Pelosi concedes ‘not enough votes to pass global warming bill’

If any WUWT readers have moderates in their congressional district, now is the time to make your opinions known.

May I suggest that you send your congressional representative this story with a request to read it on the floor. And while you are at it, the EPA shenanigans and my surfacestations report.  – Anthony

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/11/23/us/politics/23waxman_span.jpg

From CNN political ticker

House Democrats unsure of global warming bill’s passage

WASHINGTON (CNN) – House Democratic leaders are furiously lobbying their members and moderate Republicans to support a landmark energy bill in the face of resistance from some conservative members of their own party, and staunch opposition from the GOP — roadblocks that are making it difficult to find the 218 votes necessary to pass the measure, according to Democratic leadership aides.

A vote on the Clean Energy and Security Act, which would restrict emissions of green house gases and require use of alternative energy in an effort to slow the effects of global warming, is scheduled for Friday.

The legislation’s lead sponsors held a pep rally outside the Capitol on Wednesday to whip up support for the legislation’s passage.

“We are going to pass the most important energy and environment bill in history,” declared Rep Ed Markey, D-Masachusetts, chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “We are going to reduce the carbon we send up into the atmosphere but at the same time we are going to begin to back out the oil that we import from countries that we should not be importing it from.”

The legislation would require a 17 percent emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2020, mandate electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources by 2020, provide $90 billion for new investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, along with $60 billion for carbon capture and sequestration. Another key provision, termed “cap-and-trade,” would require industries and manufacturers to cut carbon emissions by setting up a system where they could buy and sell pollution credits.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded Wednesday evening that there were not enough votes to pass the bill, but that meetings with Democrats and Republicans were ongoing. Many Democrats from rural districts are concerned about the bill’s effect on the manufacturing of ethanol and other biofuels, while Republicans have questioned the overall price tag to Americans.

“This legislation has really been quite an experience for all of us,” said Pelosi. “This is really about regional differences, as well as philosophical differences.”

Democrats are hoping that a recent evaluation by Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which estimates that the annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion — or about $175 per household, is enough to alleviate concerns of some members.

But House Republican leaders claim the CBO estimate is too low, and doesn’t adequately gauge the harmful effect that stricter regulations will have on business and industry.

“There is no question that the cap and trade bill will cost millions of jobs and it is pretty evident, I think now, given the word that we are hearing that the other side has 190 votes at this point, far short of that which are needed to pass this bill,” said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Virginia.

Despite concerns about not getting any Republicans to ultimately support the bill, Democratic leaders are hoping their more conservative members coalesce around a “grand agreement” being worked out with Rep Colin Peterson (D-MN), chairman of the Agriculture Committee and a leading voice for rural Democrats concerned with the bill.

About these ads

84 thoughts on “Pelosi concedes ‘not enough votes to pass global warming bill’

  1. I’ve let my congresscritter know in no uncertain terms that this is going to kill rural Oregon…

  2. Wow. If it’s this bad in the house, the Senate can’t be any easier. CFC legislation was easy. It only cost the economy a few paltry billions. But the pricetag for this one comes with a “T”.

    It doesn’t seem to occur to a lot of people that a good economy is going to be vital if AGW somehow does turn out to be a real problem.

    Not to mention solving all the other problems, environmental or no.

    If any WUWT readers have moderates in their congressional district, now is the time to make your opinions known.

    Nadler. Sorry.

    When I went down to vote in the primaries, they simply handed me a democratic party ballot. When I asked for the “other”, the GOP poll watcher was delighted. I was the first one who had shown up all day.

    The Dem watcher made a comment that I looked GOP. It wasn’t a compliment. (A month earlier my hair was foot and a half long. That would no doubt have caused some confusion.)

  3. It would surely kill off rural No. Calif. as well.
    I am positive it would kill all of rural America as well as kill most of what was left, including our currency, recovery and output.
    I am pleased to hear we are not falling on our sword today.

  4. Thanks for the update. I will write my congressman tonight, although I am certain that he is on the rational side on this one, representing West Texas.

    Additionally, I would like for congress to start to present the cost of these things in scientific notation. Millions, billions and trillions all seem to run together after awhile.

  5. I’m in Portland Oregon, so my Congressman isn’t going to help, but someone with a Rep. of a more conservative bent might also want to forward the comments that Steve Mcintyre submitted to the EPA (available on his web site). After reading them, I found them to be pretty devastating as far as the shoddy peer review standards of the IPCC. I think it goes without saying that the perception of our politicians that CO2 has contributed to the majority of whatever warming we’ve seen, comes from the pronouncements of the IPCC which are viewed as definitive. The credibility of its report has to take a serious hit, however, when it baldly states to one of its reviewers that he has no business even asking for the raw data behind the work he is reviewing.

  6. Even if the cost is ONLY $22 billion…it is a pointless waste of money we cannot afford. Not one red cent for “climate change”.

  7. I really don’t see that having the votes matters any more. The administration will find some way to do it with executive orders and regulations.

    If the EPA can regulate CO2, and it can, then exactly what can’t they do in regard to those who produce or use fossil fuels?

  8. “Kum Dollison (19:31:09) :

    Collin Peterson made the deal. They’re, probably going to pass it.”

    As I read the original article, the Democrats are questioning whether they have the votes even in light of Peterson’s deal. I read about the agriculture deal this afternoon. Pelosi’s comments were attributed as being made this evening. From what I understand, farmers are scared to death over this legislation, and I don’t know that a representative is going to get off the hook by explaining to his constituents “don’t worry, your livelihood won’t depend on the caprice of EPA any more, but on the whim of some other government bureaucracy.” I wouldn’t be reassured by that.

  9. All lobbying efforts should be a felony. If any congressman/congresswoman can’t read a bill and then think for him/herself about a vote, he/she has no business to be in the congress.

    I am a bit worried it’s another bait-and-switch at work. Awhile ago the first bailout bill was voted out, but only to be replaced by another bigger one, which passed with little resistance.

  10. If cap and trade goes ahead it will consign millions of people to poverty. Remind your representatives that is is an American duty to fight for liberty from oppression of any kind including being forced to live on rations and pay high taxes. This is why Americans fought for liberty in the first place.

  11. K (19:52:08) :

    I really don’t see that having the votes matters any more. The administration will find some way to do it with executive orders and regulations.

    If the EPA can regulate CO2, and it can, then exactly what can’t they do in regard to those who produce or use fossil fuels?

    The second instance is the Senate. The last one is the Supreme Court of the United States (SCUS). When there is no consensus among congresses, SCUS has the last word, with or without citizens’ approval:

    According to the Constitution (Art. III, §2):

    “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens there of, and foreign States, Citizensor Subjects.

    “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    “Appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Supreme Court by various statutes, under the authority given Congress by the Constitution.”

    “The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.”

    For example, this one:

    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/05-01120qp.pdf

    When SCUS declared the carbon dioxide as a toxic pollutant.

  12. Time for you Americans to get on the phone, lobby your congresspeople. I’m Canadian and ex-pat Brit, so I can’t do anything here.

  13. Kurt,

    Thanks, I didn’t realize that.

    However, I’ve still got a sneaking suspicion they’ll get it passed. If they’re not there, they’ll make some more deals. The “good” news is, the more deals they have to make the weaker it’ll be.

    I think they’d pass a blank sheet of paper, now, just to say they did.

  14. Link to the CBO report:

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf

    There are some interesting statistical assumptions throughout this document to say the least. basically the gross cost per household will be significant but at the end of the shell game the net is lower for everyone!

    Also per Table 2 the total to $175 per house doesn’t appear to add up. looks like $180 to me.

    The “free” assigned pollutions allocations are repeatedly said to have “value” because it can be sold or allowed to expire, but there is no mention of taxing that income.

  15. It is my understanding that the deal takes authority from agriculture and gives ag authority to the USDA.
    The whole deal is about city folks wanting to punish farmers.

  16. Power, power, who’s got the power?
    Vote for the bill – here’s a piece for you & you & you;
    Just pet those drooling dolts called voters on the head;
    Tell ‘em we’ll take care of ‘em.

    How about this thought, Congress -
    Get out of my wallet; get out of my life;
    The Mafia’s protection racket is small and innocent compared to what you do.

  17. Kurt, from the above post:

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded Wednesday evening that there were not enough votes to pass the bill,

    I think the worst part of the bill is the silly sequestration scheme. THAT is, literally, wasting money.

  18. “For example, this one:

    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/05-01120qp.pdf

    When SCUS declared the carbon dioxide as a toxic pollutant.”

    That’s not being entirely accurate. The Supreme Court was reviewing the decision of the EPA that it lacked the authority to regulate CO2, on the basis that it was a global problem in both source and consequences, rather than a local pollution issue. The majority opinion quickly noted that EPA’s position was tenuous given its regulation under the Clean Air Act of CFCs to prevent ozone depletion at the poles. Their ruling was to overturn the EPAs decision that it lacked the authority to regulate CO2 as a “pollutant”, but remanded with instructions that if the EPA determined based on scientific evidence that CO2 emissions were harmful, they were required under the Clean Air Act to regulate them. That’s an important caveat. The EPA could still (not that it will under this administration) conclude that there is a deficiency of evidence for anthropogenic global warming, and if it does, there is no requirement by the court that they regulate it. In short, the court only held that the fact that CO2 issues were global in nature did not exclude it from the definition of a “pollutant.”

    Incidentally, I agreed with the dissent of the opinion regarding the standing issue, i.e. the prospective harm suffered by the plaintiffs was too tenuous for them to sue over, but that was a separate issue.

  19. “Kum Dollison (20:39:14) :

    Kurt, from the above post:

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded WEDNESDAY evening that there were not enough votes to pass the bill.”

    Not sure if you are suggesting that my earlier post was incorrect, in which I referred to her statement as being this evening, but today is Wednesday, at least in the U.S. It could be that you are on the other side of the date line and are working from a different day.

  20. ["Democratic leaders are hoping their more conservative members coalesce around a “grand agreement” being worked out with Rep Colin Peterson (D-MN), chairman of the Agriculture Committee and a leading voice for rural Democrats concerned with the bill........"]

    “grand agreement”…..?

    …..Only bluddy “grand agreement” I’ll be happy to concede, is an agreement that CO2 has an insignificant effect on Global climate and that Natural climate variation is the cause of all climate change, past and present. That there is no need to tax CO2 in any way, shape or form.

    Anything less, allows the Bureaucracy to create an tax artifice to fund their many and varied ideologies, cronies and pet projects.

  21. His right Holy Highness and Grand Inquisitor of the Church of Global Warming Al Gore is heading up to the hill tomorrow to seal the deal on the ACES Act by shaming the unfaithful and the misguided back onto the path to true salvation.

    1pm – Will be a closed address I believe.

    So fear not my children the end is not nigh for climate phobia driven legislation, and the true future of America is being written as we speak in dark room by a low level staffer who will finish the edits one hour before the vote.

    Praise the Gore and bless these carbon offsets with his divine righteousness so that holy ones profits move forward and multiply.

    Pass the plate.

  22. The House version is at this point extremely watered-down. Nonetheless, it will, if enacted, still destroy millions of jobs, cost trillions of dollars, and…wait for it…decrease temperatures by around 0.1C by 2100, assuming models are correct. Estimated costs are at minimum 10 times benefits, and that’s being exceedingly generous. What moron would vote for such a bill, regardless of whether you think something needs to be done or not?

    However, I am confident the Senate will not pass any bill that is acceptable to the House, and thus the issue will move to the fall-back battleground of the EPA.

  23. @Johnnyb (19:39:15) : Additionally, I would like for congress to start to present the cost of these things in scientific notation.

    I wish they’d report the costs of the massive federal programs in per capita terms. Even better, on a per taxpayer basis.

  24. “Many Democrats from rural districts are concerned about the bill’s effect on the manufacturing of ethanol and other biofuels, while Republicans have questioned the overall price tag to Americans”

    hmmm, no mention of those that believe it’s all just rubbish.

  25. Taking a low-angle photo of Waxman should be a felony. That picture reminds me of and old Tim Conway/Harvey Korman skit on the Carol Burnett show, with Conway laying sick in bed, and Korman stands over him, whereupon Tim points at Harvey’s nose and says, “Is that thing loaded?”

    Who votes for Pelosi and Waxman? The fact they can get elected for an office higher than dog catcher is proof our system is broken.

  26. They have to implement this tax slowly, if they bring in the big guns up front then the next election will see the end of the Obama Regine. Surely this will be the number one issue in 2010 and 2012 and if the Republicans can use it as an election issue they can’t lose. Whatever can be done, can be undone; or am I putting too much faith in voters who will be affected by all this crap?

  27. Instead of long term storage of CO2 – useless and costly – the energy establishment, volunteers, or eccentrics should search for a method for the storage of electricity, thus making wind, solar, and tidal sources actually useful. A government initiative might play a useful role in this. Alternatively nuclear, oil, gas, and coal already store energy.

    The Clean Energy and Security Act reminds me of the old Chevy pickup truck I have. The very long and costly lawsuit over the gas tanks did not fix the tanks nor take the trucks off the road. Owners were give a coupon to purchase a new GM vehicle ( and I suppose a few did) thereby passing the offending trucks on to someone else. Not having the money to buy a new vehicle I kept mine as it had a lower value after all the fuss. It still works and the tanks are still as they were originally installed.

    The N. P. Malarkey bill will be similarly helpful in saving the planet.

  28. Brian in Alaska (22:53:22) :

    Taking a low-angle photo of Waxman should be a felony. That picture reminds me of and old Tim Conway/Harvey Korman skit on the Carol Burnett show, with Conway laying sick in bed, and Korman stands over him, whereupon Tim points at Harvey’s nose and says, “Is that thing loaded?”

    Rotfl, Conway and Korman were priceless.

  29. That’s annual charge btw.

    annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion — or about $175 per household,

    That’s your new tax. Say “hi”. That’s how they do it now – Call it the “3rd Way” if u like. It will be 3 times that value at least. I will take bets on that…lol (but not from the continetnal USA of course)..

  30. Who votes for Pelosi and Waxman? The fact they can get elected for an office higher than dog catcher is proof our system is broken.

    Waxman ran unopposed in his Hollywood,Beverly Hills, Malibu district.

  31. I think that this is likely to be far more important than what the EPA is doing, both in short term effects and long term. And it can happen very quickly.

    They need to get as much stuff done before 2010 because they are likely to lose some seats, or at least have a membership more interested in economic concerns than in ecology.

  32. “Nasif Nahle (21:00:30) :

    @ Kurt… Here the original SCUS edict:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/05-1120P.ZO

    I read the decision the day it came out. Here are the actual quotes from the decision by the majority, which clearly indicates that the holding is NOT that EPA must make an endangerment finding, but instead that the particular reasons given by the EPA when refusing to consider the issue were insufficient as they were not based on the relevant issue of whether CO2 emissions significantly affect the climate:

    “Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to
    climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. . . . EPA has refused to comply with this clear statutory command. Instead, it has offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate. For example, EPA said that a number of voluntary executive branch programs already provide an effective response to the threat of global warming, that regulating greenhouse gases might impair the President’s ability to negotiate with key developing nations to reduce emissions, and that curtailing motor-vehicle emissions would reflect an inefficient, piecemeal approach to address the climate change
    issue.

    Although we have neither the expertise nor the authority to evaluate these policy judgments, it is evident they have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. Still less do they
    amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment.”

    “The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists to make an endangerment finding. In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for
    its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. . . . We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns
    can inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.”

  33. “$90 billion for new investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, along with $60 billion for carbon capture and sequestration.”
    I am not an American but here are my taughts.
    I don’t understand how you can spend 2/3 as much on carbon capture and storage as on renewable energy and energy efficiency.
    Point 1:Both renewable energy and energy efficiency while they are not always cost effective they are at least based on proven technology while carbon capture and storage has not been tried on a large scale. Wikipedia defines “Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a theoretical approach to mitigating the contribution of fossil fuel emissions to global warming, based on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from large point sources such as fossil fuel power plants.” note the word “theoretical” it has only been tried in specific locations with particular economic considurations, have the proper assessments of the technology been done to assess if this is even possible before $60 billion is thrown at it?
    Point 2 Renewable energy and energy efficiency do not always represent the best investment but at least they are an investment. Most renewable energy requires large capital expenditure but low running costs, so once the money is spent at least you get something back. however carbon capture and storage you may as well take a truck load of $$$ and put it under ground instead of the carbon.
    Point 3 The name is “Clean Energy and Security Act” how does wasting money on putting CO2 underground contribute to security?
    Point 4 OK you could argue it allows the USA to burn coal and i quote “cleanly” while feeling morally superior but again from Viki “The technology is expected to use between 10 and 40% of the energy produced by a power station.[45] Wide scale adoption of CCS may erase efficiency gains of the last 50 years, and increase resource consumption by one third.”
    Whats clean about wasting energy? what do we want a third more open cast mines like the recent protests were against? how about a third more oil sands projects? well it might provide a third more jobs in some places but just wait until your energy bill goes up by a third.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

  34. Kum Dollison (19:31:09) :

    Collin Peterson made the deal. They’re, probably going to pass it.

    However, it IS tremendously watered down. It’s not exactly going to be the stuff of your worst nightmares.

    http://corncommentary.com/

    Kum, 85% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2050 is NOT a watered down proposal. It’s a hankers proposal with a lot of sweeties to protect some big emitters for the next few years, but after that our economy will go down the drain.

  35. “However, I’ve still got a sneaking suspicion they’ll get it passed”

    Me too. As a former NRA member, I recall it was common for liberals to publicly state that a gun control bill was unlikely to pass as a sneaky way of getting the pro-gun folks to relax and stop calling their representatives.

    I agree they will probably pass something which has been heavily watered down. I think that the warmists want to get something — anything — passed. That way, if surface temperatures continue to tread water or even start dropping, they can take responsibility for fixing the problem.

  36. Richard Heg (02:34:51) : “I am not an American but here are my taughts.
    I don’t understand how you can spend 2/3 as much on carbon capture and storage as on renewable energy and energy efficiency.”

    One only needs to understand that someone of power stands to gain a lot from carbon capture and storage.

  37. Once again, all the facts in a nutshell, WE DO NOT NEED ANY LEGISLATION,
    OUR CLIMATE IS DOING FINE.

    Jun 25, 2009
    Global warming� is No Global Crisis – Major Talking Points

    By Christopher Monckton< SPPI

    The warming effect of greenhouse gases is less than one-tenth the UN�s central estimate.
    Spencer et al. (2008, cloud albedo); Douglass (2008, tropical mid-troposphere temperature change); Lindzen & Choi (2009 in press, outgoing long-wave radiation); and Armstrong, Green & Soon (2009 in press, zero-change benchmarking of climate forecasts) empirically confirm theoretica demonstrations (Schwartz, 2007; Monckton, 2008; Monckton & Evans, 2009 in draft) that climate sensitivity � the warming effect of all greenhouse gases, not just of CO2 – is less than one-fourth of the UN’s current central estimate. A CO2 doubling would cause just 1.5 F warming, not the 5.9 F imagined by the UN.

    ‘Global warming’ is nothing new.
    It was 10 F warmer than today in each of the past four interglacial periods; 2-3 F warmer for most of the past 10,000 years; warmer in the Minoan, medieval, and Roman warm periods. The rate of warming is nothing new either: the warming rate equivalent to 2.9 F/century from 1975-1998, when humankind might have had a small influence, was exactly the same as the warming rates from 1860-1880 and from 1910-1940 (House of Lords Written Answer, 2009).

    There has been no statistically-significant �global warming� for almost 15 years.
    In fact, for almost eight years, on all measures, there has been global cooling at 3.4 F/century. Oceans have also been cooling ever since 3300 automated
    bathythermographs were deployed in 2005. The ocean cooling definitively proves the UN wrong about “global warming”: if there were any, 80% of it would have to show up in the top 400 fathoms of the world�s oceans, but it is not happening. It follows that all recent reports that “global warming” has caused adverse weather events must be incorrect, because there has not been any. The UN’s central estimate, on its “business-as-usual” scenario, is for 6 F warming in the 21st century, but in the 30 years since accurate satellite temperatures became available in 1980 the warming rate has averaged just 2.7 F/century – less than half the UN’s prediction.

    CO2 concentration is rising at less than half the UN’s predicted rate.
    The UN’s central estimate is that CO2 concentration will grow exponentially to reach 836 parts per million by volume this century, but in fact it is growing
    linearly towards just 575 ppm. This factor alone demands a halving of all UN temperature predictions. Methane concentration stopped rising in 2000 and has
    hardly changed since.

    Contrary to reports, the climate is doing just fine.
    - Global Sea-ice Extent A steady heartbeat for 30 years.
    - Arctic Sea Ice Normal in winter, down a little in recent summers, but well within natural variability. Arctic Temperature Warmer in the 1930s and early 1940s than today. North-West Passage Amundsen sailed through it in 1903. It was also open in the mid-1940s
    - Greenland Mean ice-sheet thickness grew by 2 in/yr from 1993-2003 (Johannessen et al., 2005).
    - Polar Bears Population up fivefold since the 1940s.
    - Antarctic Sea Ice Growing for 30 years. Antarctic Temperature Little change in 50 years. Antarctic Peninsula Ice-shelves about 1/55 the area of Texas have gone, but were not there in the Middle Ages.
    - Sahara Desert Greening so fast that 300,000 km2 has become vegetated, allowing nomadic tribes to settle where they haveN’t been seen in living memory.
    - Droughts and Floods Variable as usual.
    - Hurricanes and OtherTropical Cyclones Lowest activity for 30 years.
    - Sea Level Rising at 1 ft/century since satellite measurements began in 1993, compared with average 4 ft/century over the past 10,000 years. No sea-level rise in the last three years. UN High-end Forecast Slashed from 3ft to <2ft sea-level rise by 2100: UN best current estimate 1 ft 5 in. Bangladesh Has gained 70,000 km2 land area confounding UN sea-level forecasts. Pacific Atolls Not at risk: corals can grow towards the light at 10x the rate of sea-level rise, which is why so many atolls are just above sea level. Maldives No sea-level rise in 1250 years (Morner, 2004).

    Ocean acidification is a scientific impossibility
    Henry�s Law mandates that warming oceans will outgas CO2 to the atmosphere (as the UN�s own documents predict it will), making the oceans less acid. Also,more CO2 would increase calcification rates. No comprehensive, reliable measurement of worldwide oceanic acid/base balance has ever been carried out: therefore, there is no observational basis for the computer models’ guess that acidification of 0.1 pH units has occurred in recent decades.

    There is no economic case for costly measures to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions.
    To prevent 1 F of warming, 1-10 trillion tons of CO2 emission would have to be foregone � the equivalent of shutting down the entire US economy for 170-1700 years. The Waxman/Markey Climate Bill would cost $160 billion/year (White House estimate) and, even if implemented fully, would cool the climate by just 0.0005-0.005 F/yr. Secretary Chu’s grand plan to paint the world white would cool the climate 0.2 F at the very most, at a cost of $200 trillion.

    Overtaxing & overregulating US fossil-fuel industries would increase the world carbon footprint.
    Not that the carbon footprint matters (see point 1). However, if the US kills its own fossil-fuel industry, US corporations and jobs will move to China and other third-world economies, where carbon emissions per unit of output are higher than in the US. China and India will not be cutting their emissions. (PDF)

  38. gt (20:05:39) : “All lobbying efforts should be a felony.”

    You writing to your congressman should be a felony? ‘Cuz that’s lobbying. And how about Anthony telling people to write their congressmen? Because that’s lobbying too.

    There’s just that pesky First Amendment that gets in the way of all those wishes.

  39. When it looks like the wheels may be coming off the wagon then lightening the load, is always a good move.
    Strangely enough, it’ll turn out to have been ‘a good move’ as well, for those brave Democrats who chose to disembark before it’s too late.
    Maybe not in the short term but, ‘he who laughs last, laughs the loudest’ (and, more importantly, longest!)

    For those remaining cast members of ‘Carry on Trekking’, remember the public fury that recently exploded in the UK over politicians expenses (aka pork). The tricoteuse at the Daily Telegraph are still busy knitting and heads are still rolling.
    Imagine the dirt-digging that will take place if W-M passes: EPA transparency exposed as a oxymoron, A POTUS that ranks CO2 alongside Asbestos, government officials encouraging illegal activities, the burying of Inconvenient Facts and so on, Ad Infinitum, Ad Nauseam!

    Life will become very difficult when the MSM lap-dogs turn into slavering wolves. It is said over here, in the UK, that when America sneezes we develop pneumonia! Picture, if you can, what the reaction of Joe the Plumber would be, compared to the mere fury expressed by John Bull.

  40. Wednesday, June 24, 2009
    Cap-and-Trade Bill: Villainy on a Grand Scale
    By Alan Caruba

    Supported by outright lies by the President about “clean” or “renewable energy”, and based on the greatest hoax of the modern era, “global warming”, on Friday Congress is reportedly going to vote on the 1,200-page Waxman-Markey “Cap and Trade” bill (H.R. 2454).

    It would impose a huge tax on the provision and use of electricity in the nation.

    Energy is the most vital resource America has and we have enjoyed abundant and affordable energy for our long history. That will all change if the Waxman-Markey bill becomes law.

    There is no “global warming.” The Earth is presently ten years into a cooling cycle and it is predicted to last a very long time.

    Calling carbon dioxide “a pollutant” is a lie. All vegetation on Earth is dependent on carbon dioxide. Putting Limits on carbon dioxide emissions is idiocy and lunacy.

    For the nearly six months since President Obama assumed office and in league with the majority Democrat Party in Congress, the actions taken to date appear to have a single purpose, the destruction of the nation’s economy.

    The Waxman-Markey bill is villainy on a grand scale.

    It is no accident that President Obama and his acolytes keep calling for “clean energy”, “energy independence”, and babbling endlessly about “green jobs” as the real jobs of Americans are systematically destroyed. Upon taking office, Obama rescinded the executive order to permit exploration of the nation’s offshore continental shelf for the wealth of oil and natural gas it possesses.

    It is no accident that his Secretary of the Interior unilaterally cancelled 77 oil and gas leases or that, on March 25, the House of Representatives passed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 that adds two million more acres of wilderness to the 107 million acres already “protected” by the federal government.

    It is estimated that 300 million barrels of oil and 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie beneath these “protected” acres. The government owns 607 million acres of land in a nation founded on the belief in the sanctity and power of private property, the keystone of capitalism.

    Even if the bill were to become law, it totally ignores the fact that all the other nations of the Earth will continue to generate “greenhouse gases.” The United Nations Kyoto Protocol, intended to reduce these gases, purposefully exempted China, India, and all undeveloped nations. Its limits are, by definition, meaningless.

    The Waxman-Markey bill will, by 2035, reduce the aggregate domestic product (GDP) by an estimated $7.4 trillion. Our present annual GDP is about $14 trillion. It is estimated to destroy 844,000 jobs on average with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1,900,000 jobs. It will raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation. Prices for gasoline and natural gas will rise by 74% and 55% respectively.

    This bill will impoverish Americans and destroy the nation.

    Out of 307 million Americans, I seriously doubt that more than a relative handful know what Cap-and-Trade means or that it is even being debated, but they, their children, and their grandchildren will, by the actions of this Congress, live in a very different, very costly America.

    The Democrats in Congress and the present occupant of the White House, by their actions, must hate America. They pose the greatest threat to its future that has ever existed in our history.

    Call, write, fax, and email your representatives in Congress. Let them know you will not stand by idly as they destroy America.

  41. Aron (20:11:15) :

    If cap and trade goes ahead it will consign millions of people to poverty. Remind your representatives that is is an American duty to fight for liberty from oppression of any kind including being forced to live on rations and pay high taxes. This is why Americans fought for liberty in the first place.

    Yes, but the government will take care of them.

  42. Please contact your congress critter even if they are flaming progressives. It will not change their vote but at least we can make it a little less comfortable inside their bubble.

    If you like parallelism in your messages you might mention the similarity and connection between the phrases “cap and trade” and “tar and feathers”.

  43. Politicians could be very happy not to have passed this CCBill in a few years, when the AGW theory is finally publicly discredited.

    Meanwhile, the Obama administration will still be trying to achieve the same objectives through EPA regulation of “toxic” CO2.

  44. Joseph romm says:
    “So yes, there is a strong link between climate change, which is now predominantly driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases, and the rise in many different type of extreme weather events — and that rise will accelerate in the future and the link will grow. Until, of course, the climate just changes, and in many regions we stop using the word drought, and use the word Dust Bowl — assuming that we aren’t smart enough to ignore the siren song of the deniers and solve this problem.”

    so if we don’t pass this bill, it is the deniers that are blocking prevention of the next dustbowl. I want to know when and where the next dust bowl is because it is already scheduled and human intervention they say will specifically prevent it.
    “siren song” i translate to an old word called superstition.

    For context, the above quote was an explanation of the heavy duty rain at the U.S. Open. We have always read about strong storms but “These Ones are now not regular strong storms but AGW induced events”

  45. the group” Farmers Union” ihappy with the changes but they speak for very few farmers. THE American Farm Bureau is still against the Waxman- energy bill. We forget so easly how much of rural America is heated with propane. I’m sure it will go sky high again. It was $2.17 here last year and many people switched to heating a few room with an electric heater last year. With cap and trade Propane and electricity could both go up in price. That would drive many people out of their homes in the winter.

  46. The bill will pass. They’ve added enough pork to guarantee that there will be just enough Republicans jumping ship to compensate for the Democrats who chickened out when they saw their constituents with “pitchforks and torches”.

    Pelosi knows this but she has to look worried in public. She hopes that some people will take it as a sign that the bill will be defeated and not send more emails and letters to wavering Democrats.

    Stupidity trumps liberty every time. Liberty had a 200 year run, which in retrospect, was a lot longer than most people expected.

  47. Leaks from Hill offices indicate that the president would now be forced to impose the carbon tariffs — and could only opt out of doing so with permission from both chambers of Congress. Carbon-intensive imports would be subject to penalties at the border unless the country of origin requires emission reduction measures at least 80 percent as costly as ours.

    This is the Smoot-Hawley redux that will bring on the Obama Depression

  48. Kirk W. Hanneman (22:27:18) :
    “What moron would vote for such a bill?”

    “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself.” — Mark Twain

  49. I am in Waxman’s district. I wanted to vote against him but he was the only name on the ballot. My only option was to abstain. I wonder what chance someone else would have if they ran. I would have voted for another candidate just because he wasn’t Waxman.

    REPLY: Get busy down there then finding an alternate.

  50. Al Gore cancels appearance on the hill. Pelosi finally realized flying in the VP to rally against CO2 was stupid, damn they are learning the ropes, because it would open the VP up to criticism regarding his big fat …. footprint.

    She is a cagey old bird.

  51. wws (05:52:44) :

    “You writing to your congressman should be a felony? ‘Cuz that’s lobbying. And how about Anthony telling people to write their congressmen? Because that’s lobbying too.”

    I personally will not liken individual citizens who call their representatives to express their opinions, to the career lobbyists that are paid to meet the same representatives personally, bride and bully them to vote in a particular way, and even at times get involved in drafting bills.

    That said, if the Congress does follow the Constitution, there will be no room for lobbying, and no need for citizens to call in and tell them what they can or cannot do.

  52. It looks to me, on page 245, that they have added a clause requiring companies using the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to pay the “prevailing wage” for the project. Won’t this greatly increase the cost of the project using this program, since I understand the usual interpretation of “prevailing wage” is the union wage?

    There are a lot of companies trying to build nuclear power plants using Title XVII loan guarantee. I suspect the new prevailing wage clause will gut that.

  53. Meanwhile, the Obama administration will still be trying to achieve the same objectives through EPA regulation of “toxic” CO2.

    Exactly.

  54. Whatever can be done, can be undone; or am I putting too much faith in voters who will be affected by all this crap?

    Like the Federal Income Tax, eh?

  55. I asked my Senator not to support the bill and here was his answer:

    Dear Mr. Urbanski:

    Thank you for contacting me regarding cap-and-trade legislation.

    I am interested in cap-and-trade programs because they would let the market, not the government, dictate how to lower harmful emissions. I believe that we have the technology and ability to meet the challenge of climate change in a way that will provide new economic opportunities and make us more competitive internationally while protecting consumers from high energy prices and breaking our dependence on oil.

    Global warming threatens Florida’s fragile ecosystem and $56 billion tourism industry. Rising sea levels will encroach on Florida’s pristine beaches and harm coastal wetlands and the Everglades. Increased carbon dioxide and water temperatures will damage sensitive coral reefs and endanger Florida’s diverse marine species. A scientific study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by the accumulation of man-made greenhouse gasses.

    I will continue to work in the Senate to fight the effects of global warming. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me, and I respect your views. Please feel free to regarding any additional issues of concern.

    Sincerely,
    Senator Bill Nelson

  56. Have we had enough of this nonsense already?

    God, I am so sick of hearing/seeing The Big “O”, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of these maniacs that are trying to micromanage my life, regarding this topic and numerous others…….stealing more of my money and liberty.

    My Congress “Person” is no help as she is a Obama sychophant as are my Senators.

    Get out there and tell your friends/family and neighbors what this is all about and get involved politically. We have to get these buffoons out of government.

  57. The latest version is predicted by the EPA to cause there to be less renewable energy by 2020 than business as usual!

  58. I spoke to my blue dog democrat congressperson (Parker Griffiths, Ala 5) and he has pledged to vote against it.

  59. mkurbo, it seems your letter to Senator Nelson fell on deaf ears. The fix is in, and nothing short of a revolution is going to stop King Obama from attaining his goals.

  60. mkurbo (11:16:12) :

    Oh dear. Your senator has been brainwashed to beyond a point of irreversibility.

  61. I haven’t heard back from any of my representatives and I requested a response. And you would think that they, if on the CO2 side, would appreciate my attempt to bypass the noxious spewing of pollutants by avoiding snail mail in preference to the much more green email system of communication.

  62. Addendum,

    I just got an email response from Senator Merkley of Oregon. The letter read like one primarily made of macro single key stroke talking points. I was unimpressed. He did not speak to the questionable science behind the political movement and he did not state his personal opinion of said science. As of this moment, I am deeply concerned over, apologize for, and embarrassed of my political party.

  63. OT… Have you heard something about and interference of the US government into the American citizens’ private lives? I do not remember exactly, perhaps it was yesterday or the day before yesterday, when I read from a newspaper that some federal agencies were looking for the approval of an initiative which would permit them to interfere your phone calls and other private, very private, activities. Here, in Mexico, the federal government is pushing to active mobile phones users to register their mobile phone line(s) including the name of the owner or user, address, ID number and Single Population Registration Code (CURP in Spanish), before June 30th. We don’t know what the purpose of this obligation could be, but it doesn’t smell nice.

  64. So President Obama is hosting a luau tonite for 2200 congress critters…

    Seems strange on the eve of a carbon reduction bill to fly in Hawaiian fire-knife dancers and 20 musicians and other dancers from throughout Hawaii. Flying in a top Hawaiin chef (Wong).
    And flying up to D.C. with Wong, from Hawaii:

    • 70 lbs. of hearts of palm, from Wailea Agricultural Group, Big Island of Hawaii
    • 35 lbs. of chevre (goat cheese) from Hawaii Island Goat Dairy, Honokaa, Big Island of Hawaii
    • 216 lbs. of mushrooms (50% eryngi, 50% hon-shimeji), from Hamakua Mushrooms, Big Island of Hawaii
    • 44 lbs. of chocolate, from Waialua Estate Chocolate, Oahu
    • 3 gallons of ko choo jang sauce, from Park’s Brand, Oahu
    • 35 lbs. of white miso, from Maru-Hi, Oahu
    • 84 lbs. of macadamia nuts
    • 130 lbs. of salted salmon (now we’re all but confirming lomi salmon)
    • 60 lbs. of pipi kaula
    • 4 lbs. of Hawaii-grown chili peppers

    I am so proud of our President and Congress…

  65. Al Gore cancels appearance on the hill.

    It would look pretty bad to bring in a “green venture capitalist” to lobby for the passage.

    We’ve been thru the S&L adventure, the dot-com run up, Y2K, subprime/Alt-A/Option-A loan mess and now the “carbon tax” (AKA Global Warming/AGW/cap-n-trade). Each and every one of these government FUBARs was intended to extract money from the masses and give it to the friends of the politicians.

    Always remember that the last “global consensus” was that Iraq had “stockpiles of WMD” and it was “all wrong”. Now we have a new “global consensus” which also appears, in so many ways that it’s hard to count, to be “all wrong”

  66. Neo (13:38:00) :

    Al Gore cancels appearance on the hill.

    It would look pretty bad to bring in a “green venture capitalist” to lobby for the passage.

    We’ve been thru the S&L adventure, the dot-com run up, Y2K, subprime/Alt-A/Option-A loan mess and now the “carbon tax” (AKA Global Warming/AGW/cap-n-trade). Each and every one of these government FUBARs was intended to extract money from the masses and give it to the friends of the politicians.

    Always remember that the last “global consensus” was that Iraq had “stockpiles of WMD” and it was “all wrong”. Now we have a new “global consensus” which also appears, in so many ways that it’s hard to count, to be “all wrong.”

    Neo, off topic but:
    Only if you leave out 550 tons of uranium yellow cake, a stock pile of chemical weapons (nerve and mustard gas) you are right about the ‘Global Consensus’.

  67. Gary don’t forget the “Pork”. Wanna bet no hungry DC street people will be invited? Royalty only, I’m sure.

  68. In my experience, congresspeople and their staff don’t actually read constituent letters in great depth regarding pending legislation. They tend to just pile the “for” and “against” letters in piles and weigh the mass of each. So if y’all wanna have an impact, send your letters via snail mail on as heavy a bond paper as you can… lol.

  69. Comment for non-US readers. The fact that a House bill is much weaker than the Senate version, or the reverse, means very little. Don’t place your hopes on that.

    A committee from the House and a committee from the Senate will sit down together and make changes to reconcile the versions This gives a tremendous advantage to the party that controls both houses. Or in this case to Pelosi and Reid.

    Expect a reconciliation bill to omit concessions put in before the vote.

  70. Climate Heretic (09:19:28) :
    ‘Al Gore cancels appearance on the hill. Pelosi finally realized flying in the VP to rally against CO2 was stupid, damn they are learning the ropes, because it would open the VP up to criticism regarding his big fat …. footprint.’

    The Gore Affect
    She didn’t want snow in June.

  71. Gary A. (13:26:44) :

    I hope he did not use our tax dollars for that. But I am not holding my breath neither.

  72. I have to laugh when politicians claim that a huge new tax will “create millions of new green jobs.” Did these folks fail economics, or just common sense class?

Comments are closed.