Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

“Hillary Clinton’s climate and energy policies, explained”

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • “Hillary Clinton’s climate and energy policies, explained”



    Vox’s David Roberts actually wrote a useful article. Since there is a slim chance that Hillary Clinton might be America’s first woman and second Marxist President, her views on climate and energy are worth examining. Thankfully, Mr. Roberts’ article contains plenty of material worthy of ridicule… And I like ridiculing people like Mr. Roberts and Mrs. Clinton. So, without further ado…



    Link to article

    Link to WUWT post.
    Hillary Clinton’s climate and energy policies, explained

    Media coverage of the Democratic primary has not shed much light on Hillary Clinton’s proposals for climate change and clean energy policy.

    But oh, she has proposals. Lots of them! I read the white papers. And I called the campaign to talk through some of the specifics and the broader political thinking that informs them.

    Her plans haven’t gotten much press — not as much as, say, her gaffe about coal miners — but they are exhaustive. In fact, they are quintessentially Clintonesque, rich with wonky detail, conversant with the policy levers available, and careful, always, to stay within the bounds of the politically possible (as she sees it).

    I’m going to break this down as a series of numbered lists — not one, not two, but five lists of three:
    1. The three key facts the campaign took as starting points
    2. The three overarching goals of the plan
    3. Three numerical targets by which the success of the plan will be judged
    4. Three strategies to get there
    5. Three issues (e.g., fracking) environmentalists are keen to hear more about



    All the juicy policy stuff is in part four, so skip down there if you just want the nuts and bolts.

    The three key facts the campaign took as starting points

    1) Climate change is a serious problem that requires hitting the targets promised in Paris.

    Clinton agrees with Bernie Sanders (and exactly zero of the 17 Republicans who ran for president) that climate change is “an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time.” According to the campaign, meeting that challenge means, at a very minimum, hitting the greenhouse gas targets President Barack Obama pledged before the international community at the Paris climate talks: 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

    […]

    3) The next president must do more, and Congress won’t be much help.

    The measures Obama has put in place do not currently have the US on a trajectory to hit its 2025 goal, much less the more ambitious goals that lie beyond it. So the next administration must do more.

    And Congress — or at least the House of Representatives — is likely to be controlled by Republicans in 2016, which means comprehensive climate and energy legislation will be off the table. As campaign chair John Podesta told National Journal last year, “In the short term, the chances of this Congress becoming a real partner with an administration” on climate change policy are “small.”

    And as Clinton has said, “Climate change is too urgent a threat to wait on Congress.” So she’s developed a strategy that doesn’t require waiting.

    The three overarching goals of the plan

    […]

    2) Make sure the transition works for all Americans.

    A transition of this scale will not work without broad political buy-in. That means engineering a shift to clean energy that, in Clinton’s words, “doesn’t leave anyone out or behind.”

    According to the campaign, that means a number of things: economic development for coal communities, a focus on low-income households and communities of color, expanding union density in the clean energy space, and helping states figure out net metering and retail rate design issues.

    Coal communities are particularly important to Clinton, who mentions them on the stump frequently. She just returned from a two-day tour through Appalachian coal country, in which she spoke at length about her plan to “revitalize coal communities.” That plan was one of the first pieces of energy policy she released.



    […]

    Let’s pause here for a moment.

    This:

    “The next president must do more, and Congress won’t be much help… And Congress — or at least the House of Representatives — is likely to be controlled by Republicans in 2016, which means comprehensive climate and energy legislation will be off the table.”


    Plus this:

    “Make sure the transition works for all Americans. A transition of this scale will not work without broad political buy-in. That means engineering a shift to clean energy that, in Clinton’s words, ‘doesn’t leave anyone out or behind.'”


    Equals mind boggling idiocy.

    Congress is elected by the people she expects to “buy in” to the destruction of our economy in a Quixotic effort to end the natural variability of Earth’s climate. The House of Representatives is the most directly elected branch of our Federal government. The people she expects to “buy in” are electing people to Congress who won’t authorize the trillions of dollars of new welfare programs (“economic development for coal communities, a focus on low-income households and communities of color, expanding union density in the clean energy space, and helping states figure out net metering and retail rate design issues.”) she expects to dole out in exchange for the “buy in.”

    The phrases “bread and circuses” and “you can’t get there from here” come to mind.

    Back to Fantasyland…
    Three numerical targets by which the success of the plan will be judged

    Clinton pledges that within 10 years of her taking office, the US will (quoting from her campaign website):
    1. “Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.” (That would mean installed solar PV capacity of 140 gigawatts by the end of 2020, up 700 percent from current levels and well beyond most forecasts.)
    2. “Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.” (The campaign estimates this would save Americans about $8 billion a year in energy and health care costs.)
    3. “Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships and trucks.”

    I could have shortened this list to one item:
    1. You people need to stay home and freeze in the dark!!!!!


    This is even more mind boggling in its idiocy than the “buy in” bit…

    “Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.” (That would mean installed solar PV capacity of 140 gigawatts by the end of 2020, up 700 percent from current levels and well beyond most forecasts.)”


    140 GW of solar panels will generate about as much electricity as 35 GW of coal- or gas-fired generation. This wouldn’t even be a “drop in the bucket”…



    While I have no idea what Donald Trump’s plans are regarding energy and climate change, Mrs. Clinton’s are worse than those of the current occupant of the White House.



    References

    Statistical Review of World Energy 2015, BP

    Electricity Generating Capacity, U.S. EIA
    7
    Are mindbogglingly idiotic.
    28.57%
    2
    Will save us from Gorebal Warming.
    0.00%
    0
    Are just stuff she babbles to lock up the greenturd vote.
    71.43%
    5
    97% of scientists said something I didn't understand.
    0.00%
    0
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    Congress is elected by the people she expects to “buy in” to the destruction of our economy in a Quixotic effort to end the natural variability of Earth’s climate. The House of Representatives is the most directly elected branch of our Federal government. The people she expects to “buy in” are electing people to Congress who won’t authorize the trillions of dollars of new welfare programs (“economic development for coal communities, a focus on low-income households and communities of color, expanding union density in the clean energy space, and helping states figure out net metering and retail rate design issues.”) she expects to dole out in exchange for the “buy in.”
    Hillary is a Progressive. She firmly and actually believes, like the vast majority of Progressives, that her position on energy and Gorebal Warming is reasonable. That is it has been vetted, if you will, and that it's an accurate, rational, settled thing. It becomes dogma.

    Any rational person, by her thinking, would agree with that. By extension, it is only irrational, ill-informed idiots that disagree.

    Thus, Hillary's position on energy becomes an insane, irrational, and indefensible one for those not on the Progressive Left who see other possibilities beyond those she proposes. This is because when someone with such a viewpoint tries to discuss their alternate view with her, or those of her ilk, they are met not with a rational response but rather vitriol, hate, derision, and insults.

    Now, I don't believe for a second that Hillary (or Obama) have the first clue about the economics or engineering that goes into energy production. They both hail from Liberal Arts backgrounds that pretty much ignored science, math, and anything related to such subjects.
    For Hillary, energy policy is based on Progressive Leftist dogma that she parrots because that will buy her votes. She isn't making any sort of considered, informed decision in this area whatsoever. In this sense, she is no different from Obama.

    Like Obama I'm sure she'd agree that energy prices would have to go up if a cap and trade system were imposed on coal. Then she'd say that would be "temporary" while transitioning to "Green" energy which is "renewable" and "free." Never mind the economics of that, or the impracticality. Those are details and irrelevant for a Progressive.

    Comment

    Latest Topics

    Collapse

    Working...
    X