Pelosi concedes 'not enough votes to pass global warming bill'

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

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/

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.

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”.

[sorry, just too far OT for us, but best of luck and well-wishes – Anthony]

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.

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.

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.

Oops! Sorry… I forgot to include a resource to the last paragraph (“The complex role of the Supreme Court…”):
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf
Sorry, again… 🙂

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.

I wrote my congressman (a party line dem) last month and he replied (more or less) and I replied back to him. I blogged about it on my station’s website:
http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/news_blog_post.aspx?id=295986
My representative, or his aides who answered used all of Gore’s alarmist talking points. Those who have their agendas will not even look at anything else.

“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.

Oh, Jeez, Holy Mackeral
I thot it wuz thursday. Yikes, I’m dum.

[“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.

“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.

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?

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.

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.

“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.”

“$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

“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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It ain’t over ’til the dumb lady grins!

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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’.

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.

Gary A. (13:26:44) :
I hope he did not use our tax dollars for that. But I am not holding my breath neither.