On April 29, 2019, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf released the latest version of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Climate Action Plan, announcing that Pennsylvania would join the U.S. Climate Alliance, a coalition of 24 states committed to implementing policies that support the Paris Agreement — an international collaboration from which the U.S. has withdrawn.
According to the governor, “states like Pennsylvania must take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect our communities, economies, infrastructures, and environments from the risks of a warming climate.”
The plan’s primary objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 80% by 2050 in the Keystone State to reduce the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and keep future increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius.
Described in the 231-page plan are more than 100 actions intended to reduce GHG emissions, 15 of which are analyzed in detail. Each action involves increased taxation, increased regulation, increased spending or restrictions on citizens’ freedoms.
Some very relevant questions should be answered by the governor and the PA DEP concerning this far-reaching plan that will necessarily have significant negative impacts on the Commonwealth’s citizens and businesses:
Once implemented, what effect would this have on global temperature?
Are the justifications listed in the proposal supported by the science, facts and data?
What costs and negative effects are associated with this plan and are they offset by the alleged benefits?
The overarching goal of the proposal is to lower the Earth’s temperature by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Pennsylvania. However, nowhere does this hefty document estimate a reduction of temperature.
To obtain an estimate, we used the MAGICC simulator (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change) that was developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research under funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The model estimates how much temperature rise would be averted globally by various reductions of CO2 for the United States.
Calculations using this (Figure 1) assume an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions, a climate sensitivity of 2.0 and the latest estimate of Pennsylvania’s share of U.S. emissions (4.2%) to reveal the following theoretical reductions:
0.0023oF by 2050
0.0061oF by 2100
This extremely small effect should be a very important component in the discussions on whether to impose the significant burdens of the Climate Action Plan on the state and its citizens.
Listed on page 14 of the plan is a section titled “Why Does Pennsylvania Need a Climate Action Plan?” It lays out justifications for why the plan is needed, listing 10 climate impacts that were “already occurring and put Pennsylvanians and local industries at risk.” Many of the impacts it described as occurring are, in fact, not happening and in some cases are improving the state’s ecosystems.
We will look at only a few of the most egregious examples of misinformation due to space restrictions, but these should serve to illustrate that this document is more of a political tool than science-based justification for action. More frequent extreme weather events including drought
Increased demand for energy, particularly during warmer summer months
There is no mention of the reduced energy demand during the winter months.
Most of what was listed as justification for implementation of this far-reaching plan were projections of what may or may not occur many decades in the future. These projections are based on climate models that over-predict warming by 2.5 to 3 times too much. It is important to separate speculation of what may occur in the future based on failed climate models from the actual events that can be empirically observed.
Recommended Strategies: The Plan identified 15 actions that were most impactful for reducing GHG emissions and would require increased taxation, spending and government control, some of which are listed below. In the Energy sector, the Plan would:
Invest in building-scale solar
Incentivize renewable energy
Maintain current nuclear generation levels (bailouts for Exelon)
Tighten regulations on methane emissions
Create a Cap & Trade program for electricity sector carbon emissions
Reduce personal vehicle mileage (no more trips to Home Depot)
Incentivize increased electric vehicle use
Increase use of public transportation
Please note the repeated use of the terms “invest” and “incentivize” as code for spending more taxpayer dollars. Additionally, the Cap & Trade program that is proposed will be a huge revenue generation scheme that would draw large sums of money into Harrisburg for redistribution to favored programs. Pennsylvania’s citizens would not only be burdened by new direct taxation, but additional costs of regulation and higher energy costs would be passed on to customers. While the plan offers no estimates of costs, they surely would run into the millions if not billions of dollars.
According to the Plan itself, the 15 action items would only reduce the state’s GHG emissions by 21%, far less than the 80% targeted. In order to reach the higher targeted goals, ever more onerous and economically crippling actions would be required.
Conclusion Pennsylvania’s Climate Action Plan will impose huge costs on the Commonwealth’s citizens and businesses while burdening them with additional levels of restrictions and regulations. Companies will pass these higher costs on to consumers or absorb the costs, which will deter hiring and new investment. A rise in prices means that consumers will buy less, and companies will drop employees, close entirely, or move to other states where the cost of doing business is lower. The consequence means fewer opportunities for Pennsylvania’s workers, less economic growth, lower incomes, and higher unemployment.
The justifications for imposing this plan are flawed, the costs and regulations are economically crippling, and the result is a temperature reduction so low that it is indistinguishable from zero.
In short, the plan would infringe on the freedoms of people and make them significantly poorer. This plan should be opposed vehemently by the GOP-led House and Senate.
Dunkirk is famously known as the evacuation point for the British Expeditionary Force from France in 1940. What’s not that well known is that the Nazis held the French port until May 9, 1945, the day after Germany’s official surrender.
Rebecca Warren Outshines Debate Opponents — We have been told that Rebecca Warren was the star of the Pennsylvania Superior Court candidate’s debate held Tuesday, May 7, at the Free Public Library in Philadelphia. Only about 50 persons were in the the audience.
Two seats are being contested for 10-year terms on the court which is the intermediate appellate court for most matters in the state. We understand it to be the busiest appellate court in the nation.
Don’t call yarrow, aka achillea millefolium, the flowering plant found just about everywhere, a weed. The Indians used it to treat headaches, toothaches and just about everything. The Cherokee made a tea of it to reduce fever and aid in sleep.
Hypocrite Buttigieg And Islam — Pete Buttigieg, the bitter, angry, outspokenly homosexual mayor of South Bend, Ind., has attacked Christians who vote Republican because of Biblical imperatives such as protecting the weak and helpless, not killing, and refraining from destructive sex acts; and that the Democrat Party not merely dismiss these commands but is offended by the very idea of God.
At least God as how Christians know Him.
Buttigieg has been notably silent regarding the hate-filled statements of militant Islamist congresswomen Ilhan Omar (D-MN5) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI13).