Former Obama Energy Chief slams EPA climate regs

Marc Morano reports over at CFACT’s Climate Depot that former Obama Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell eviscerated the President’s proposed EPA Clean Power Plan regulation to fight global warming in testimony before Congress.

Clean Power Plan fail

McConnell’s full testimony here:

Former Assistant Secretary: “The Clean Power Plan (CPP) has been falsely sold as impactful environmental regulation when it is really an attempt by our primary federal environmental regulator to take over state and federal regulation of energy.”

“What is also clear, scientifically and technically, is that EPA’s plan will not significantly impact global emissions.”

“Consider that all of the U.S. annual emissions in 2025 will be offset by three weeks of Chinese emissions. Three weeks. So it is dramatically uneventful. Is this impactful climate regulation? I think not.”

testimony clean power plan all pain no gain

Categories

About the Author: CFACT Ed

  • tomwys

    I’m waiting to see Congress pull the plug on funding EPA activity in this area!

    Still waiting!!!

  • ReaperHD

    Time for TRUMP to pull the plug on the EPA and start all over, the EPA right now is an Energy Destroyer and the biggest Land Grab Department in the history of the USA along with the largest JOB DESTROYER of the American People.

  • chaamjamal

    although the AGW issue is presented as a relationship between atmospheric co2 levels and warming, the policy implication that we must cut emissions depends on a causal relationship between fossil fuel emissions and warming. The only empirical evidence of this relationship is a correlation between cumulative emissions and cumulative warming. This correlation is spurious. Please see

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743

    • Dano2

      The only empirical evidence of this relationship is a correlation between cumulative emissions and cumulative warming.

      You should learn about the history of GHG science when you get to 10th grade.

      Best,

      d

      • Frederick Colbourne

        Yes, and then question everything you have been taught.

        When I was in school, I was taught that the arrangements of continents is fixed. But later, plate tectonics overturned that dogma.

        We were also taught that humans have 48 chromosomes.

        And that duodenal ulcers are caused by stress.

        Eugenics was was a respected scientific discipline, supported by skull measurements. Governments in several countries enacted measures to regulate human breeding and prevent miscegenation.

        If you live long enough, science will again change your world view. That’s why we call it science and not religion.

        If, by the time you are 65, you still believe what you were taught in grade 10, then you were probably taught science as if it were a religion. Ditto other subjects too.

        The only escape is lifelong learning.

        • Dano2

          Let us know when you come up with a NewPhysics after all your questioning.

          Best,

          D

    • Frederick Colbourne

      Most trending data series are non-stationary, which is why econometrics has polynomial cointegration analysis to deal with such data.

      The paper you cited deals with cumulative values that are non-stationary. And the Keeling curve for CO2 as well as the curve for man made CO2 emissions are trending because they are cumulative. I have seen these data sets described as “trend stationary”. But this paper forces me to question such a characterization. So thanks for the reference.

      Here is reference that may interest you, about false correlation and spurious regression. This has been widely used in the field of econometrics since 1974, but is not seen as relevant in climate science. Based on an econometric technique called polynomial cointegration analysis an Israeli group concluded,

      “We have shown that anthropogenic forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, data for 1880–2007 do not support the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming during this period.”

      Beenstock, Reingewertz, and Paldor, Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 3, 561–596, 2012

      URL: http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/561/2012/esdd-3-561-2012.html

      My comment

      There have been several improvements to the paper since first submitted. However, the basic idea seems valid. Randomness is what one would expect for the climate system “…since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner.”

      Reference: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/504.htm

      Engle and Granger (1987) is the seminal paper on cointegration and perhaps the most cited paper in the history of econometrics, treating specification, representation, estimation and testing.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granger_causality

  • Joel Bensonetti

    Surprisingly enough but as of yet President Obama has not said that the last ice age was the fault of fires lit by cavemen [to stay warm]. Give him time, it’s probably coming. Then he will pardon them along with all of the drug dealing lifers he’s setting free.

  • Scott Frasier

    when Obatard does leave office, how far away will he go?
    “cut the hamstring on the back of his leg at the bottom. He’ll never play golf again,
    because his weight displacement goes back, all his weight is on his right foot, and
    he’ll push everything off to the right. He’ll never come through on anything. He’ll quit the game.”

    • rhetorical1

      bho has already rented a house in DC.

  • John Macdonell

    Of course CFACT will slam EPA climate Regs.

    That’s part of your self-appointed mission – right?

    • rhetorical1

      John Macdonell stop – I urge you to stop taking those stupid pills. Why don’t you actually do yourself a favor and study the issue a little bit instead of just buying into the lies that you have bought hook, line & sinker.

    • Frederick Colbourne

      John, when confronted by the assertion that EPA regulations would have negligible effect on climate, the EPA Administrator testified before Congress that climate regulation was not the purpose of the regulations. The purpose is to show world leadership.

      That goes beyond the powers delegated by Congress in the Clean Air Act, which is to regulate US air quality for the purpose of protecting American health and welfare.

      Not only is the President harming the health and welfare of Americans by undermining the economy, but he is doing so for no direct benefit to America.

      This is a clear contravention of the principle of separation of powers as set out in the Constitution. The President has made public his intention to make new law that Congress refuses to enact.

      And for what purpose? To lead the world.

      Was it for this that the Founders labored so long and hard: to replace a king with an emperor?

  • Imaybewrongbutimmostlyright

    So this joker, who believes the lies of “climate change” which he and others like him swore up and down was “global warming”, is telling us that the EPA’s “plan” won’t effect “global climate change” in any noticeable way, and yet this man can’t bring himself to honestly say that there is NOTHING we can do to change “climate change”? If these EPA, Draconian, regulations which will bankrupt our country FOR NOTHING, causes no discernible benefit, then why won’t this moron actually admit that logic dictates that NO HUMAN EFFORT OR PLAN is able to decrease at all this sham of “climate change” much less do it AFFORDABLY? Gosh! Why am I smarter than this rich idiot? How is that even possible?
    Come Lord Jesus!

  • jerrypa

    “Consider that all of the U.S. annual emissions in 2025 will be offset by three weeks of Chinese emissions. – That says volumes about Obama’s EPA

  • jreb57

    Myth: CO2 causes climate change.

  • Kyle

    The comments are on the same knuckle-dragging level as the contents of this website. It’s all denial industry propaganda targeting the least common denominator. That would be you, climatards.