Big winners in climate war? Texas and Oklahoma

[Bob Of Burleson]

States Against E.P.A. Rule
on Carbon Pollution
Would Gain, Study Finds

By CORAL DAVENPORT
The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma are among the most vocal Republican skeptics of the science that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, but a new study to be released Thursday found that their states would be among the biggest economic winners under a regulation proposed by President Obama to fight climate change.

The study, conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Rhodium Group, both research organizations, concluded that the regulation would cut demand for electricity from coal — the nation’s largest source of carbon pollution — but create robust new demand for natural gas, which has just half the carbon footprint of coal. It found that the demand for natural gas would, in turn, drive job creation, corporate revenue and government royalties in states that produce it, which, in addition to Oklahoma and Texas, include Arkansas and Louisiana.

The report concluded that the rule would hurt states where coal production is a central part of the economy — chiefly Wyoming, the nation’s largest coal producer. States that produce both coal and natural gas, such as Pennsylvania, would experience an economic trade-off as diminished coal production was replaced by new natural gas production.

The regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency assigns states different targets for cutting planet-warming carbon pollution from power plants and requires them to devise individual compliance plans to meet the standards. Experts say the regulation could transform the nation’s power system by shuttering coal plants, driving new wind and solar power, and spurring states to enact taxes on carbon pollution.

The study took into account the economic costs imposed by the regulation and concluded that it would raise electricity rates by up to 10 percent in some parts of the country and eventually freeze coal production. But even taking those costs into account, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas together would experience an annual net economic benefit of up to about $16 billion, according to the study.

“The irony is that some of the states that have been the loudest in opposing E.P.A. climate regulations have the most to gain in terms of actual economic interest,” said Trevor Houser, an analyst at the Rhodium Group and a co-author of the study.

MORE

[planosteve]

You know what the problem with Colorado is? It's too damn cold.

[jellowrestling]

"Carbon pollution".

Gobbledygook.

[Mark]

The big losers in all EPA regulations and global warming alarmist tax schemes are the consumers.

[Mark]

Here is the real agenda of the global warming whacko idiots...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/23/130-e ... apitalism/

[jellowrestling]

There is nothing "ironic" about the fact that Texas and Oklahoma oppose something that is B.S., and would damage the American economy and standard-of-living. Not every calculation begins with, "What's in it for me?"