Thanks to President Obama’s massive tax breaks for wealthy auto buyers, hybrid-electric vehicle sales in November rose to a lofty 3.5 percent of all vehicle sales — numbers the industry hasn’t seen since the summer of 2008 when gasoline hit $4 a gallon.

Electric vehicles are targeted at customers making over $200,000 — and they are generously rewarded for their politically correct choice, receiving subsidies of $7,500 for a $40,000 Chevy Volt or a $36,000 Nissan Leaf. Buyers of Toyota’s $32,000 Prius plug-in get a $2,500 tax credit — and purchasers of Ford’s $33,000 C-Max Energi plug-in get $3,750. But sales for both the Volt and Leaf lagged last month, moving Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn to warn that more subsidies are necessary to keep sales numbers up (to put hybrid-electric sales in perspective, their 40,000 vehicle sales in November was 16,000 fewer than sales of the Ford F-150 pickup alone).

The increase in hybrid-electric sales came with the continued rebound of U.S. auto sales — now at their highest levels since 2007.

The bad news for greens is that the industry’s revival is coming on the backs of more-profitable trucks, with SUV sales making up a majority of the market at 50.6 percent. Greens have quietly cheered the Great Recession which brought lower carbon emissions — in part because cost-conscious auto buyers took refuge in fuel-sipping econo-boxes (sedan sales in 2007 significantly outpaced SUV sales).

“If ‘business as usual’ conditions continue, economic contractions the size of the Great Recession or even bigger will be needed to reduce atmospheric levels of CO2,” warned Tapia Granados, a researcher for the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, in a study this May.

President Obama says that global warming is “one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation.” But to fight it, he will paradoxically need continued tax breaks for the wealthy — the target of his 2012 class-warfare campaign and his fiscal-cliff negotiating stance. Obama giveth, and Obama taketh away.

 CFACT Blog from Doha — Day 2

“It must be understood that what is occurring here, not just in Doha but in the whole climate change process, is a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.  It should happen much quicker than it is happening, but it cannot happen overnight.” – UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres

Kicking off the second week of climate negotiations in Doha, Qatar, Ms. Figueres outlined the process her climate confab is preparing to undertake, to push through a second commitment period of greenhouse gas reductions after the Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of the year. Step one is putting in place the “necessary amendments” to the current Kyoto Protocol and extending its life with another round of commitments. Step two is working toward “a new universal agreement that is legally based” and can be fully up and running by 2020.

Achieving this, of course, will take a lot of strong-arming — which won’t be easy, even for a self-described “daughter of a revolutionary” like Figueres.

Canada has withdrawn from the process altogether. The US (at the moment anyway) remains insistent on developing world participation. Many expect Japan to say sayonara shortly. And then there’s China, which has always been an unwieldy participant, complicating negotiations.

CFACT, naturally, is doing its part to make Ms. Figueres’s job tougher. This week it plans to hold a press conference, challenging the need for a new treaty by pointing out there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 16 years. Marc Morano, editor of CFACT’s Climate Depot news and information service, will be releasing a report debunking claims of increasing severe weather incidents, and Lord Christopher Monckton will be on hand to greet reporters and conduct interviews with various media outlets that are covering COP 18.

Today, people enjoying the sun on the beaches near Doha were amused as CFACT staff paraded several camels sporting signs that read “Stop Climate Hype.” Tomorrow the organization will host conference participants on board a native Doah boat, introducing them to information that is critical of IPCC science. CFACT strongly believes that any “complete transformation of the economic structure of the world” should be base on real science — not on hypotheses, assertions, hype, and computer models that thus far have failed every attempt to verify their claims with actual observations and data on temperature, weather, and climate. 

Though she is certainly invited, it is doubtful Ms. Figueres will care to join them. 

There’s no way this isn’t one of the funnier things to watch in 2013:

Showtime is trumpeting a “documentary event” on its network slated for 2013 that will provide in-depth perspectives on climate change. Called Years of Living Dangerously, the series will involve some of Hollywoods top producers and several A-List actors.

The premium cable network plans to air 6 to 8 one-hour episodes, to be produced by filmmaker James Cameron, producer Jerry Weintraub, former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, 60 Minutes producers Joel Bach and David Gelber, as well as climate expert Daniel Abbasi.

Joe Romm, who writes the blog ClimateProgress.org, will serve as a technical advisor.

“We’ll make it exciting,” said Cameron in a statement. “We’ll make it investigative. We’ll bring people the truth. And people are always hungry for the truth.”

Actors Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, and Alec Baldwin will narrate the program and Ed Norton is expected to join, Showtime says.

“The recent devastation on the East Coast is a tragic reminder of the direct link between our daily lives and climate change,” said Showtime executive David Nevins.

Ah, thank you, Mr. Nevins; weather equals climate — again, for now (it mustn’t be winter yet).

I hope one of the “events” covers the devastation in Malibu from global warming. That should be a real tear-jerker. The rest here.

With the climate talks in Doha, Qatar limping along, and support for a new treaty waning among nations in attendance, one might expect spirits to be down among the global warming faithful. But this is not the case.

Yes, nations like Canada, New Zealand, and Japan seem eager to withdraw from the process. And yes, nature has not been exactly cooperative, with 16 years of no statistically significant warming. However, delegates here at COP 18 remain steadfast in their cause and willing to do almost anything it takes to “save the earth.”

CFACT highlighted this eagerness to go to extremes by introducing a new gadget called the “sequestration of exhalation device” — a mask that would filter CO2 from a person’s breath. Conference delegates were asked if they would wear such a mask if it would filter out all the CO2 they exhale. Surprisingly, many said yes.

Here’s a video of the interviews and responses:

Of course the mask really did no such thing, but those questioned were unaware that the proposition being made was done in sport. A few actually said they would have their children wear the mask, even going as far as to say their pets could wear a filtration mask too.

Among those trying the mask were members of the IPCC and World Meteorological Organization — two of the leading scientific bodies supporting global warming investigations. Although they were unwilling to use the mask themselves, they did entertain its usefulness and give their input on the notion.

If COP 18 attendees are willing to consent to wearing an invasive mask, just how far are they willing to cajole, push, or coerce the rest of the world to take action? Stay tuned: Visit www.CFACT.org for updates on COP18. 

And down goes another fracking-alarmist talking point. Via the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

While the United States lags in developing a broad-based climate policy, the nation’s carbon emissions reached a 20-year low this year. Many have attributed some of that drop to a booming supply of low-carbon natural gas, of which the United States is the world’s largest producer. But does natural gas — and specifically the quickly developing production of shale gas — create other emissions, such as methane, that could be just as harmful? A new study by MIT researchers shows the amount of methane emissions caused by shale gas production has been largely exaggerated.

“While increased efforts need to be made to reduce emissions from the gas industry overall, the production of shale gas has not significantly increased total emissions from the sector,” says Francis O’Sullivan, a researcher at the MIT Energy Initiative and the lead author of the study released this week in Environmental Research Letters.

The research comes amidst several other reports on the impact of “fugitive” methane emissions — gas leaked or purposefully vented during and immediately after the stage of shale gas production known as hydraulic fracturing. While many of these reports studied the amount of potential emissions associated with the hydraulic fracturing process, the MIT researchers stress that this is only part of the puzzle. Consideration must also be given to how this gas is handled at the drilling sites, the study shows.

“It’s unrealistic to assume all potential emissions are vented,” O’Sullivan says. “Not least because some states have regulations requiring flaring as a minimum gas-handling method.”

Sergey Paltsev, the study’s co-author and the assistant director for economic research at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, says companies also have an economic reason for wanting to capture this “fugitive” gas.

“When companies vent and flare methane they are losing gas that they could have captured and sold,” Paltsev says. “When we compared the cost of installing the right equipment to capture this gas to the loss in revenue if it isn’t captured, we found that the majority of shale wells make money by capturing the potential ‘fugitive’ emissions.”

Imagine that: capitalism solved a problem. The rest here.

Here’s the latest scheme from the DOE: a taxpayer-financed battery “hub” to further research into advanced battery technology. Via The Energy Collective:

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced yesterday that a consortium of companies and research institutions led by Argonne National Laboratory, known as the Joint Center for Energy Storage and Research (JCESR), has been designated as the new battery and energy storage hub of the U.S. Department of Energy.  The hub designation includes an award of $120 million over the next five years to fund research, development and commercialization of advanced battery technology.  Congratulations to NAATBatt members Dow Chemical Company and Applied Materials, which are commercial partners in the hub.

In announcing the award, Secretary Chu outlined his vision for how best to develop advanced battery technology in the United States.  He recounted how early in his career, he had opportunity to work with several veterans of the Manhattan Project.  Those veterans taught him that the key to success in a large technology project is getting the greatest minds across a number of disciplines together in the same room to work on a common problem.  This is the idea behind the new battery hub.

The new battery hub includes top battery scientists from six national laboratories, five universities, three major industrial companies (including Dow and Applied Materials), a start-up incubator, and an advisory council of venture capital firms.  Although the principal focus of JCESR will be basic science, the structure of the hub will encourage new technology developed in the laboratory to filter through several technical and business disciplines and move rapidly towards commercialization.

Where to start on what’s wrong with this? Well, for one, it’s another example of comparing a technology endeavor today inappropriately to the Manhattan Project of the 1940s. When the Manhattan Project began, the math and physics to make an atomic bomb were relatively straightforward and understood. The Germans were first to split the atom in 1938, and even helped us out by publishing their findings in 1939. It was the engineering to make the math and physics work that was a problem. Contrast that to today’s goal of an advanced battery. To make these new batteries, you not only have the mathematical challenges, but issues with the right combination of metals and materials, chemical processes and engineering obstacles.

The Manhattan Project was run by the military in secret without any Congressional oversight and is estimated to have cost close to $26 billion in today’s dollars. Are we to believe that a paltry $120 million in full public view with (alleged) Congressional oversight will accomplish a similar breakthrough?

Here’s a good post by John F. McGowan, Ph.D at Math-Blog.com arguing that the Manhattan Project’s success, historically, was a fluke. And to think that the Manhattan Project which McGowan calls success “on the first try” can be repeated is wishful thinking.

Secondly, why is taxpayer money funding this thing in the first place? Here’s the partial list of those receiving funding from The Energy Collective piece. None can be classified as “hurting for cash” shall we say:

The new battery hub includes top battery scientists from six national laboratories, five universities, three major industrial companies (including Dow and Applied Materials), a start-up incubator, and an advisory council of venture capital firms.

And the most important question of all: After this selected group of multi-billion-dollar corporations, labs, and universities receive this taxpayer-financed gift, where will they locate the “hub?”

Well, Chicago of course.

It could be. And Republicans are none to happy with that possibility. Via the National Legal and Policy Center:

The Chinese government, unsurprisingly, has approved a potential sale of stimulus-funded ($279 million-plus) A123 Systems to one of its own automobile parts manufacturers, should the Wanxiang Group’s bid be the highest this week for the bankrupt electric vehicle battery maker.

That was the easy part.

So far Republican Sens. Charles Grassley (Iowa) and John Thune (S.D.) have repeatedly raised questions and concerns about the possible transfer of A123’s business, jobs and technology from the U.S. – where taxpayers have thrown in approximately $132 million only to see many times that amount in losses since its 2009 initial public offering – to China. They’re no longer the only voices speaking out against the transaction.

Last week the Strategic Materials Advisory Council, a coalition of former U.S. Government and military leaders and industry experts, announced its opposition to a transfer of A123 to Wanxiang’s control. The group sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that cited concerns about contracts the battery maker has with the Defense Department and the possible transfer of technology to a military rival.

The rest here.

For its part, the Obama administration has filed a brief with the bankruptcy court saying A123 cannot be sold without the government’s approval because of the taxpayer grant. What makes this strange is any purchase by the Chinese must be approved by Treasury’s CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, anyway. Is Team Obama worried CFIUS will approve the sale and is hoping to stop the transaction in another manner?

In the meantime, Fisker Automotive — another taxpayer-funded disaster investment — has idled production of its cars because of delays in delivery of batteries from A123.

Stay tuned as the auction is set for December 6.

.

A “new hope” for advanced batteries on Obama’s second term? So writes James Greenberger at The Energy Collective:

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced yesterday that a consortium of companies and research institutions led by Argonne National Laboratory, known as the Joint Center for Energy Storage and Research (JCESR), has been designated as the new battery and energy storage hub of the U.S. Department of Energy.  The hub designation includes an award of $120 million over the next five years to fund research, development and commercialization of advanced battery technology.  Congratulations to NAATBatt members Dow Chemical Company and Applied Materials, which are commercial partners in the hub.

In announcing the award, Secretary Chu outlined his vision for how best to develop advanced battery technology in the United States.  He recounted how early in his career, he had opportunity to work with several veterans of the Manhattan Project.  Those veterans taught him that the key to success in a large technology project is getting the greatest minds across a number of disciplines together in the same room to work on a common problem.  This is the idea behind the new battery hub.

The new battery hub includes top battery scientists from six national laboratories, five universities, three major industrial companies (including Dow and Applied Materials), a start-up incubator, and an advisory council of venture capital firms.  Although the principal focus of JCESR will be basic science, the structure of the hub will encourage new technology developed in the laboratory to filter through several technical and business disciplines and move rapidly towards commercialization.

The objective of the hub is ambitious.  Eric Isaacs, Director of Argonne National Laboratory, stated that its goal is the Objective of Fives:  increasing the energy density of batteries by five times and reducing the cost of batteries by five times within the next five years.  Secretary Chu noted that if JCESAR can achieve even 80% of that objective, batteries would hit the price point necessary to become a major, disruptive technology on the grid and in automobiles.

Me, I’m skeptical and expect Jar-Jar Binks rather than any chance of a good Obama sequel. The rest here.

ICYMI, please do check out Charlie Cooke on the rise of Chinese CO2 production over in the Corner — and Kevin Williamson’s homepage piece on how Governor Patrick’s green-energy policies are hurting the small town of Princeton, Mass.

Via the National Legal and Policy Center:

The moment that all we electric automotive industry stakeholders (that is, taxpayers) have been waiting for has arrived! The dreams that spurred our $1.4 billion investment in Nissan’s Tennessee plant, for construction of the all-electric Leaf, and its batteries, will finally be realized!

Pass out the scissors for the ribbons, set up the podium for the dignitaries, and roll out a few of those shiny new models…what’s that you say? The ceremony’s been cancelled?

Sure enough, the planned grand opening a couple weeks ago for the Japanese automaker’s factory in Smyrna, Tenn. was called off. It’s not going to be rescheduled. The excuse was that there was a scheduling conflict “among key stakeholders,” which is a surprise considering that with so much taxpayer money behind Nissan’s loan guarantee, “key stakeholders” are plentiful.

But seriously, the horrid-selling Leaf never deterred Nissan from celebrating every milestone – real and imagined – since the car’s introduction nearly three years ago. According to PlugInCars.com, it all looked like a huge build-up to the culmination of what was supposed to be the party of all parties two weeks ago.

“Photo opportunities were created each time the first customer took possession of the first Nissan LEAF in its rollout markets,” the Web site reported. “Top executives smiled as they handed over keys. (Former Tenn.) Gov. Phil Bredesen attended the May 2010 groundbreaking ceremony for Nissan’s EV battery plant. Last year, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood toured the battery plant as it was under construction.”

The rest here.

New York Post:

Gov. Cuomo and New York would be frackin’ “crazy” to continue its fracking ban.

That’s the message from former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat whose state has seen an economic boom from high-volume hydraulic fracturing for natural gas.

“New York would be crazy not to lift the moratorium” imposed by former Gov. David Paterson in 2008, Rendell told The Post.

“I told Gov. Cuomo I would come to testify before any legislative committee,” Rendell added. “I told [Cuomo] it’s a good thing to do.”

Rendell’s strong pro-fracking comments are a coup for the drilling industry and for economically depressed upstate New York, which is clamoring for jobs.

The no-nonsense Rendell, a former head of the Democratic National Committee, has a lot of credibility on the issue.

Cuomo this week extended for 90 days yesterday’s deadline for adopting fracking regulations as experts study the potential public-health impact of fracturing shale with a high-pressure mix of chemicals, sand and water to capture trapped gas.

The rest here.

Hat-tip Steve Everley of Energy in Depth.

What the media didn’t say as they covered Joe Biden’s shopping trip to D.C.’s first Costco, which opened on Thursday. Via the Washington Post earlier this year:

While many have focused on the economic benefits of the project, some have expressed concerns about the environmental impact.

Fort Lincoln, site of a Civil War fort, is in one of the city’s choicest natural settings. Despite its proximity to Route 50, the neighborhood is nestled along grassy hillsides, and residents speak fondly of the area’s deer and birds.

Concerns about the loss of valuable wetlands stalled the project for five years as developers negotiated with various agencies. As part of an agreement with the D.C. Department of the Environment, developers will build 1.83 acres of new wetlands on the site to replace the 0.90 acre that will be destroyed.

The developers believe that’s a fair trade-off, but others have their doubts.

“Trying to build new wetlands to replace stuff that’s been there, it’s always a risky move,” said Mike Bolinder of Anacostia Riverkeeper. “We can try to build wetlands, but we have no idea how the water will interact with the earth.”

Others have criticized the planned 2,000-space parking lot, saying the project should be more transit-friendly. The neighborhood is accessible by bus but is not near a Metro station.

Judith Kildow and Jason Scorse propose the crazy idea in today’s New York Times that people who live in flood zones should pay for their own flood insurance:

IT’S no surprise that it can be very expensive to live near the ocean. But it may come as a surprise to American taxpayers that they are on the hook for at least $527 billion of vulnerable assets in the nation’s coastal flood plains. Those homes and businesses are insured by the federal government’s National Flood Insurance Program.

You read that right: $527 billion, which is just a portion of the program’s overall liability of $1.25 trillion, second only to Social Security in the liabilities on the government’s ledgers last year, according to government data.

The flood insurance program was created by Congress in 1968 to fill a void: because of the risk, few carriers provided flood insurance. Now, private insurers offer flood insurance in a partnership with the government — but taxpayers shoulder all the risk. It has turned out to be a bad bet. The program is $18 billion in debt, a sum the government acknowledges probably will never be paid back by premiums, and it is likely to need a new multibillion-dollar infusion to pay claims from Hurricane Sandy. It is long past time for the government to stop subsidizing home and business owners who live and build in dangerous flood zones.

Homeowners and businesses should be responsible for purchasing their own flood insurance on the private market, if they can find it. If they can’t, then the market is telling them that where they live is too dangerous. If they choose to live in harm’s way, they should bear the cost of that risk — not the taxpayers. Government’s primary role is ensuring the safety of its citizens, so the government’s subsidizing of risky behavior is completely backward.

The rest here.

Does anyone in the Obama administration have any concern about this move?

Fisker Automotive has hired Joel Ewanick, the former head of marketing at General Motors, as its interim chief of global sales and marketing, the company said on Monday. Fisker informed its retailers on Monday that Richard Beattie, who had been the company’s chief commercial officer, was retiring.

Mr. Ewanick will face the daunting task of building a positive image for Fisker, the maker of the $103,000 Karma luxury plug-in hybrid. The company has sustained a sequence of mishaps since the cars were first delivered to customers last December.

Russell Datz, a spokesman for Fisker, declined to comment on what Mr. Ewanick would encounter. “Anytime you start a car company, you’re in for challenge after challenge,” Mr. Datz said Tuesday.

Mr. Ewanick is a seasoned auto industry executive who has held top marketing positions at G.M. and Hyundai. He is a somewhat controversial figure: G.M. ousted him in July after he reportedly failed to disclose the full cost of a multimillion-dollar sponsorship deal with the English soccer team Manchester United. Mr. Ewanick’s hiring by G.M. in May 2010 was also considered unusual, because he took the position only six weeks after being hired by Nissan North America to head its marketing efforts.

Maybe Fisker can ask for more bailout money so Ewanick can financially support a sports league here in America?

“The (fuel mileage) standards will provide certainty for manufacturers in planning their investments and creating jobs in the auto industry as they add more fuel-saving technology to their vehicles,” cheered United Auto Worker President Bob King this January as he embraced President Obama’s radical new, 54.5 MPG-by-2025 mandate for auto fuel economy.” We are excited about the new green technologies that are being developed in the United states and produced in UAW-represented facilities.”

Talk about wishful thinking.

As government forces consumers into smaller cars, reports the Wall Street Journal, automakers are moving jobs to low-cost Mexico at a furious pace. “Mexico is taking center-stage in the production of cars, where lower costs and skilled workers are reordering the global auto market,” the Journal observes. “Six years ago, Mexico was the world’s ninth largest exporter of cars. Today the country is ranked fourth. One in 10 cars sold last year in the U.S. was made in Mexico.”

Even as the Obama administration takes credit for saving the U.S. auto industry with its Detroit bailouts, its environmental policies are squeezing jobs and profits by dictating that U.S. manufacturers produce what they — and their UAW employees — do worst: small cars. EPA’s higher fuel standards force manufacturers to both make smaller cars and to develop more expensive, alternative-fuel technologies. Either way, profit margins get squeezed.

Take Ford.

It leads the Detroit Three in profit margin per vehicle at 12 percent. The reasons run from Ford’s newer vehicle fleet to its owning its own finance company. But a big factor is that the Blue Oval is the industry leader in pickup sales — and gas-guzzling trucks command significantly higher margins than cars. Industry estimates peg truck margins (like the Ford F-150, the best-selling vehicle in America) at $5,000 per vehicle versus just $1,000 for a small subcompact like the Ford Fiesta.

As a result, the F-150 wears the “Made in America” label — and the new, MPG mandate–fighting Fiesta is made in Mexico. The higher Washington’s MPG mandate, the more automakers look to lower labor costs abroad.

“That’s bulls***,” hollers Michigan congressman John Dingell (D., Dearborn), who, like the UAW, supports Obama’s green agenda.

But industry experts say otherwise. Subcompact production will increase to meet the new rules. “The first place that pops up is Mexico, because of labor,” Guido Vildozo, an analyst at IHS Automotive, tells the Journal. Mexican wages run at $40 per day, while UAW wages and benefits are over $40 per hour. Honda, for example — which produces vehicles like the midsize Honda Accord in Ohio with non-union labor — will soon produce its subcompact, the Fit, in Mexico. That’s 3,200 new jobs south of the border.

“Mexico is extremely competitive,” says Carlos Ghosn, Nissan’s CEO. “You can run your plants with practically no limits if you want.” Translation: No union shops demanding inefficient work rules.

Nissan just won New York City’s contract — forced by Obama green ally Mayor Bloomberg — to build a new fleet of fuel-sipping, 4-cylinder taxi cabs. Every single one will be built in Mexico — replacing generations of UAW-made Ford Crown Victoria cabs.

Both Dingell and the UAW’s King were hypnotized by Obama’s promise of a new generation of battery-powered cars made in the U.S. But expensive electrics like the Chevy Volt and Fisker Karma have been disappointments — and their government-subsidized battery makers have laid off workers as markets failed to materialize.

Taxpayer-rescued Chrysler also faces the EPA whipsaw. The company has sprung back to life under Fiat management thanks to its popular Jeep truck brand — but to meet the feds’ MPG rules it is putting MPG-friendly, state-of-the-art, eight-speed transmissions in many of its vehicles. “Such expensive technology makes Chrysler’s products more competitive, but it also eats away at the company’s margins,” reports the Detroit News about Chrysler’s industry-trailing profit numbers.

In a historic irony only government could embrace, the Democratic Party saved the UAW — and are now proceeding to ship their jobs abroad to meet its expensive new MPG laws.

They told me if I voted for Mitt Romney the U.S. wouldn’t support “green” policies. And they were right:

President Barack Obama signed a bill on Tuesday shielding U.S. airlines from paying for each ton of carbon their planes flying into and out of Europe emit, despite a recent move by Europe to suspend its proposed measure for one year.

The carbon fee bill was the first piece of legislation debated on the House floor after Congress returned from recess on November 13, and had been cleared by the Senate in September in a rare unanimous vote.

It directs the U.S. transportation secretary to shield U.S. airlines from Europe’s carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) if he or she deems it necessary.

Lawyers have said the bill is an unusual piece legislation because it would prevent U.S. companies from complying with the laws of another country.

“It never made a bit of sense for European governments to tax our citizens for flying over our own airspace — and with the passage of this law we’ve got the tools we need to prevent it from happening and protect American jobs,” said Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, a co-author of the bill.

But I like China’s response better.

The EU had also been under pressure from China, one of the world’s fastest growing markets for aircraft, which had threatened to cancel orders of European Airbus aircraft if the EU did not back down from applying its ETS on all airlines.

“That’s a pretty nice aviation industry you got there. Would be a shame if anything happened to it. . .”

The whole piece here.

When the Kyoto Protocol was enacted in 1997 scientists knew it would have no discernible effect on temperatures. In 2009 Climategate exposed the fraudulent claims of leading climate scientists. And in 2012, satellite measurements indicate there has been no rise in global temperatures since 1998. Yet this week, government representatives are gathering in Doha, Qatar, to forge a new agreement to fight global warming.

Determined to divert attention to China as the devil in Doha, the Obama administration is parading its moral commitment to the Green Church. “Those who don’t know what the U.S. is doing may not be informed of the scale and extent of the effort, but it’s enormous,” boasts Jonathan Pershing, a U.S. climate negotiator.

But Pershing’s defense of his government was curious indeed. He cited the fracking-driven boom in natural gas production — a development that the administration has frowned upon and is eager to regulate — and ignored the administration’s War on Coal which has had devastating effects on coal employment in the Appalachian region.

The administration’s — and its in the-tank media’s — shyness to trumpet the EPA’s strangling of coal power is consistent with their silence during the campaign, when boasting of CO2 emissions cuts might draw attention to its economic costs in key states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.

But the effort to demonize China has this further irony: The U.S. coal employment picture would be even worse were it not for coal exports to China.

Obamedia has vigorously defended the administration’s war on coal, citing recent increases in U.S. coal employment. But that increase is entirely due to China’s carbon-burning economy. Appalachia has some of the world’s richest deposits of high-grade coal used to make steel — and with China’s insatiable hunger for steel in recent years, American coal companies were able to counter the domestic decline in coal demand with an increase in so-called metallurgical coal.

But now China’s economy is slowing — and so is its demand for U.S. coal, exacerbating blue-collar unemployment in Appalachia. Fewer jobs means fewer CO2 emissions. But don’t expect the U.S. to crow about that in Doha.

David Horsey writes in today’s Los Angeles Times:

What do Manhattan and Miami have in common with ancient Pompeii? They are doomed places where the residents cannot imagine that the good times will ever end.

Superstorm Sandy got our attention — like Mike Tyson walking into the house and punching our dog. And the certainty that more freakish, savage storms will pay a visit has made it tough for global-warming deniers to keep denying. But denial is not as tough to reckon with as obliviousness. Being oblivious to approaching doom is a consistent human trait. We are a hopeful, gullible and greedy species. Most of us imagine we can be the last one out of the burning casino with hundred-dollar bills stuffed in every pocket.

And. . .

On Sunday, the New York Times published a set of dramatic graphics showing how several coastal cities will be affected by rising sea levels that will be one result of global warming. Scientists say if immediate, dramatic measures are taken to reduce emissions, the seas may rise just 5 feet. New York City might be able to cope by erecting barriers, but Miami Beach would disappear. If the world hits just the modest emissions targets that have already been set, but largely ignored, sea level will go up 12 feet. That means all that will be left of Miami is a scattering of islands, while nearly a quarter of New York goes underwater. 

But if we continue full speed ahead, drilling, fracking and burning it all up, then the coasts will see a 25-foot rise that swamps all of south Florida; all of Norfolk, Va.; big swaths of New York and Boston; every beach in California and, strangely enough, more than 60% of Sacramento.

Of course, this is all many decades in the future, our legacy to future generations. For now, in between the storms and wildfires, we will remain oblivious. After all, until the end actually came, Pompeii was a pleasant town with a fine mountain view.

Here’s a bet: the good times end in Los Angeles or San Francisco thanks to the less-than-friendly San Andreas Fault before the sea level rises “12 feet” to flood parts of NYC and Miami. I wonder what David Horsey has done to prepare for the inevitable destruction from a killer earthquake. Anything?

From Today’s New York Post:

Gov. Cuomo yesterday put the first official price tag on the economic damage inflicted on the state by Hurricane Sandy — a staggering $42 billion, with $19 billion in the city alone.

He argued that the devastation wreaked by the storm statewide was worse than what Hurricane Katrina did to Louisiana in 2005.

“Hurricane Katrina, in many ways, was not as impactful as Hurricane Sandy, believe it or not,” Cuomo said. “Because of the density of New York, the number of people affected, the number of properties affected was much larger in Hurricane Sandy than Hurricane Katrina. This puts the entire conversation, I believe, into focus . . . Now Katrina had a human toll that thankfully we have not paid in this region.”

Unfortunately for the governor, the Post’s Nicole Gelinas is around to fact-check his claim with math:

Yesterday, Bloomberg tallied up the Sandy damage to Gotham: $19 billion.

That number includes $5.7 billion in lost “city product” — money that people didn’t earn or spend in New York because they were waylaid by the storm.

[. . .]

Gov. Cuomo claimed yesterday that Sandy packed a bigger fiscal punch than Katrina. Sorry, no: This is not Katrina when it comes to the proportion of the city damaged.

Katrina knocked more than 9 percent off New Orleans’ regional economy in late 2005 and early 2006. An equivalent hit here would be $60.8 billion in lost business, not $5.7 billion. For that, we can be thankful.

Gelinas then points out that unlike New Orleans, most of New York is business as usual:

Of course, it’s still jarring that Chinese tourists can flock to Louis Vuitton on Fifth Avenue while poor elderly folk huddle in the cold in the Rockaways, but that is what keeps the city budget afloat.

The whole piece here.

Stay tuned as Cuomo tries to ratchet up the rhetoric in the hope of a Katrina-style bailout for New York.

“Representative John D. Dingell . . . said that the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the E.P.A. would set off a ‘glorious mess’ that would resonate throughout the economy.” — New York Times, 2009

Since Barack Obama’s re-election, much has been made of Republican failures — particularly with the crucial Latino vote in key swing states. But the Democrats are not without their own disturbing numbers. They continue to be — despite Obama’s rhetoric — the party of the other-than-middle class, with voting blocs over $50,000 in income voting Romney. Republicans also made a significant, 9 percent gain among Jewish voters in the face of the administration’s chilly relations with Israel — not to mention the anti-business policies felt by this famously entrepreneurial minority (800 prominent Michigan Jews took out an ad for Romney in the Jewish News before Election Day).

But consider the most disturbing fact of the 2102 election for the “Party of the Working Man”: Democrats lost traditionally blue-collar, heavily Democratic coal country — from Southern Pennsylvania to eastern Ohio as well as all of Kentucky and West Virginia.

Why? Because the Democratic Party’s upper-crust, deeply devout Green class is waging war on the energy-producing working class. This year alone, thousands of miners lost their jobs because the EPA imposed strict global warming rules eliminating future coal plants.

So predictably was West Virginia in the Democratic column once upon a time that in 1988m, the United Mine Workers–controlled Mountain State was one of just nine states to vote for the hapless Michael Dukakis. But in the last four election cycles — since Al Gore’s religion mesmerized his party — West Virginia has become a solid GOP vote for one reason: The Democratic War on Coal.

Think of it: In 2012 Appalachian blue-collars voted in a landslide for a Republican Massachusetts millionaire.

True enough, Dingell’s predicted “glorious mess” is now resonating — not only in the economy, but in his own party. Dingell knows a thing or two about green fanatics trying to kill American industry — he fought against the Left’s War on the Automobile in his Big Three district west of Detroit for years. Recent redistricting means that Dingell now also represents the green university town of Ann Arbor — so his anti-environmentalist diatribes are more muted these days.

But when asked this week whether it’s a good idea for Obama’s EPA to be killing coal, he replied matter-of-factly: “Of course not.”

After all, Dingell opposed the EPA’s radical interpretation of his own Clean Air Act to rule carbon dioxide a pollutant. The “EPA got it wrong,” he says. But science lost that fight in the Supreme Court. And as result, Democrats are losing their working-man brand. Republicans lost Missouri and Indiana Senate seats this year thanks to Religious Right extremists. Meanwhile, Democrats lost Appalachia due to Religious Left Green extremists.

Both parties have been warned.