.

Response: This is an outright lie.  This web page listed below lists FIVE stations in CANADA ALONE that are either permanently manned or remotely operated. 

High Arctic Weather Stations

And, Harris makes no mention whatsoever of the satellites that orbit and take measurements on a continuous basis. This statement, and his claim about rising Arctic temperature is a grotesque lie on his part.

I could stop there because I have made my point - Harris is a fraud and an anti-science propagandist. But, this is too much fun, so let's keep going.

Starting at about 18:00 he goes on about historical climate change and tries to make the analogy with today's climate change. The climate has always changed, therefore any change we might be experiencing is merely natural.

Response: 

Observe the false logic. What Harris says is like saying "Pneumonia kills people. Bullets kill people. Pneumonia is a naturally occurring disease. Therefore, bullets are a naturally occurring disease." 

See that the real experts have to say about the natural versus manmade climate change.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/iscurrent.pdf

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/faq/is-the-current-climate-change-unusual-compared-to-earlier-changes-in-earth2019s-history

1830: The temperature record is "only a few decades."

Response: This is another one of his self-defeating statements because he was just talking about the temperature over the centuries. How can he discuss temperature and climate change over centuries, millennia, and even millions of years, if the temperature record is only 'a few decades'? 

Actually, our current instrument record goes back to around 1850. But, the scientific record (using temperature proxies), goes back even further. Using ice cores, we have a good record going back about 800,000 years. Geologic records give us data going back millions of years.

18:50 Harris discusses the standard deviation of the temperature record and states that it could have gotten colder in 2016 instead of setting a record high.

Response: This is one of those truly deceptive statements Harris loves to make because he thinks everyone is too stupid to check his claims. The only possible way for Harris' claims about the temperature record could occur is if you accept that the actual temperature is at the lower two standard deviations (or more) point. Two standard deviations is about 95%. In other words, there is a 95% chance, in this case, that the temperature is higher than the two standard deviation mark. Harris would require every year to hit the two standard deviation mark. Over a mere 16 years (since 2000), the chances of hitting the lower bound is about 1 in 4.4 x 10³¹. The odds are impossible.

Oh, even if you're interested in only one year, the odds of the higher standard deviations is equally valid. In other words, Harris is making a point that the amount of error in the measurements could be negative without including that the error might be positive. It is equally possible that the temperature was actually higher. Strange how he left that bit out.

19:10 The host states that global warming is merely hot air coming from liberal's mouths. Then he goes into a diatribe that global warming is a grand conspiracy for people to have control over others.

Response: I always find statements like this to be almost hilarious in their stupidity. This guy just made a blanket statement about billions of people and every climate scientist on the planet without knowing a single thing about them. In case you didn't know, that is called bigotry. If you ever had any doubt at all that people like this have no interest in the evidence, this should clear it up for you. According to this guy's reasoning, science changes depending on your political views. And, for the record, I am FAR from being a liberal. 

19:40 Harris states carbon emissions from fossil fuel are not pollution.

Response: Lots has been said on this topic. Here's my comments:

Harris is Wrong. Manmade CO2 is Pollution

Of course, Harris refers to the pseudoscience NIPCC at this point. See my comments above about that. In short, the only reason Harris would refer to them is because he has no valid science to support his claims. But, that has never even slowed him down. Don't let the science or the facts get in the way. He also refers to the Idsos, another debunked group of fraudulent pseudoscientists who are on the payroll of the Heartland Institute. The reality is, global warming is leading to reduced crop yields and even the crops that we are getting have less nutritional value. Oh, don't forget that CO2 is not selective. If it is food for plants we like, it is also food for plants we don't like, such as weeds in the farm fields and invasive species. Again, Harris never mentions any of that.

21:40 Most of that billion dollars a day goes to alternative energy to try and stop climate change. This is all part of the claim that climate change is just a great conspiracy to control the world because if you control energy, you control the world.

Response: As we've already seen, alternative energy got about $88 billion in 2014 while the FFI got $523 billion  And, Harris doesn't address the fact that energy is already controlled and that list of people includes his employers (Hmmm. Maybe that's why he didn't want to mention it.) Energy is controlled by a few corporations and organizations - such as OPEC, ExxonMobil, Shell, etc. And, who is funding all of the denier activities, such as Harris? The fossil fuel industry. The same ones who already control the world's energy supplies. 

21:50 Harris once again denies the existence of climate change.

22: 10 Harris goes on a lecture about coal.

Response: Harris never mentions all of the damage from burning coal. He never discusses acid rain, arsenic in the water supplies, mercury emissions, particulate air pollution, health hazards, poisonous ash from the power plants, or any of the other issues associated with mining and burning coal. He never mentions something like the study discussed here:

When coal replaces a cleaner energy source, health is on the line

Harris wants you to believe Obama is the only reason coal is struggling. The reality is that coal is struggling for economic reasons. It's simply too expensive.

22:45 The host states, "It is very refreshing I guess is the word I'm looking for, to talk to someone that is a scientist, that is a professional, that knows a lot about you know global, uh, global climate and climate change and things like that..." Harris only smiles.

Response: Just like when the host called Harris a scientist at the  15:20 mark, this statement is not true and Harris did nothing to correct him. Again, Harris has engaged in fraud.

This host the goes on a mindless diatribe about how he wants clean air, but he doesn't want to do it at the "barrel of a gun." His prior statements show this claim is false. Remember, he already said Trump's action on the environment were 'excellent.' He is not interested in clean air, he only wants his own clean air and the rest of the world is expendable. And, by making statement about having to do it at gun point is nothing more than the rantings of a lunatic. Where, and when, has anyone pushed environmental laws on the public at gunpoint? No instances of this actually happening are provided. 

And, while he states he doesn't want any of this done with the government's 'heavy hand', he never mentions how it is market forces, not the government, that is changing the energy industry. No government 'heavy hand,' just the heavy hand of the market.

24:00 Harris goes into a discussion of a great conspiracy to make developed nations, "especially the United States," pay for damages in the developing countries caused by extreme weather, citing an example of the Philippines suing for damage caused by a tsunami.

Response. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, not climate change. Once again, Harris doesn't let the science get in the way of lies and deception.

Instead of making conspiracy claims, maybe Harris should simply discuss how this mechanism allows for a civilized and orderly way for grievances to be addressed. According to Harris, that's a bad thing.

25:20 Harris discusses Micronesia suing a coal company and states, "because they're having dangerous sea level rise."

Response: The longer you let this guy talk, the more he hangs himself. He has already stated there is no climate change and its 'silly' to be concerned about rising temperatures. How can there be 'dangerous sea level rise' if there's nothing to worry about and a little warming is "good for us?"

So, there you have it. This was a lot of fun and I hope you've learned something about Harris in particular and climate change deniers in general.

Despite Trump, coal is on the way out

President Trump signed an order on Thursday, Feb 16 to overturn the Stream Protection Rule. This rule was designed to prevent coal companies from dumping their mining waste into rivers by restricting mining within 100 feet of a waterway. Trump stated his action would "eliminate another terrible job-killing rule, saving many thousands of American jobs, especially in the mines." Of course, anyone paying attention has learned that Trump has great difficulty in getting his facts straight and this action is another example of it.

A study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found the rule would have eliminated approximately 260 jobs a year, not 'many thousands.' But, at the same time, it would have created about 250 jobs a year. Overall, the rule would have been about breakeven on jobs. Which just goes to show, you can justify anything by stating you want to save jobs, even if it isn't true. So, Trump's action will hurt the watershed, the environment and the people living downstream. The things that will benefit? Nothing. Not even coal. Trump did this to appease his coal mining friends. Interestingly, that CRS study also stated overall employment in the coal industry would continue to drop and would lose around 15,000 jobs of the current 90,000 in the sector between 2020 and 2040. I think it will be much higher. Read on to see why.


The truth is, Trump can't do anything to stop the decline of coal. In fact, Trump himself will be working hard to do just that. He has promised to overturn rules on the oil and gas industry to make it easier for them to drill. Coal's biggest enemy isn't the EPA - it's cheap gas. And, Trump is going to make sure gas stays cheap.

And, ironically, OPEC is helping out as well. OPEC recently caved and reached an output agreement to prop up the price of oil. This is already resulting in a second boom of fracking. The drill rig count for last April was 132 but has risen to 301 today. But, the story is the rigs are more advanced and efficient and they can each do more than the old ones. So, the disparity in the numbers doesn't reflect the true situation. Estimates are the US oil production will increase from 8.9 million barrels of oil per day currently to between 9.5 and 9.7 million barrels per day by the end of 2018. And, along with the increase in oil production will come an increase in natural gas production. 

Even some conservative Republicans are getting into the act. Last Wednesday (the day before Trump signed his coal mining order), the Climate Leadership Council unveiled their plan for a gradually increasing, revenue-neutral tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Proceeds from the tax would be redistributed to the people. This plan is specifically designed to reduce CO2 emissions and address climate change. So, even conservative Republicans are saying there's a problem and we need to act. The plan has been well-received, but I have to be skeptical it will get passed by Congress. Too many members of Congress received funds from the coal industry to vote for something like this. But, the very announcement makes it more difficult for coal. Things are shifting when even Republicans admit manmade climate change is real and needs to be addressed. That doesn't bode well for coal.

And, to make it even worse, renewable energy is surging. 

The number of solar cell installations in 2016 were up 95% over the number in 2015. The numbers nearly doubled in only one year.  By the way, if Trump really is interested in creating jobs, the solar industry employs 260,000 people and the coal industry employs only 90,000. 

And, last Sunday, February 12 saw wind power briefly account for over 50% of the electricity generated in the US.  

So, the coal industry is surely celebrating Trump's action on the Stream Protection Rule. But, during that same week, reports came out showing renewable energy sources are continuing to increase their share of the market, reports came out showing natural gas production is surging again and even conservative Republicans said we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Overall, it wasn't a great week for the coal industry.

Deutsche Bank Dumps Coal

German banking giant Deutsche Bank has announced that, under the terms of the Paris Agreement on climate change, it would no longer provide financing for coal-fired power plants.

I'm sure the rank and file anti-science climate change deniers are thinking a new day is here with Trump and his anti-environment pick Pruitt to dismantle the EPA, but reality is quite different. The fact is, coal will not be back. Pure and simple, it is too expensive. The anti-science crowd loves to talk about how cheap coal power is, but the reverse is the real truth. Coal is, far and away, the most expensive power on the planet. It only seems to be cheaper because the industry has been allowed to pass on it's expenses to someone else. They were never held accountable for the mercury in the ecosystem (including our food), acid rain, terrible health suffered by coal miners and people in the mining community, coal sludge and arsenic in the water supply, particulate matter in the atmosphere and the carbon dioxide pollution power plants emit. This doesn't even include the fact that the mining of coal was being subsidized by the taxpayers by the government allowing coal mining on government property at below-market rates.

The writing is on the wall. Coal is on the way out. It is simply too expensive. And now, we see bank and insurance companies telling us the industry is dead.

When the insurance and banking guys say you're dead, you're dead.

News Keeps Getting Worse For Coal

There is a lot of spin that Trump's election will be a good thing for coal. For instance, he has nominated the coal-industry backed anti-science stooge Myron Ebell to head the EPA and dismantle regulations and programs that protect the environment, which is what the EPA is supposed to be all about. However, the facts seem to indicate even this won't save the coal industry.

Coal's problem with Trump is that he's a businessman and coal simply doesn't make good business sense. In fact, the only possible way any power company can afford to use coal is to receive massive government subsidies and pass the cost of operations on to others. Besides the actual cost of coal (subsidized by the taxpayer), other costs include the cost of acid rain, particulate pollution, mercury emissions, coal sludge and greenhouse gas emissions. More and more, the coal industry is being forced to pay its way and it is becoming economically unfeasible as a power source. 'Cheap' coal is a myth and market forces are demonstrating this. Nothing Ebell or Trump can do will change that.

As an example, steps to reduce the amount of mercury emitted by coal-burning power plants has resulted in 19% lower levels of mercury poisoning in Atlantic fish. This reduction has occurred more quickly than expected and was the result of EPA regulations. The evidence this is true is the fact that fish from the Pacific Ocean, a region polluted by Asia power plants, have not experienced the same improvement. Ebell will have a hard time allowing power plants to ramp-up mercury emissions. Even if they try, the courts will have something to say about it.

And then there was this interesting piece of news - the largest ever shale oil deposit has been discovered in Texas, containing at least 20 billion, and possibly 100 billion, barrels of oil recoverable with today's technology. Why is that bad for coal? Because, along with the oil is 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, possibly even as much as 160 trillion cubic feet. How much is that? The US consumed about 27 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2015. This one discovery stands to supply at least six months of the entire country's natural gas needs all by itself. Cheap, plentiful natural gas has been a real problem for coal. Burning natural gas is much cleaner than burning coal, thus, much cheaper. Discovering large deposits of more cheap, easily recovered gas isn't good for coal. Nothing Ebell or Trump does will change that.

Even worse for coal is the fact that renewable energies are becoming cheaper than coal. Critics say this is because of subsidies. This isn't true, but even if it was, don't forget all of those subsidies coal gets. Again, nothing Trump of Ebell will be able to do will change this fact of the business environment.

The outgoing head of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, recently stated "there is no bigger threat to American progress and prosperity" than climate change. Again, there is nothing Ebell and Trump can do to change this. Even if they try to deny it with their anti-science logic, the courts have some authority to protect the American people. And, don't count out Congress completely. The Republicans may control both chambers, but many Republicans are admitting manmade climate change is real and the hold that party has is weak. The pro-science group may still carry the day.

These are the economic and business facts. Ebell and Trump can't change them, although I'm sure they will both try their best. In any event, the days of decline for the coal industry will continue while the boom in the renewable industry will continue. The market place demands it.

Clean Power Plan Appears in Court

Arguments challenging the EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP) will be heard in the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC this week. Here is a nice article summarizing the legal aspects of the challenge brought by a coalition of fossil fuel companies and their supporters. After looking at the challenge, there are some real questions in my mind. Let me summarize:

• The challengers cannot question whether the Clean Air Act covers climate-changing air pollutants. That has already been decided by the US Supreme Court.
• The challengers cannot question whether the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to limit carbon dioxide pollution from power plants. That has already been decided by the US Supreme Court.
• The challengers cannot question the science of climate change—whether power plants’ massive carbon pollution endangers our health and well-being.That has already been decided by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court refused to review it.

So, they can't challenge the science, they can't challenge the damage and they can't challenge the authority of the EPA to enact such a plan. Just what are they hoping to achieve?

It turns out their challenge is to the way the EPA is implementing the plan. In other words, since they can't do anything about the science, the need and the authority, they will claim everything needs to be done in a different manner and, therefore, the EPA shouldn't be allowed to proceed.

But, wait a minute! Most states are already implementing the CPP and are on track to meet the plan's goals! And, market forces are dictating the move away from coal and towards cleaner energy, including wind and solar. So, why are the challengers pursuing this case?

I think the article shows what their motive is with this statement:

Indeed, the challengers’ constitutional argument wouldn’t stop at the Clean Power Plan. It would effectively block any federal safeguards against power plant air pollution, including those aimed at curbing acid rain, toxic emissions, or interstate air smog violations.

That is the real objective - to get all regulation of power plant emissions stricken down. It turns out the stakes are much higher than previously thought.

Ask yourself honestly, even if you are opposed to the CPP, do you want the power companies to be able to emit pollutants without any regulation?

Peabody Coal Funded Climate Change Deniers

Anyone following the current events associated with the science of climate change should be aware of how the fossil fuel industry funds the anti-science climate change deniers. There is hard evidence of this in government filed documents, court documents, and insider statements. Now we can add the bankruptcy documents Peabody Coal filed with the court to that list. You can read an in-depth article about the list here.

When I reviewed the list I wasn't surprised to see some familiar names, people I've debated the issues with over the years. One I find very notable is Richard Lindzen. This is important because he spent years telling everyone he didn't receive any funds from the fossil fuel industry for his research. What he failed to say is that he was receiving massive amounts of funds for 'consulting' services. It is well-known, by his own admission, he was receiving money from ExxonMobil the whole time. Now, we find he was also receiving money from Peabody Coal. No wonder he left Harvard.

Another favorite is Roy Spencer, the former scientists who has been caught so often falsifying his data and writing false papers that he can no longer get published in any journal. The last time he did the editorial staff resigned in protest. He has sacrificed every bit of credibility he ever had, but he is still collecting money from Peabody Coal.

The Idso family also showed up. Yet another group of former scientists who thought easy money was preferable to hard work.

Willie Soon, the infamous engineer with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims in public to be a climate scientist and was caught hiding his fossil fuel payoffs.

Oh, and CFACT, those guys who produced the anti-science film 'Climate Hustle'? They're on the list.

Speaking of disgusting groups (and we were), how about ALEC? In case you don't know this organization, the American Legislative Exchange Council arranges for law makers to meet with donors. In these meetings the donors will arrange for the law makers to submit bills favorable to the donors industry in exchange for financial support. This way, the name of the donors and their industry are not associated with the bill. ALEC does not deny this and this activity is not illegal (remember who rights the laws). To no surprise, we see ALEC received funds from Peabody Coal.

And, it is to no surprise to see the anti-science political party is well represented on the list. No fewer than eight separate Republican organizations received funds from Peabody. Two Democrat organizations are listed.

It is interesting to see the documentation of how this corrupt corporation was able to spread it's influence far beyond the purview of mining coal.

Coal Industy Ugliness Exposed

Of course, climate change deniers are famous for making claims that defy logic. Among these are efforts to defend the coal industry. A common refrain I have heard repeatedly lately is that modern human civilization was made possible by coal. Of course, that is a false claim. Our modern society depends on energy, not specifically coal. It doesn't matter where that energy comes from.

Now, we have even more proof of how nasty the coal industry is, as if any reasonable person needed more. Patriot Coal Company filed for bankruptcy and in their reorganization papers they proposed taking $18 million from a $22 million fund for retired coal workers and spending it on legal fees. This money was supposed to be dedicated for the health benefits of the workers. Now, Patriot Coal has decided the health of these workers isn't important enough and is reneging on its promises to them.

To see just how nasty this is we need to take a look at the reported health problems of the workers. It is reported some suffer from black lung disease, while others are suffering from cancers they believe are linked to industrial waste dumps at Squaw Creek. No mention is made in the article of the health effects down stream of non-miners who may have been affected by that dumping.

But, even that isn't the end of it. The evidence strongly suggests this was a plot to unload pension liabilities and even have them disposed of in bankruptcy. It began when Alcoa and Peabody energy had a joint venture called Squaw Creek Coal Co.  In 2007, Peabody assigned the Squaw Creek health care liabilities for 208 workers to an offshoot called Heritage Coal, which was a subsidiary of Patriot Coal. Peabody also assigned 40% of its health care obligations, covering about 8400 former workers, to Patriot Coal.  Then, in 2008, Patriot purchased Magnum Coal and assumed the health care liabilities for another 2,300 retirees.

Lo and behold, this health care liability dumping was more than the mining could support and Patriot filed for Chapter 11 protection in 2011. Patriot emerged from bankruptcy that same year and part of the deal was to turn over the health care liabilities to the union, along with $310 million to help support the health care for about 11,000 retirees. 

Then, Patriot filed for bankruptcy again this year.

Since the Squaw Creek liabilities were supposed to be paid for by Alcoa under the original contract, it was a big surprise when the union and the retirees learned Alcoa had traded a $40 million obligation for a $22 million payment to Patriot. Then, as stated earlier, Patriot has decided only $4 million of that money is to go towards supporting the health care liabilities of the people who are suffering due to their work in the industry. In case you haven't been keeping count, that is 10 cents on the dollar of the original health care obligation. The rest of the money is being used to pay legal fees. The tragedy is that the Squaw Creek workers who are being abused by this procedure never worked for Patriot.

Hopefully, these workers will be covered by a government program assisting retired coal industry workers. Oh, by the way, that program is costing taxpayers nearly $500 million per year.

Remember this the next time some denier talks about how cheap and morally correct the coal industry is.

If that isn't enough, read about this hero of the coal industry, one we can all hope will be going to prison very soon.

More Bad News For Coal

The U.K.'s Department of Energy and Climate Change released statistics showing, for the first time ever, the U.K. produced more energy via renewables than for coal during this past April - June time span. Not only did the percentage of energy coming from renewables increase from 16.7 to 25.3 percent, the percentage coming from coal dropped from 28.5 to 20.5 percent. Interestingly, the coal percentage dropped by 8 percentage points while the renewable percentage increased by 8.6 points. This means coal's loss was more than made up for by increases in renewables.

It is become increasingly difficult for coal to claim renewables are more expensive and bad for the economy. The writing is on the wall.

Deaths From Air Pollution Increasing

A study by the World Health Organization has estimated outdoor air pollution caused 3.7 premature deaths worldwide in 2012. Some 88% of those premature deaths occurred in low- and middle-income countries, and the greatest number in the WHO Western Pacific and South-East Asia regions.

In comparison, HIV and malaria kill about 2.8 million people combined.

Of these premature deaths, WHO estimates that some 80% of outdoor air pollution-related premature deaths were due to ischaemic heart disease and strokes, while 14% of deaths were due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or acute lower respiratory infections; and 6% of deaths were due to lung cancer. A 2013 assessment by WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that outdoor air pollution is carcinogenic to humans, with the particulate matter component of air pollution most closely associated with increased cancer incidence, especially cancer of the lung. An association also has been observed between outdoor air pollution and increase in cancer of the urinary tract/bladder. A new study in the journal Nature estimates the number of premature deaths could double by 2050.

In addition to outdoor air pollution, indoor smoke is a serious health risk for some 3 billion people who cook and heat their homes with biomass fuels and coal. Some 4.3 million premature deaths were attributable to household air pollution in 2012. Almost all of that burden was in low-middle-income countries as well.

A study of U.S. air quality recently published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (affiliated with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Health and Human Services) concludes, 

Long-term exposure to PM_2.5 air pollution was associated with an increased risk of total and CVD mortality, providing an independent test of the PM_2.5 – mortality relationship in a new large U.S. prospective cohort experiencing lower post-2000 PM_2.5 exposure levels.

PM_2.5 is particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns. CVD is cardiovascular disease.
 
The principle sources of risk include particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The outdoor sources of these pollutants include power generation, transportation, agriculture, and natural sources. Indoor pollution comes almost exclusively from cooking and heating the home with biomass fuels and coal.  

Once again, we find the claims by the deniers to be invalid. Next time you hear someone making claims about how wonderful coal is and how the poor will suffer the most if we stop burning it, point out how many people will get to live as a result.

More Lies From Tom Harris

Tom Harris has posted another of his lies, this time comparing the coal industry to someone falsely accused of a crime. You can read it here. I have submitted the following at a rebuttal to his false claims.

*****

This is in response to “Coal industry leaders betraying workers,” written by Tom Harris and Tim Ball and published August 29.

Misters Harris and Ball use a highly deceptive analogy in an attempt to make the coal industry appear as an innocent person unjustly accused of committing crimes. The truth is, coal is a very dirty industry. There is nothing innocent about the business and it knows it. A much better analogy would be to compare coal to the tobacco industry executives who testified before Congress that nicotine is not addictive, even though they knew otherwise (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZDQKq2F08).

Misters Harris and Ball state, “You would expect coal leaders to proclaim their industry’s innocence of the crime of which they stand accused, pointing out, for example, that:
–       Global warming stopped 18 years ago despite a 10% rise in CO2 levels,
–       Hurricane activity is at a record low,
–       Medium to strong tornadoes have become less frequent,
–       Antarctic sea ice cover has been increasing at about 1 to 2% per decade,

Let’s take a look at these claims. First, global warming has not stopped and the claim it stopped 18 years ago has been so completely debunked you immediately have to question the credibility of anyone making that false statement. This claim is based on the fact that you can find an average of any database. Fossil fuel industry supporters take that average and draw a straight line, claiming this shows there is no warming. What is interesting is this claim actually proves global warming is continuing. If you look at their claim over time, the only way you can explain their results is by concluding the planet is getting warmer. Read more about this lie at: http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-great-warming-pause-lie-revealed.html.

What about hurricane activity? It is true the United States is in a low-level period of hurricane activity. The lie is to characterize this as worldwide low. In fact, the western Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean have seen an increase in tropical cyclone activity. Why didn’t Misters Harris and Ball mention that? This is what is known as ‘cherry picking’ and consists of using only the data that supports your claim and ignoring all else.

What about the tornadoes? It is true the number of tornadoes from 2012-2014 was very low. In fact, 2014 was one of the quietest years ever recorded. But, again, Misters Harris and Ball have cherry picked the data. The year 2004 tied the all-time record number of tornadoes. Likewise, the years 2008 and 2011 were significantly higher than the average. Why wasn’t this revealed?

And, let’s discuss the Antarctic sea ice. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the maximum sea ice extent (occurring in September) around Antarctica has been growing at 1.3% per decade. So, was the statement truthful? Of course, not. What they failed to mention is how the amount of land ice on Antarctica is decreasing at an alarming, and increasing, rates. They also failed to mention the sea ice extent this year is dramatically below the average, currently running at more than 10% lower than last year. All of this also ignores how land ice around the world and sea ice in the Arctic is disappearing. This is the lie of omission. They didn’t want you to know about this, so they left it out of the conversation and provided only what they wanted you to know.

And, there is another lie of omission in their letter. What they didn’t tell you is these two men are both supported by the fossil fuel industry. Mr. Harris, in particular, has a long track record as a fossil fuel lobbyists and is closely associated with the Heartland Institute which is supported by the fossil fuel and tobacco industries. Take a look here for more information on Mr. Harris:

http://scholarsandrogues.com/2015/02/16/tom-harris-hypocritical-peddler-of-deceitful-climate-change-editorials/

http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2015/07/tom-harris-paid-shill.html

Unfortunately for Misters Harris and Ball and their employers, the science about manmade climate change is settled. In fact, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary. There is no reproducible scientific evidence to provide any alternative explanation. Read about what happens when scientists attempt to reproduce contrarian claims (spoiler alert: they are unable to reproduce them). The only valid scientific conclusion is that manmade emissions are changing the climate.

In short, coal is the number one source of compounds sulfur and nitrogen pollution in the atmosphere; it is the number one source of mercury in the food chain (our food chain!); it is the number one source of manmade radioactive material in the air; it produces particulate pollution responsible for a number of respiratory and pulmonary health problems; it is the number one source of poisonous arsenic in the water system. And, oh yeah, it produces billions of tons of carbon dioxide leading to climate change.

Tom Harris and Tim Ball are paid by the fossil fuel industry to deceive the public on the facts. But, their lies do not change the facts: The crisis is real and we need to act.

Good News About Coal

Coal is a complex topic. On one hand, it is one of the most ideal of energy sources. It comes out of the ground ready for use and even comes in a very handy form for shipping. Then, it has a high yield, lending itself to highly efficient power plants. Take a look here to see which states use coal the most.

But, on the other hand, digging it out of the ground is environmentally damaging. Burning coal is the number one source of sulfur and nitrogen compounds in the air, causing all sorts of chemical problems, including acid rain. It is the number one source of mercury in the environment, poisoning the food supply and leading to neurological diseases in people who eat it. It is the number one source of manmade radiation in the air, a known carcinogen. It is the number one source of particulate matter, leading to a whole host of respiratory and pulmonary issues. And, the waste product is highly poisonous and contains, among other things, lethal levels of arsenic - an element and does not degrade. Nuclear foes beat the drum that nuclear waste can be poisonous for thousands of years. Well, coal waste is poisonous for all time.

And, of course, there are the CO2 emissions driving global warming and climate change. A recent study showed the heat trapped by CO2 emissions is as much as 100,000 times greater than the heat generated from the actual burning.

Given the fact that there are plenty of alternative fuel sources today, the conclusion I easily reach is we need to get off coal all together. I believe we need to shut down all coal mines and close all coal burning power plants. And, I don't believe that is a radical statement. What would be radical is to suggest we should continue to poison the planet and ourselves, and destroy the environment at the expense of our own safety and well-being. That is the radical position.

But, is that simply a pipe-dream? There is a massive amount of money involved in the coal industry. It is very safe to assume the coal interests will not merely shutter the mines and go away. However, the market is indicating that it may not be their choice. It is being made for them. Regulations to clean-up coal's act and alternative energy forms may be doing the job.

Natural gas appears to have kept 160 coal-fired plants from being built in recent years. Coal plants representing roughly 7 percent of the nation's power generating capacity will be closed this year. I estimate wind power kept about $1 billion worth of coal in the ground last year alone in just Canada and the U.S. Solar power is generating as much as 50% more than previously estimated and that amount is growing daily.

It is becoming more difficult for coal to be profitable and the markets are paying attention. In 2011, shares of Peabody Energy, one of the largest coal producers in the country, were selling for $72. Today, they sell for under $2. Recently, Alpha Natural Resources filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, stating "The Board of Directors of Alpha Natural Resources authorized the filing of the Chapter 11 cases to enhance the company's future as it weathers a historically challenged coal market." Walter Energy, another coal mining company, filed for bankruptcy in July. Coal prices are down 70% from four years ago. The coal industry's market capitalization is down 80% since April 2011. Many countries are distancing themselves from coal and renewable energy is cheaper than coal in many places. 

European oil giants have petitioned international governments to set carbon-pricing standards in order to provide a stable environment. The idea is to essentially charge carbon producing companies a fee commensurate with the cost of the damage they do to the environment and the public. This would not be good for coal. The efficiency of coal rests on the fact that it is easy to mine and burn, but only when you pass the indirect costs on to others. If coal has to start paying for the damage it does it will be unable to compete economically. By the way, ExxonMobil and Chevron were not parties to that petition. Nor do Democrats from coal-producing states support the idea.

However, coal isn't dead. Interestingly, billionaire George Soros has recently invested millions of dollars in coal companies, including Peabody Energy. Soros has long been a critic of coal, so this move has generated plenty of speculation. Is he putting his money where his mouth is and planning on shutting down coal operations? Or, is he merely a money-grubbing SOB who sees a chance to make a profit at the world's expense? Soros is not one of my favorite people, despite his stance on climate change, so I'm expecting it is the latter.

Additionally, the International Energy Agency estimates coal demand will continue to rise, albeit at a slower rate, through 2019 and will peak out at 9 billion tons per year. The majority of that demand will be in China, despite its efforts to reign in coal burning, and undeveloped countries which will typically burn it in inefficient plants.

Coal defenders are quick to claim this will spell disaster for the world. Funny how they claim bad things for them is a disaster, but climate scientists predicting bad things are 'alarmists.' The fact is, it will not be a bad thing for the world economy. The energy industry has shifted before and the results were far from bad. In fact, coal accounted for about 80% of the world's energy production in 1900, but only about 20% today. The revolution has already occurred. Now, we need to finish it.

The trend is certainly there - coal is on the way out. We just need to make it happen faster.

I Don't Believe Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush said recently the GOP should become the "party of science," being quoted as saying:

I think as conservatives we should embrace innovation, embrace technology, embrace science. It's the source of a lot more solutions than any government-imposed idea and sometimes I sense that we pull back from the embrace of these things. We shouldn't. We're the party that should be the party of discovery, the party of science, the party of innovation and tear down the barriers so that those things can accelerate in our lives to find solutions for all these things.

Interesting and promising, especially when he goes on to say this about climate change:

The climate is changing; I don’t think anybody can argue it’s not. Human activity has contributed to it.

So, why do I not believe him? Because, he also said this:

I think we have a responsibility to adapt to what the possibilities are without destroying our economy, without hollowing out our industrial core.

I think it’s appropriate to recognize this and invest in the proper research to find solutions over the long haul but not be alarmists about it. We should not say the end is near, not deindustrialize the country, not create barriers for higher growth, not just totally obliterate family budgets, which some on the left advocate by saying we should raise the price of energy so high that renewables then become viable.

U.S. emissions of greenhouse gasses are down to the same levels emitted in the mid-1990s, even though we have 50 million more people. A big reason for this success is the energy revolution which was created by American ingenuity—not federal regulations.

Ah, the party line - literally, the party line. All he has done is add a twist. Now that they have been thoroughly embarrassed by denying the science for so long ("I am not a scientist, but ...), they are now adopting the tactic of 'yes, manmade climate change is real, but we shouldn't do anything about it. The free market will take care of everything.'

Doubts? Take a look at this quote:

Bloomberg BNA:Should the Keystone XL pipeline be approved?

Bush: Yes. Construction of the Keystone pipeline is a no brainer. It moves us toward energy independence and creates jobs. The President’s politically motivated veto of the pipeline is an example of how this administration supports policies that suppress economic growth.

Or, this one:

Bloomberg BNA: Do you support the EPA’s Clean Power Plan? What should the next step be for states?

Bush: Obama’s carbon rule is irresponsible and ineffective. First, it does virtually nothing to address the risk of climate change. Second, it oversteps state authority. Third, EPA has gone far beyond its statutory authority, regulating how people consume energy. Fourth, it threatens the reliability of the electricity grid. Finally, as proposed, it will unnecessarily increase energy costs on hard-working families and will cause job losses in many states.

Ah, Mr. Bush is going to the "I'm not a scientist" standard by ignoring the science and repeating lies designed to help the fossil fuel industry. Let's examine each of his claims.

"First, it does virtually nothing to address the risk of climate change."

The CPP will reduce carbon emissions in this country by 30% by 2030. Since CO2 is the principle driver of global warming and climate change, this would be a significant step towards addressing climate change. One of the criticisms is this does nothing to address emissions by other countries and that is a lie. When the U.S. fails to act, other countries take note and follow suit. Likewise, when the U.S. does act, other countries will do the same. This is already happening with even China reducing its carbon emissions.

Bush lied.

"Second, it oversteps state authority."

Mr. Bush has apparently discovered time travel and has returned to the 1850s. The authority of the federal government to regulate environmental issues is well established and irrefutable. So, why did Mr. Bush do that?

Bush lied.

"Third, EPA has gone far beyond its statutory authority, regulating how people consume energy."

The CPP addressed carbon emissions, it says nothing about consumers at all. People will be able to consume energy the same way as they do now and it will not be affected. So, why did Mr. Bush say so?

Bush lied.

"Fourth, it threatens the reliability of the electricity grid."

The North American Energy Reliability Corporation (NERC) released a report on the CPP. NERC is a federal non-profit organization charged with overseeing reliable delivery of power. One issue it drew attention to was how the timeline may problematic with regards to building facilities and infrastructure to replace the carbon emitters.

“You will need a lot of work and a lot of construction to get to the CO2 emission cuts the EPA is proposing, and that is going to take a lot of time and coordination,” added NERC Director of Reliability Assessment John Moura. “This study paves the way for that discussion.”

In other words, some states will need more time. That is not the same as saying it will "threaten the reliability of the energy grid." Again, John Moura:

“We are not prescribing a specific date, but we do think 2020 is too soon for many states," he said. "Only when the states start developing their plans and coordinating with other states will they know what they need to do and how long it will take. That might not be until 2023 or 2025. They need to take advantage of EPA’s flexibility to work those things out.”

So, no, the CPP does not threaten the grid, but some adjustments will need to be made. Let's give Bush the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Bush exaggerated the issue.

"Finally, as proposed, it will unnecessarily increase energy costs on hard-working families and will cause job losses in many states." 

This quote is from a report produced by the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

Retail electricity prices and expenditures rise under the Clean Power Plan. Retail electricity prices increase most in the early 2020s, in response to initial compliance measures. Increased investment in new generating capacity as well as increased use of natural gas for generation lead to electricity prices that are 3% to 7% higher on average from 2020-25 in the Clean Power Plan cases, versus the respective baseline cases (Figure 14). While prices return to near-baseline levels by 2030 in many regions, prices remain at elevated levels in some parts of the country. In Florida and the Southeast, the Southern Plains, and the Southwest regions the projected electricity prices in 2030 are roughly 10% above baseline in the Base Policy case (CPP). Electricity expenditures also generally rise with Clean Power Plan implementation, but expenditure changes are smaller in percentage terms than price changes as the combination of energy-efficiency programs pursued for compliance purposes and higher electricity prices tends to reduce electricity consumption relative to baseline. By 2040, total electricity expenditures in the CPP case are slightly below those in the AEO2015 Reference case, as decreases in demand more than offset the price increases.

In summary, they found energy will become more expensive at first, especially during the 2020s, but will drop by the 2040s. Twentyfive years from now is far enough away for us to discount the projection.

However, other studies show the CPP will result in lower energy bills. Not only that, it will lead to an increase in jobs and result in billions of dollars in improved health benefits. By the year 2030, it is estimated the annual costs of the CPP will be $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion, but the benefits will amount to $55 billion to $93 billion. Even if those calculations are off, it is easy to see the benefits far outweigh the costs. Among the benefits, these things will be avoided:

• 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths
• 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children
• 340 to 3,300 heart attacks
• 2,700 to 2,800 hospital admissions
• 470,000 to 490,000 missed school and work days

This is a far cry from what Mr. Bush claimed. Why would he be opposed to these benefits? Even if the EIA estimate on increased costs of energy is correct over the EPA estimate, the other benefits outweigh those increased costs.

Bush lied.

Out of five claims, we see Bush lied about four and exaggerated the other one.

This blogger at Scientific American stated, "And what's clear right now is that Jeb Bush has set a high bar for his party." I disagree. Bush is exhibiting the same anti-science policies his party has become famous for. You cannot acknowledge science with one hand and then reject it with the other and claim to be the 'party of science.' You have to accept it all, and Jeb Bush has shown he favors his industry supporters more than the science.


UPDATE: Shortly after writing this post I read how 365 companies have signed a letter supporting the EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP). General Mills, Nestle, Staples, Adidas and Mars were among the 365 businesses and investors - which ranged from small companies to industry giants - to sign it. This letter was being sent to 29 state governors. It is said "the businesses signed the letter to dispel the myth that any sort of regulation would be bad for the economy."

Explain to us again, Mr. Bush. If the CPP is so bad for the economy, why are so many big companies is support of it?