Clean Power Plan or Expensive Electricity Plan? | Dr. Steven J. Allen

Clean Power Plan or Expensive Electricity Plan? | Dr. Steven J. Allen


On October 10th, 2017, Environmental Protection
Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt announced the repeal of the Obama administration’s
so-called Clean Power Plan. Here’s the background:
When he was running for president, Barack Obama told journalists that, under his energy
plan, QUOTE “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” UNQUOTE
electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket Democrats, who then controlled Congress, refused
to pass the Obama energy plan… so, to achieve the same goal, the Obama administration came
up with his 460 pages of regulations, the so-called Clean Power Plan.
This was supposed to fight Global Warming by cutting carbon dioxide emissions 32% by
2030, compared to 2005. But even according to the EPA’s own computer
model, the effects of the plan on the climate are minimal. …that it would reduce the temperature
by the end of the century by less than one-fiftieth of a degree—an amount that’s too small
for science to measure. They claim that the plan would reduce sea-level rise… by a whopping
one one-hundredth of an inch. And this wouldn’t come free. The plan was
projected to hike electricity costs by more than 250 percent. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the economic impact of the Clean Power Plan
would lead to a loss of about 17-hunded dollars for the average family of four by the year
2025. And that’s the average family. Many towns in our nation were built around coal
mines, and they’ve already been economically devastated – in part due to the effects
of the “Clean Power Plan.” Meanwhile, countries that couldn’t care
less about Global Warming theory—Communist China, for example—would gain a tremendous
competitive advantage over the U.S. as we deliberately impoverished ourselves.
Rather than calling it the “Clean Power Plan,” a better name would be the “Expensive
Electricty Plan.”  Luckily, it’s being repealed. It’s now headed where it belongs
– the ashheap of history. To learn more click the link to the article
on our website. I’m Dr. Steven J Allen, thanks for watching,

0 COMMENTS

    Decrease temp by 1/50th of a degree? Water levels by 100th of an inch? Golly, that DOES sound silly…at least until you realize the POINT was to prevent the current RISE in both those figures.

    Tell me o sage conservatives, what was the international community's estimate for changes by 2100 as of current pollution markers? 4 degrees increase in temperature? 22 ft. sea rise?

    It would seem arresting that rise means that the changes the Act caused effectively LOWERED current projections by a country mile. But hey, can't have corporate interests losing money. So keep on peddling your bullshit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *