The graphs that expose Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison's climate change policy propaganda

Australia has a monumental problem. 

Since September 2013 the Australian Government, first under Liberal prime ministers Abbott and Turnbull and then under current Australian Prime Minster and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison, has failed to implement effective national climate change mitigation measures.

This has left the nation with an est. 695 million tonnes (or 2.9 billion tonnes) of greenhouse gas emissions it has to reduce/abate by 2021-2030 in order to meet its international obligations.

Ever since he successfully ousted the last Liberal prime minister in a 'palace coup' Morrison has been telling the world that this country will meet its Paris Agreement targets "at a canter" and that national greenhouse gas annual emissions are falling.

Both he and his ministers talk of greenhouse gas emission levels falling per capita or per head of population. All that means is that the Australian population is growing at a slightly faster rate than national emission levels are rising. It doesn't mean greenhouse gas emissions are falling.

On 25 February 2019 Morrison announced his Climate Solutions Package - mostly a rehash of old Liberal-Nationals climate policies and as yet unrealised infrastructure projects - which he rather misleadingly states will "reduce greenhouse gases across the economy".

After this 'solutions' initiatives announcement the Minister for Energy and Liberal MP for Hume Angus Taylor went on national television claiming Australia's national greenhouse gas emissions had fallen by "over 1 per cent" - omitting to point out that this quarter to quarter seasonally adjusted weather normalised change did not result in an overall decrease in total greenhouse gas emissions for the year to September 2018. 

In August 2015 the then Abbott Government, in which Scott Morrison was a cabinet minister, also misspoke when it told the United Nations that its "direct action" plan was successful and that:

The target is a significant progression beyond Australia’s 2020 commitment to cut emissions by five per cent below 2000 levels (equivalent to 13 per cent below 2005 levels). The target approximately doubles Australia’s rate of emissions reductions, and significantly reduces emissions per capita and per unit of GDP, when compared to the 2020 target. Across a range of metrics, Australia’s target is comparable to the targets of other advanced economies. Against 2005 levels, Australia’s target represents projected cuts of 50 to 52 per cent in emissions per capita by 2030 and 64 to 65 per cent per unit of GDP by 2030. [my yellow highlighting]

That promise committed Australia to a 26-28 per cent emissions reduction by 2030. 

For this to be a genuine reduction which will help alleviate the effects of climate change it means this 695 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions that are in the earth's atmosphere right now have to be removed by abatement action on Australia's part between 2019 and 2030.

At the United Nations 2018 Climate Action Summit (COP24) it was pointed out to all member countries that attempting to use old credits from the Kyoto Protocol as carryovers when accounting for ongoing emission rates will not actually bring down current global emissions levels. 

However, the Morrison Government is using old carryover credits from the Labor Government years 2008-2012 to reduce Australia's own abatement commitment by est. 368 million tonnes - bringing it down to only a 328 million tonnes reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030. Less than half of what the Australian Government actually committed to under the Paris Agreement.

The federal Dept of Environment and Energy's own data gives a more honest picture of where Australia stands on bringing down greenhouse gas emissions since 2013 than does Morrison's dodgy accounting tricks.

4. Trend emissions levels are inclusive of all sectors of the economy, including Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). Removing LULUCF from caluclations will result in higher trend levels.

Only three of the eight sectors in this graph show any real improvement since 1990 and even these become somewhat static after 2013.

When it comes to the year 2018 from 1 January to 30 September, the Financial Review reported on 28 February 2019 that:

Increases in greenhouse gas emissions from growing liquefied natural gas exports, although offset by lower emissions from electricity, pushed Australia's overall carbon pollution up by nearly 1 per cent in the year to September….

Greenhouse gas emissions were up by 4.6 millon tonnes, or 0.9 per cent, in the year to September last year to 536 million tonnes, according to the quarterly update of Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

The gains from big declines in emissions from the electricity sector (3.2 per cent) and agriculture (3 per cent) were negated by the 5.8 per cent increase in mining and manufacturing, especially LNG exports (up 19.7 per cent), steel production (up 10 per cent) and aluminium production (up 5.5 per cent).

"Growth in LNG also strongly impacted fugitive emissions due to the flaring and venting of methane and carbon dioxide. An increase in 10 per cent in steel production in particular affected industrial process emissions," the report said…..

The bottom line is that in September 2013 Australia's greenhouse gas emissions stood at 515.1 Mt of CO2-e, having fallen from a high of 617.5 Mt of CO2-e in March 2007. 

However, emissions have steadily risen in the years following 2013 until in September 2016 they had reached 527.2 Mt of CO2-e, by September 2017 533.3 Mt of CO2-e, by March 2018 535.8 Mt of CO2-e and by September 2018 our national emissions were 536 Mt CO2-e.

No matter how many ways Morrison Government spokespersons attempt to present the figures, the fact remains that Australia's national greenhouse gas emissions began to fall steadily between 2007 and 2013 but once the Abbott Government removed the price on carbon and altered other Labor climate change policies they began to rise again and they are still rising.

To date the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government has marched this country backwards towards national greenhouse gas emission levels not found since the end of 2012. 

How much further will they send us back in time if they govern for another three years? Will the national emissions total in 2022 be in excess of 545 million tonnes? A higher national total than that of the year the Abbott Government promised the United Nations it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

The Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: September 2018 Incorporating emissions from the NEM up to December 2018 can be found here.

With a royal commission having found that all major religions house and protect paedophiles we still find Liberal Party MPs seeking to extend the influence of priests & ministers in the Australian school system in 2018

The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 March 2018:

Dozens of federal Liberal MPs have reportedly signed a petition calling for a 25 per cent funding increase for the controversial National Schools Chaplaincy Program. 

Whether the budget can afford the funding increase or whether the money would be better spent elsewhere are interesting issues. The bigger legal issue is that the way the chaplains program operates is illegal…….

The High Court has struck down the chaplains program as illegal twice already. In 2012, the High Court ruled the program illegal because the federal government was paying for the chaplains program without any legislation authorising the spending. To overcome the High Court decision, federal Parliament quickly passed legislation to authorise the spending.

The chaplains program again was struck down again in 2014. Federal Parliament can only pass legislation dealing with certain subject matters. The High Court ruled that school chaplains do not fall within any of those.

To get around its own lack of power to run the chaplains program, the federal government now grants money to the states for them to run it. Lots of federal government programs operate this way with the states running programs on behalf of the federal government using federal money.

Getting a job as a chaplain requires a person to be recognised as qualified for the role "through formal ordination, commissioning, recognised religious qualifications or endorsement by a recognised or accepted religious institution". In other words, a person has to be religious and endorsed by a religious group in order to get a job as a chaplain. Atheists need not apply.

Individual schools pick which religion they want their chaplain to be a member of and then recruit a person from that religion for the job.

But it makes no practical sense to require a chaplain to have a particular religion. Chaplains are strictly prohibited from religious proselytising, although there are sometimes reports of chaplains breaking the rules. The High Court even commented that despite the religious sounding job title, the actual work chaplains do has nothing much to do with religion. Justice Dyson Heydon wrote that the work of chaplains "could have been done by persons who met a religious test. It could equally have been done by persons who did not".

In other words, there is no genuine occupational requirement for a chaplain to be a member of any particular religion or to be religious at all. The federal government has simply decided that it wants all chaplains to be religious.

Requiring a chaplain to be a member of a particular religion is inconsistent with the nature of public schools……

Requiring a chaplain to be a member of a particular religion is also illegal. Each state has anti-discrimination or equal opportunity legislation making it illegal to discriminate against a person on the ground of religion in employment decisions. These anti-discrimination rules apply to public schools and their hiring decisions.

Public schools cannot advertise a teacher’s job and require that only Hindus are eligible to apply. Public schools cannot advertise a cleaner’s job and require that only Baptists are eligible to apply. The reason is because that would be discrimination on the ground of religion in employment.

It’s exactly the same with chaplains. Requiring a chaplain to be a member of a particular religion is religious discrimination and completely illegal for public schools…..

The state anti-discrimination commissions should do something about public schools breaching religious discrimination laws. If they don’t, someone will eventually go to court and the school chaplains program will probably be ruled illegal for the third, and hopefully final, time.

Australian Politics: when is a welfare program trial not a trial?

When is a welfare program trial no longer a trial? When the Turnbull Government decides to remove those restriction which made it a trial……….

This Bill removes section 124PF of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, which specifies that the cashless debit card trial will occur in up to three discrete locations, include no more than 10,000 people, and will end on 30 June 2018. Removing this section will support the extension of arrangements in current sites, and enable the expansion of the cashless debit card to further sites. Individual sites, once identified, will be determined by disallowable legislative instruments. [Explanatory Memorandum, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017]

What the federal government proposes to implement is in practice an open-ended cashless debit card roll-out at the discretion of Minister for Human Services and Liberal MP for Aston, Alan Tudge

BACKGROUND

Human rights implications

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights conducted a review of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015, which notes that the Cashless Debit Card engages and limits three human rights: the right to social security, the right to a private life and the right to equality and non-discrimination. [Ibid, p. 6]

See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human rights scrutiny report, 8 September 2015, pp. 20-29.

So you want to drug test welfare recipients, Mr. Porter?

According to the Australian Minister for Social Services and Liberal MP for Pearce since 2013, Christian Porter; “A person who is unemployed is, based on good data, 2.4 times more likely to have addictive issues with drugs and alcohol — obviously there’s both cause and effect in there.”

While Department of Social Services (Payments Policy) Cath Halbert told a Senate estimates hearing that; "Out of 5,000 recipients who will be randomly selected for drug testing, based on available data and Department of Human Services data is that up to 425 recipients are expected to test positive to the initial test…..Around 120 recipients are estimated to test positive to a subsequent test and be referred for assessment for treatment."

A handy little DSS fact sheet informs us that drug testing at three trial sites will run for two years and that; The tests will detect use of drugs including ecstasy, marijuana and methamphetamines, including ice. However, the minister and his department remain silent as to the cost of this program.

                                                                                                                                                

We-ell…… I just don’t find any of these statements a convincing argument for drug testing a select number of Centrelink recipients on unemployment benefits commencing 1 January 2018, in the hope that just 8.48 per cent of them will initially test positive.

After all the workforce generally seems likely to have the same addictive issues and no-one is talking of drug testing them before distributing wages.

For example:

In 2013, just over 40% of Australians either smoked daily, drank alcohol in ways that put them at risk of harm or used an illicit drug in the previous 12 months; 3.1% engaged in all 3 of these behaviours. [National Drug Strategy Household Survey Detailed Report 2013]

Over 48,000 Australians were on a course of pharmacotherapy treatment for their opioid dependence on a snapshot day in June 2015.

[Opioid pharmacotherapy clients 2015]

Wastewater analysis conducted in the latter half of 2016 shows that alcohol and tobacco consumption was the highest of all substances tested in all states and territories.

[National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program Report 1, March 2017]

Declines were seen in recent use of some illegal drugs in 2016 including meth/amphetamines (from 2.1% to 1.4%), hallucinogens (1.3% to 1.0%), and synthetic cannabinoids (1.2% to 0.3%).

About 1 in 20 Australians had misused pharmaceuticals in 2016 (4.8%).

[National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2016]

While the number of politicians over the years who have allegedly been drunk in charge of a parliamentary vote is notable – everyone from prime ministers and cabinet ministers right down to lowly backbenches if a recent Google search is a reliable indicator.

Turnbull Government opposes rise in minimum wage because 9 out of 10 Australian workers on a low wage are NOT from highest income households

The Daily Telegraph, 30 March 2017:

Read the full article here.

Other statistics the Turnbull Government helpfully offered up to the Fair Work Commission in its submission of 27 March 2017:

* More than 50% of low income workers are in the bottom 1-4 percentiles of the 1-10 percentile range of household incomes;

* 20% of all female workers and 15.5% of all male workers are low-paid;

* 26.7% of all low-paid women and 30.3 % of all low-paid men were in the bottom two deciles of household incomes (ie. these households are likely to have an average disposable income of less than $300 to no more than $375 per week);

* 24.7% of all low-paid workers with a partner are the only breadwinner in the relationship; and

* 46.9% of all low-paid workers have children living at home, with 35.9% having dependent children ranging in age between under 1 year and 17 years of age.

Based on the figures cited in the government’s submission (much of it derived from 2012-2014 data) it appears Liberal and Nationals members of parliament and senators are quite content with the fact that so many of their fellow Australians live in either absolute income poverty or relative income poverty, while they enjoy parliamentary base incomes in excess of $195,000 per annum plus allowances and entitlements.

The Trump Regime crosses dangerous lines

CNN Politics, 23 February 2017:

Washington (CNN)The FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN.

White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14.

The direct communications between the White House and the FBI were unusual because of decade-old restrictions on such contacts. Such a request from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications with the FBI on pending investigations.

The discussions between the White House and the bureau began with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus on the sidelines of a separate White House meeting the day after the stories were published, according to a U.S. law enforcement official.

The White House initially disputed that account, saying that McCabe called Priebus early that morning and said The New York Times story vastly overstates what the FBI knows about the contacts.

But a White House official later corrected their version of events to confirm what the law enforcement official described.

The same White House official said that Priebus later reached out again to McCabe and to FBI Director James Comey asking for the FBI to at least talk to reporters on background to dispute the stories. A law enforcement official says McCabe didn't discuss aspects of the case but wouldn't say exactly what McCabe told Priebus.

Comey rejected the request for the FBI to comment on the stories, according to sources, because the alleged communications between Trump associates and Russians known to US intelligence are the subject of an ongoing investigation. [my highlighting]

The Washington Post, 24 February 2016:

The Trump administration has enlisted senior members of the intelligence community and Congress in efforts to counter news stories about Trump associates’ ties to Russia, a politically charged issue that has been under investigation by the FBI as well as lawmakers now defending the White House.

Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, U.S. officials said.

The calls were orchestrated by the White House after unsuccessful attempts by the administration to get senior FBI officials to speak with news organizations and dispute the accuracy of stories on the alleged contacts with Russia.

The White House on Friday acknowledged those interactions with the FBI but did not disclose that it then turned to other officials who agreed to do what the FBI would not — participate in White House-arranged calls with news organizations, including The Washington Post.

Two of those officials spoke on the condition of anonymity — a practice President Trump has condemned.

The officials broadly dismissed Trump associates’ contacts with Russia as infrequent and inconsequential. But the officials would not answer substantive questions about the issue, and their comments were not published by The Post and do not appear to have been reported elsewhere.

Read the full article here.

Vox, 24 February 2017:

President Donald Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, kept major media outlets, including the New York Times and CNN, out of the daily press briefing Friday, canceling it in favor of an off-camera media gaggle for handpicked media outlets and escalating the Trump administration’s fight with the press.

The White House picked which journalists could participate in the press briefing Friday. Reporters for CNN, the New York Times, Politico, BuzzFeed, and the majority of the foreign press were not among them.

The press pool, including NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox News, were allowed in, as well as several smaller conservative media outlets, including the Washington Times, the One America News Network, and Breitbart, which was formerly run by White House senior strategist Steve Bannon. Time and the Associated Press boycotted the gaggle, according to reporting from CNN.

The White House Correspondents’ Association board responded to the incident, noting that they were “strongly against” how the White House conducted the media gaggle and that they would discuss the matter further with the president’s press team.

While Trump’s presidential campaign was known for banning media outlets from rallies and campaign events, this is one of the first times the media has been explicitly barred from a White House press event during Trump’s presidency.

The American Resistance has many faces and this is just one [or two or three or more] of them (5)

United To Protect Democracy

Every day, Americans across the political spectrum are recognizing that our country is at risk of sliding toward a modern form of authoritarianism. We are already seeing signs of that happening.

But we have stronger tools than those found anywhere else in the world to prevent this. We the People, armed with our Constitution and the rule of law, can act to stop it.

That is our mission. Linking together lawyers who served at the highest levels of our federal government, in service of all concerned Americans, we are United to Protect Democracy. Join us.

Politico, 23 February 2017:

Top lawyers who helped the Obama White House craft and hold to rules of conduct believe President Donald Trump and his staff will break ethics norms meant to guard against politicization of the government — and they’ve formed a new group to prepare, and fight…..

has already raised a $1.5 million operating budget, hired five staffers and has plans to double that in the coming months. They’ve incorporated as both a 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4), allowing them to operate as a nonprofit but participate in some forms of political advocacy as well…..

They started by submitting 50 Freedom of Information Act requests this week that they believe will confirm their suspicions. The plan is to bring what they find to reporters, build it into pressure for congressional oversight with the help of a campaign director they’ll hire, and, as necessary, to file lawsuits.

They’re also hoping to establish themselves as a base for government employees worried about ethics violations — up to and including becoming whistleblowers — and are hoping that their website, https://unitedtoprotectdemocracy.org/,can become a resource.

Dan Rather

24 February 2017· 

The time for normalizing, dissembling, and explaining away Donald Trump has long since passed. The barring of respected journalistic outlets from the White House briefing is so far beyond the norms and traditions that have governed this republic for generations, that they must be seen as a real and present threat to our democracy. These are the dangers presidents are supposed to protect against, not create.

For all who excused Mr. Trump's rhetoric in the campaign as just talk, the reckoning has come. I hope it isn't true, but I fear Mr. Trump is nearing or perhaps already beyond any hope of redemption. And now the question is will enough pressure be turned to all those who enable his antics with their tacit encouragement. There has been a wall of unbending support from virtually every Republican in Congress, and even some Democrats. Among many people, this will be seen as anything approaching acceptable. And mind you, talk is cheap. No one needs to hear how you don't agree with the President. What are you going to do about it? Do you maintain that an Administration that seeks to subvert the protections of our Constitution is fit to rule unchecked? Or fit to rule at all?

This is an emergency that can no longer be placed solely at the feet of President Trump, or even the Trump Administration. This is a moment of judgement for everyone who willingly remains silent. It is gut check time, for those in a position of power, and for the nation.

119k Likes 5.6k Comments 78k Shares

#OrangeBeatles: "I wanna grow my hands! I wanna grow my haa aaa sands. I wanna grow my hands." pic.twitter.com/0QQWSAqmNJ

— Ahmed Shihab-Eldin (@ASE) February 25, 2017

#OrangeBeatles: "This song is called fake news."  pic.twitter.com/pnn9610y3G

— Ahmed Shihab-Eldin (@ASE) February 25, 2017

http://potusstaff.com/statement.html, undated:

Statement of Purpose

Those involved in Rogue Potus Staff are not part of a partisan attack against Republican politics. To the contrary, most of us are devout Republicans. We are, however, opposed to the egregious incompetence, idiocy, and pettiness of President Trump's White House, and the effective divorce from reality with which it is run. We aren't working to support Democratic victories. We want the American People to regain control of their government through civic engagement, careful contemplation, intellectual scrutiny, activism, and ultimately voting action. This is why we encourage people to be skeptical about who we claim to be, but we vigorously attack absurd reasoning and attacks against the movement.

If our actions were to inspire anything, we hope it would be to underscore the necessity for our country's civic process to be ruled by higher principles than those that characterize President Trump. Those who wish to rally in support of merely different principles have wandered into the wrong place (especially if those principles are equally petty as those offered by President Trump). Nero is fiddling while Rome burns. We all have a choice to make. We can either stand in opposition to the emperor's negligence that's causing the destruction and chaos, or we can take a stand against bad music. Those who choose the latter should not expect to find their cause championed by us.

We have no objection to anyone who does not want to sign the petition we created, or participate in an event we suggested. Everyone has the right to choose for his or her own self. We don't believe that a White House petition will magically make President Trump change his behavior. The success of a White House petition is in gaining enough signatures to require a response. It provides an opportunity to focus the public conversation. In this case, our petition hopes to demand for President Trump to address his negligence head on, and on the record. Maybe he makes excuses. Maybe he gaslights. By itself it may not have any substantive effect. But just like mounting pieces led to Flynn being forced out, the sum of many small chinks in the armor can eventually penetrate President Trump's aura of protected recklessness.

We are not whistleblowers of illegal activity. We are not a news agency. We are not here to leak secret information to the public. We don't offer news, we offer context. We are here to show people those truths that aren't news worthy. If any one of us decides to engage in leaking news to media sources, they do so with 100% separation from Rogue Potus Staff (and yes, it has happened). We are not heroes. We are not magical wizards, nor do we hold any special keys to take him down. The only way that our country can be spared the damage President Trump would exact upon us is through the power of the people.

Resistance is not about hitting a grand slam, or a barrage of knockout punches. It's about wearing down the target. It's about small successes that add up over time. It's about being asymmetrical against an overpowering opponent. It's not about instant gratification, it's about realigning yourself to persist against all odds. It's not about painting profanities on the wall to express your disdain, it's about doing the work to swing the hammer against the wall, even if it will take a million swings.

See: https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff

NEW VIDEO: #BecauseHisActionsAreEmotionalTerrorism He. Must. Go. pic.twitter.com/duttzf0W4O

— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) February 24, 2017

https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/834916218914095104

NBN roll out is still a dog's breakfast

Tasmanian Times on 5 February 2017 reminding Australia that the National Broadband Network (NBN) roll out is still a dog’s breakfast:

Letter to the Editor on the NBN

Alex Ratkai
05.02.17 6:45 am

We (in part of Nobelius Drive) have been experiencing constant loss of internet services since November 2015. When it is working, the speed is slower than cable internet- often taking between 10 and 30 minutes to view my mail, though we have high speed ADSL. Last July we received communication that the NBN was now available in Nobelius Drive. There was a Telstra truck parked near the shopping centre in Legana. With joy, I immediately went and signed up, with the promise that the NBN will be connected within a couple of weeks. In a couple of weeks’ time we received a call that part of our street wasn’t being connected, including us. I asked why and also for an indication of a time frame within which we may get it, asking whether it is weeks, months or years. Absolutely no commitment has been given. I was told that the local Telstra substation cannot handle the increased telephone and internet volumes and they aren’t able to do anything. They promised a fast internet service, when I signed up, delivering it for only a few years. Now we are left with no internet service often also an extremely poor or failing telephone service. We are in despair and no one seems to want to help. We live in an advanced country with a third world telephone and internet service. Is that what our country is to look forward to???
Help, someone help.

Trump Administration attempt to rewrite climate change history was a frankly silly move as Obama had already archived his plans

It has been reported that Donald Trump and his merry band of luddites have been attempting to eradicate evidence that the Obama White House ever had actual climate change policies and what these policies contained, by removing pre-20 January 2017 climate change web pages from the content of www.whitehouse.gov without supplying links to where these previous administration policies might still exist on the Internet.

However, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/president-obama-climate-action-plan will still lead the reader to webpages such as this:

"THE CLEAN POWER PLAN

The Clean Power Plan sets achievable standards to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. By setting these goals and enabling states to create tailored plans to meet them, the Plan will:

PROTECT THE HEALTH OF AMERICAN FAMILIES. IN 2030, IT WILL:

Prevent up to 3,600 premature deaths

Prevent 1,700 non-fatal heart attacks

Prevent 90,000 asthma attacks in children

Prevent 300,000 missed workdays and schooldays

BOOST OUR ECONOMY BY:

Leading to 30 percent more renewable energy generation
in 2030

Creating tens of thousands of jobs

Continuing to lower the costs of renewable energy

SAVE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN FAMILY:

Nearly $85 a year on their energy bills in 2030

Save enough energy to power 30 million homes
in 2030

Save consumers $155 billion from 2020-2030

LEARN WHAT THE PLAN MEANS FOR YOUR STATE"

And https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.whitehouse.gov will lead readers to pages such as this:

"A Historic Commitment to Protecting the Environment and Reversing Climate Change

President Obama believes that no challenge poses a greater threat to our children, our planet, and future generations than climate change — and that no other country on Earth is better equipped to lead the world towards a solution.

That's why under President Obama's leadership, the United States has done more to combat climate change than ever before.

GET THE FULL CLIMATE RECORD AS A PDF

DOWNLOAD THE FULL RECORD AS XML

WATCH

President Obama on America's Clean Power Plan

RELATED CONTENT

Climate Change and President Obama's Action Plan

The President's Clean Power Plan

Fact Sheet: President Obama to Announce Historic Carbon Pollution Standards for Power Plants

Cut Carbon Pollution

Established the first-ever national carbon pollution standards for power plants, the largest source of carbon pollution in our country. The Clean Power Plan gives states flexible, cost-effective tools to cut carbon pollution from these plants by 32% from 2005 levels by 2030 while preventing thousands of premature deaths and tens of thousands of childhood asthma attacks by reducing other power plant emissions

Reducing Carbon Pollution in Our Power Plants

Watch on YouTube

Reducing Carbon Pollution in Our Power Plants → https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li1aHjjqh3w

 SHARE ON TWITTER

Set standards to double the fuel economy of passenger vehicles by 2025 and established the first-ever fuel economy standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks

"We want trucks that use less oil, save more money, cut pollution." —Obama on efficiency standards for large trucks: http://go.wh.gov/27R6Zg

 SHARE ON TWITTER

Launched the American Business Act on Climate Pledge, with major American companies voicing support for a strong international climate agreement in Paris and making major new commitments to cut carbon pollution, boost clean energy, and increase low-carbon investment. As of the latest round of pledges in October, 81 businesses — representing all 50 states, 9 million people, and a combined market capitalization of more than $5 trillion — committed to support the Paris climate process

The measures taken by the public and private sectors enabled President Obama to set an ambitious but achievable goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide by 26-28% by 2025 last November. And in the eleven months since, we've seen unprecedented global momentum in the fight against climate change.

To date, more than 180 countries representing nearly 95% of global carbon emissions have reported post-2020 climate policies to the United Nations. This includes the major economies like the U.S., China, the European Union and India and it includes a large number of smaller economies, developing nations, island states and tropical countries — some of whom are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

READ MORE

Developed and are implementing a strategy to reduce methane emissions, including new standards to cut emissions from oil and gas development as well as support for new technologies to detect and measure methane emissions

The EPA announced proposed standards to directly reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector to help address climate change:

READ MORE READ MORE (PDF)

Announced independent private-sector commitments and executive actions to drive down cumulative global consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a class of highly potent climate pollutants

FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Partners with Private Sector on New Commitments to Slash Emissions of Potent Greenhouse Gases

READ MORE

Reduced the Federal Government's greenhouse gas emissions by more than 17 percent and set a new aggressive goal of reducing federal emissions by 40 percent from 2008 levels by 2025

FACT SHEET: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Federal Government and Across the Supply Chain

READ MORE

Partnered with agricultural producers to cut emissions and increase carbon sequestration in the agricultural and forestry sectors through voluntary and incentive-based measures

Recognizing the role that forests and agricultural activities place in GHG emissions, in April 2015, USDA announced its Building Blocks for Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry - an approach to reduce GHG emissions from agricultural production, increase carbon storage in our forests and soils, and generate clean renewable energy. These actions will foster resilient economies and food systems while also reducing emissions and improving environmental conditions.

READ MORE
 

Improved monitoring and measurement of land-sector greenhouse gas emissions

Climate Change and the Land Sector: Improving Measurement, Mitigation and Resilience of our Natural Resources​

READ MORE (PDF)

Announced support for strong international climate action by more than 300 colleges and universities, who signed the American Campus Act on Climate Pledge"