In reporting on how the Obama administration is playing, out on the road, the recent death of a (straightforward) Kyoto II treaty along with the death of a (straightforward) cap-and-trade or similar energy rationing scheme, the Washington Times’ Kara Rowland also reveals a little more about the administration’s plan, and its spin or ignorance.
Mr. Obama surrendered on “cap-and-trade” before he attends the Group of 20 summit this week in Seoul. Asked how the president will explain the situation to world leaders looking for U.S. leadership on climate change, the White House cited several other measures short of setting a price on carbon emissions.
“You could, for instance, as many states have done throughout the country, have a renewable-energy standard that said a certain amount of your power will be generated using renewable sources, which obviously would cut down, by definition, on greenhouse gases,” said press secretary Robert Gibbs.
First, its a Renewable Energy Mandate. Not standard. And second, even Obama’s former models like Denmark and Spain didn’t actually reduce GHG emissions as a result of their binge. No plants get closed this way; wind and solar cannot replace any fossil plants. You just sock the rate payers and the economy by requiring the duplicate construction of massively land-hogging production “capacity” that will never produce but a fraction of its faceplate, claimed/advertised “capacity”. And then you make the ratepayers buy it. Which is to say, dictating how much of your electricity must come from what sources only makes energy much more expensive. Which is the admitted goal.
…”People are still concerned both about climate change as well as our ever-growing dependence on foreign oil,” he said. “But there’s more than one way to fix that.”
Yeah. With a windmill mandate. Because of..all those…wind- and solar-powered cars. Or is it that we get electricity from oil? I keep forgetting.
It’s on. The poll-tested ‘clean energy economy” and “green jobs” Plan B is being rolled out.
