House passes $700B "bailout bill" – CO2 Tax issues included –

WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED CARBON TAX

House passes “bailout bill”, with Carbon Tax credits and an entire buffet of pork attached.

See Yahoo News

See who voted yea or nay on the Emergency Economic Pork Stabilization Act of 2008 here:

H R 1424 YEA-AND-NAY

See the Carbon Tax language as of yesterday, no word yet on if it changed today. UPDATE: Final language posted below:

SEC. 117. CARBON AUDIT OF THE TAX CODE.

    (a) Study- The Secretary of the Treasury shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a comprehensive review of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate the magnitude of those effects.
    (b) Report- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the National Academy of Sciences shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of study authorized under this section.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,500,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

More….

SEC. 115. TAX CREDIT FOR CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION.

    (a) In General- Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 (relating to business credits) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`SEC. 45Q. CREDIT FOR CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION.

    `(a) General Rule- For purposes of section 38, the carbon dioxide sequestration credit for any taxable year is an amount equal to the sum of–
    • `(1) $20 per metric ton of qualified carbon dioxide which is–
      • `(A) captured by the taxpayer at a qualified facility, and
      • `(B) disposed of by the taxpayer in secure geological storage, and
    • `(2) $10 per metric ton of qualified carbon dioxide which is–
      • `(A) captured by the taxpayer at a qualified facility, and
      • `(B) used by the taxpayer as a tertiary injectant in a qualified enhanced oil or natural gas recovery project.
    `(b) Qualified Carbon Dioxide- For purposes of this section–
    • `(1) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified carbon dioxide’ means carbon dioxide captured from an industrial source which–
      • `(A) would otherwise be released into the atmosphere as industrial emission of greenhouse gas, and
      • `(B) is measured at the source of capture and verified at the point of disposal or injection.
    • `(2) RECYCLED CARBON DIOXIDE- The term `qualified carbon dioxide’ includes the initial deposit of captured carbon dioxide used as a tertiary injectant. Such term does not include carbon dioxide that is re-captured, recycled, and re-injected as part of the enhanced oil and natural gas recovery process.
    `(c) Qualified Facility- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified facility’ means any industrial facility–
    • `(1) which is owned by the taxpayer,
    • `(2) at which carbon capture equipment is placed in service, and
    • `(3) which captures not less than 500,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide during the taxable year.
    `(d) Special Rules and Other Definitions- For purposes of this section–
    • `(1) ONLY CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURED AND DISPOSED OF OR USED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT- The credit under this section shall apply only with respect to qualified carbon dioxide the capture and disposal or use of which is within–
      • `(A) the United States (within the meaning of section 638(1)), or
      • `(B) a possession of the United States (within the meaning of section 638(2)).
    • `(2) SECURE GEOLOGICAL STORAGE- The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall establish regulations for determining adequate security measures for the geological storage of carbon dioxide under subsection (a)(1)(B) such that the carbon dioxide does not escape into the atmosphere. Such term shall include storage at deep saline formations and unminable coal seems under such conditions as the Secretary may determine under such regulations.
    • `(3) TERTIARY INJECTANT- The term `tertiary injectant’ has the same meaning as when used within section 193(b)(1).
    • `(4) QUALIFIED ENHANCED OIL OR NATURAL GAS RECOVERY PROJECT- The term `qualified enhanced oil or natural gas recovery project’ has the meaning given the term `qualified enhanced oil recovery project’ by section 43(c)(2), by substituting `crude oil or natural gas’ for `crude oil’ in subparagraph (A)(i) thereof.
    • `(5) CREDIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO TAXPAYER- Any credit under this section shall be attributable to the person that captures and physically or contractually ensures the disposal of or the use as a tertiary injectant of the qualified carbon dioxide, except to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
    • `(6) RECAPTURE- The Secretary shall, by regulations, provide for recapturing the benefit of any credit allowable under subsection (a) with respect to any qualified carbon dioxide which ceases to be captured, disposed of, or used as a tertiary injectant in a manner consistent with the requirements of this section.
    • `(7) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT- In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2009, there shall be substituted for each dollar amount contained in subsection (a) an amount equal to the product of–
      • `(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
      • `(B) the inflation adjustment factor for such calendar year determined under section 43(b)(3)(B) for such calendar year, determined by substituting `2008′ for `1990′.
    `(e) Application of Section- The credit under this section shall apply with respect to qualified carbon dioxide before the end of the calendar year in which the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, certifies that 75,000,000 metric tons of qualified carbon dioxide have been captured and disposed of or used as a tertiary injectant.’.
    (b) Conforming Amendment- Section 38(b) (relating to general business credit) is amended by striking `plus’ at the end of paragraph (32), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (33) and inserting `, plus’, and by adding at the end of following new paragraph:
    • `(34) the carbon dioxide sequestration credit determined under section 45Q(a).’.
    (c) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 (relating to other credits) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
    • `Sec. 45Q. Credit for carbon dioxide sequestration.’.
    (d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to carbon dioxide captured after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 116. CERTAIN INCOME AND GAINS RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CARBON DIOXIDE TREATED AS QUALIFYING INCOME FOR PUBLICLY TRADED PARTNERSHIPS.

    (a) In General- Subparagraph (E) of section 7704(d)(1) (defining qualifying income) is amended by inserting `or industrial source carbon dioxide’ after `timber)’.
    (b) Effective Date- The amendment made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such date.
Advertisements

74 thoughts on “House passes $700B "bailout bill" – CO2 Tax issues included –

  1. Well, first we’re going to get AUDITED
    (the “rescue bill” requires a CARBON AUDIT of the tax code)
    Better get our records in order, start looking for all those CO2 receipts…

  2. Before you know it, we’ll all have to file environmental impact statements for every activity that generates CO2.
    I hope they don’t decide to tax me every time I exhale. I think some of them might like that idea.
    Sorry for the rant…

  3. I also posted this on the other thread about the bailout….
    Click here for NYT video on one of the causes of the Financial Crisis.
    My summary of the NYT video:
    5 firms – Goldman Sachs, Merril Lynch, Lehman Bros, Morgan Stanley and Bears Stern, applied in Apr 2004, to change investment rules. Basically, they were allowed to use computer models to assess the level of risk in investments.
    My commentary:
    Gore says that climate models can be trusted, because Wall Street has used similar models for years.
    Look how that turned out, on wall street, for these firms.
    The weakness, or outright failure of each, is a major contributor to the financial crisis of 2008.
    Now, my question to the believers of Climate Models:
    Should we invest 40 trillion in these models?
    My question to the SEC:
    ARE YOU GUYS ON CRACK?!?!!?”

  4. Back in 2004, the administration raised serious concerns about sub-prime lending practices, 100% no-doc loans, and what would happen when those loans reset. The concerns were vehemently rejected by Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and especially Barney Frank all claiming that the practices promoted their low-cost housing initiatives and home affordability by the underclass. Today, Hoyer praised Barney Frank for his “intelect,” insight, leadership, and expertise in dealing with this crisis.
    Earlier in the week Pelosi killed the bill. The bill voted on today contained all sorts of earmarks and sneaky dealing from wooden arrows to the tax treatment for carbon offsets. And, of course, Barack Obama was central in bringing votes together. No mention of McCain.
    This is political theater choreographed by the ringleader Pelosi!

  5. Well, when the government denies my CO2 exhalation permit, because they claim I am exceeding my CO2 allocations, well, I live in Texas, and I will know what will have to be done when they come to enforce their court ordered injunction.
    Would I receive offsetting carbon credits for my actions? If I offset twice my allocation, guess I could sell the extra one, or, does that just mean I become eligible to have a child?
    Seems like it would be rather easy to obtain offsetting credits – there are a lot of government officals, lots.
    /sarc

  6. Sorry Les, but the premise of your post is wrong. I strongly doubt Gore has ever suggested that climate models are similar to economic ones because that comparison is completely bunk. Climate models, unlike market ones, are based on discrete physical laws. Essentially, a climate model is nothing more than a large ensemble of differential equations which are solved on a complicated solution space.
    Please try reading this document to learn a bit about what a climate model is and how it works before you continue making false statements about them.
    REPLY: Not quite Mr. Rothenberg, “a climate model is nothing more than a large (albeit incomplete) ensemble of differential equations which are solved on a complicated solution space that roughly approximate earth’s climate and energy balance. – Anthony

  7. Are we prepared for the appointment of Algore as Secretary of the DOE after the 20 January 2009 inauguration?
    Les Johnson (11:10:30) :
    “Should we invest 40 trillion in these models?”
    Are you doubting the validity of computer models? Computer models accurately depict the agenda, bias and foregone conclusions of the programmer and we all know that the axiom, garbage in, garbage out, is fallacious. Computers do not lie – their output is always the “truth” as related to the input.

  8. Counters, regardless of how well climate models may work, they should not be used as predictive devices, but only as hypothetical test beds. Even then, if you’re saying that all aspects of global climate are well enough understood to accurately model, then you’re making a false statement, or are simply deluded.

  9. Start keeping track of all your CO2 emissions, including exhalation.
    You’re eventually going to have to declare them on your tax return, and it could be for this year’s taxes (there’s already a precedent for retroactive taxes).

  10. counters (12:08:40) :
    “…learn a bit about what a climate model is and how it works before you continue making false statements about them.”
    Geez, do you really need to defend climate models against libel, counselor?
    Are they covered under campaign finance reform?
    Is Les required to say he approved of his message?

  11. counters (12:08:40) :
    The essential point is that computer models — economic or climate — are often woefully inaccurate. The models are used to make decisions and sometimes lead to catastrophic, unintended results, despite warnings from intelligent people who recognize the weaknesses in the various models.
    James Hansen’s model promoted in 1988 has not lived up to the hype after 20 years of direct observations. Michael Mann’s model has been discredited. Perhaps the failure of the economic risk models will give pause to the decisions based on the climate models since there are some very qualified workers in the field that recognize major shortcomings in the climate models.

  12. Counters, the GCM’s start with physics and then all sorts of physical quantities which cannot be adequately described are “parametrised”. The models have been tuned to produce outputs which look like real weather patterns but diverge from reality after a few days. Then the assumption is made that the average of the model outputs describes the average of reality. This is a glib assumption and at first look sounds reasonable but as the later state of the system depends on the earlier states and errors will grow with time the best way to think about this might be a comparison with an inertial navigation system which is initialised at a known location and whose errors with time are a random walk. The system output always looks like a navigation solution but doesn’t describe reality even on average.

  13. Counters:
    “I strongly doubt Gore has ever suggested that climate models are similar to economic ones…”
    If he didn’t say it, he should have. The addage “garbage in, garbage out” about covers it.
    Les Johnson:
    Great video. Your comments are right on.

  14. counters
    Both physical and economic models try to approximate observed empirical data. The key issue is how well the models relate to the observations and the uncertainty in the parameters. Some physics models have uncertainties better than parts per 10^15. Others possibly within one order of magnitude.
    e.g., See: CAM3 Documentation 5. Slab Ocean Model
    “To ensure the CAM 3.0 SOM sea ice simulation compares well to the observed ice distribution, and to moderate sea ice changes in climate change experiments, the $ Q$ flux term is adjusted under the ice in a globally conserving manner.”
    What is the uncertainty associated with “compares well”?
    Lucia at The Blackboard is exploring uncertainties in the IPCC predictions.
    Result of Hypothesis Tests:
    Very Low Confidence 2C/century Correct.

    To date, the “very low confidence” (1 in 10) of IPCC’s 2C/century projections, against the hard reality of declining global temperatures, does not appear to give sufficient confidence to justify $40 trillion expenditures into halting climate change (in a classic British understatement!)
    No-Regrets options that make economic sense should obviously be invested in. e.g., energy efficiency measures.
    Carbon sequestration per se appears to be the biggest hole ever conceived into which politicians can bury hard earned taxpayer savings with no observable economic benefit or return.
    The most important issue we face is how fast we can develop alternative fuels to replace the rapid decline in world oil exports to keep our economy from collapsing. See Marienne Kah 2008, especially slide 6.
    and Khebab’s
    Peak Oil Update – August 2008: Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers
    We have the choice of investing trillions of dollars into alternative fuels or carbon sequestration.
    Investing rapidly into alternative fuels might permit our economy to survive, though severely damaged. Pouring $ into carbon sequestration will cause very severe economic damage with the likelihood of hundreds of millions of people starving. Will we be led by strategic statesmen or pandering politicians?

  15. I am mad as heck and I am not going to take it anymore.
    No wonder the congressional approval rating is below 20%.

  16. “Are you on crack?”
    Maybe not crack and maybe not the SEC but cocaine dealers have often been crowing that their biggest customers are financial traders. A good deal of the high flyers were truly high much of the time:
    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=430393&in_page_id=2
    “The pressures were immense and everyone was doing it. You would hear sniffing in the toilets. We would start work at 6.30am, take our first line at 11.30am, then be entertaining until 2am”
    For years the world economy has been manoeuvred by 25 year olds high on drugs.
    Like the climate models, the financial models are merely a mathematical wrapper around two grossly poor human assumptions a) that a rising trend will surely keep rising (apart from a few ‘noisy’ fluctuations) and b) that ‘smart’ folk can tell why it’s rising.

  17. Just as the earliest (and perhaps worst) NH winter in a generation gets underway.
    Load ammo, cycle action, point firearm at foot, shoot.

  18. Great… not only did we, the voters, get screwed with a $700 billion tax bill but now we’re gonna get a carbon tax on top. Time to start a third political party and kick the donkeys and elephants out of Washington, DC.

  19. counters:
    Both models (economic and climate) are similar, in that they are models of a non-linear coupled chaotic system.
    But as you are an apparent expert in modeling, perhaps you can help me.
    I use fluid dynamics/turbulence models in my line of work, and I just cannot get the Laplace simulation to match the empirical. I’ve tried tweaking the fluid rheology, the simulation geometries and the flow rates, but no joy.
    I will go in and look at the code if I have to, but I would prefer not to. Any suggestions?

  20. Counters
    It’s clear you know nothing at all about financial models. You should really find out about them before you sound off. Yes they are also a series of differential equations, often exceedingly more complex, with proper optimisation techniques, than most climate models – many of which are simplistic junk by comparison. Also they are written by programmers who are streets ahead of most academics in ability, using modern problem-solving languages like Ocaml rather than Fortran. What they both utterly fail on though isn’t the maths or physics, it is the total reliance on ad-hoc assumptions about the underlying mechanisms combined with exceedingly poor validation.

  21. SteveSadlov (13:27:24) :
    ” Just as the earliest (and perhaps worst) NH winter in a generation gets underway.
    Load ammo, cycle action, point firearm at foot, shoot. ”
    You left out a couple important steps…
    1 – Take off shoes and socks to get a better aim
    2 – Cross feet so you can get both with one shot

  22. I’ve had it with this nitwit President in particular and the republicans in general. The ‘pubs had six years in which they could get things done and they blew it. In the process, they showed the Nation they cannot be trusted and that they are the “spendthrift party” more so than the dumbos.
    We know the dumbocrats are losers, but many had some faith in the ‘pubs. No longer, I’d rather vote communistic that republican ever again!
    Jack Koenig
    Independent Voter

  23. Les
    You want the simulation to match empirical studies? How old-fashioned – typical engineer. Can you not just show how the huge statistical uncertainties manage to overlap? Or maybe you could keep looking until you find an natural eddy study that fits the model. Or perhaps do the measurements again and adjust the Reynolds number of the fluid by cooling or pressurizing it. After all, it can’t possibly be the input assumptions that are wrong for heavens sake and i’m sure that turbulence model is spot on with the physics.
    Oh for the joys of predicting things that can’t be verified for 20 years and nobody dies if you get it wrong.

  24. First, they don’t permit drilling for oil here, even though its presence is known, thus driving up the cost of oil.
    Then they require the issuance of lousy mortgage loans in pursuit of some feel-good social agenda.
    Now that the chickens have come home to roost, they posture as our ‘saviors” by passing a pork-laden, something-for-everyone ‘rescue’ package that our kids and their kids will be paying throughout the century, at least until the rest of the house of cards collapses.
    Just when you think things can’t get any worse, it gets worse.
    From Marc Morano, a member of Senator Inhofe’s staff:
    “During a week where Americans were focused on perhaps the greatest economic challenges this country has faced in over a generation, House Democrats released a set of principles on October 2nd that outline an aggressive plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions. The plan could be even more economically restrictive than the failed Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would have cost $6.7 trillion dollars, according to the bill’s own sponsors.”
    See the rest of that post:
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c4584465-802a-23ad-46a7-cf9cfff3d7b9

  25. Will (12:04:44) :
    I am making a bumper sticker: Save the Planet, Sequester Al Gore.
    That’s a great one, Will. I have made my own also:
    SAVE THE PLANET
    MORE CO2 = MORE GREEN
    Think I’ll make one of yours too
    http://www.makestickers.com/ (not my company:)

  26. I only hope the Mayan calendar is correct and we all perish on Dec 31, 2012. At least we only have a little over 4 years to suffer through. There is now no future for anyone. Gov Ahnuld in California has asked the Congress to buy up $7 billion in debt and I am sure every other state will do the same. A point made on radio this morning was that people living in houses with the mortgages that are going to be bought by the government will never have to pay another dime, the government isn’t going to be the bad guy and kick them out. Perhaps all the rest of us who take care of our business as we should are the real fools here. We thought it was a level playing field, we thought that doing the right thing would take us to higher groung, now it turns out that the feel good liberals have had their way, no one is responsible for anything they do. We are the suckers! I just might steal a car tonight.

  27. AE General says:

    Didn’t the National Academy of Sciences already discredit the hockey-stick graph?

    In a word, no. Here is the report: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676 . They did not have as much confidence as Mann et al. in the pre-1600 results but still concluded

    The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.
    Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming.

    Mann et al.’s latest (2008) paper is an attempt to address some of the uncertainties identified in this NAS report.

  28. Tom in Fla – It’s actually 12/22/12, I believe. In any case, that’s not when we perish. It’s when we enter “the next world.” Hopi prophecy is similar. Now, as for what “the next world” is, let’s hope it’s not a wispy remnant of Romans and Gauls, making the final stand in the South of France against the Huns. Of course, in that case, a bullet was dodged, and a mere 800 years later, we’d mostly recovered. This time, the West may lose.

  29. Senator Byrd would would say that there is a, “certain amount of over-reacting going on around here.”
    Attaching this particular “stuff” to this particular bill at this particular time is a particularly good thing.
    Particular illogical ranting on this particular blog at any particular time is a particularly bad thing. It accomplish nothing and provides AGW’ers opportunity to misdirect the debate.
    Speaking of accomplishing — I am able to up my contribution to WUWT to $20.00 / month. Here is one real line in the sand, and all of us who can afford to — should stand with Anthony in moving the debate forward via this blog’s particularly positive outreach and impact..

  30. SteveSadlov,
    Thanks on the date correction, 9 less days to suffer. As for passing into the next world, I think that happened today.

  31. Do you remember Black Monday? It was caused by a bunch of computer models getting a sell signal. The smart money knew it was a glich and bought stock at or near the bottom.

  32. We need an economic assessment of the positive benefits of increased atmospheric CO2. Goodness knows we are spending a great deal looking for negatives. For instance what is the world wide savings on increased food production and reduced water usage due to the increase in CO2?
    Do the positive environmental and economic effects of global warming increase in a linear fashion as CO-2 increases, while the warming from additional CO2 decreases logarithmically?

  33. Somewhow, I expect to see a larger than normal amount of congressional oustering goin on this year. The sense I get of this bailout looting is that it is incredibly unpopular amongst the American people, of both political flavors. But I am in Canada.
    Is this assessment correct?

  34. I fear Bad Science and politicians have won more than just the day.
    If I could afford to contribute, I would, but I can not.
    We need this site, it’s insight, and the science it covers so well,
    we should all contribute what we can.
    I try to..
    (I’ll never, ever vote for a politician that spouts AGW either.)
    So, I will not leave this planet with a guilty conscience,
    I have tried my best, and will continue to,
    (which ain’t that good, but every little helps)
    however much the “greens” try to indoctrinate me otherwise.

  35. Joel: the NAS report I have, is subtly different than what you have:
    It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
    Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
    Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

  36. I have an Excel spreadsheet that’s better than the link you gave in that it lists who voted ‘YES’ by state and whether they are up for election this year. Can I upload it?

  37. Ya know, maybe blaming the Demicans or the Republicrats is not correct. Maybe we need to look past party affiliation to the training and background of those people who are elected to govern. The vast majority of them are lawyers. For many years we’ve elected people whose training is in legal and political matters, figuring these were the people who would write and pass good legislation.
    Yet it is becoming clear these people have created laws that have great sounds to them, but dire consequences. The act that created the sub-prime lending fiasco is just one such example albeit a large one. A smaller, every day example of their work is those idiotic safety messages in instruction manuals (most of the pages in fact) for things that have motors, whirling blades, loud noises or sharp stuff.
    OK, where do we go from here? Seems to me most of our small towns and municipalities are reasonably well run. That’s where the people elected to mayor, councilman, or what have you are folks like the rest of us. They are housewives, (yea, it’s still a word!) janitors, mechanics, small business people, garbage men and you name it. Regular common sense folk who want to do something for their community. They are not insulated from their constituents, but immersed with them in a common environment. They don’t have layers of staffers feeding them what the staffer wants. The city attorney will give them legal advice, but overall, they have to listen to their neighbors.
    You get my drift. Maybe it’s time to elect some of these folks (liberal, center, conservative) to do our business.
    “Nuff said!
    Mike

  38. The parallels between AGW and Finance are uncanny: surface temperature anomalies look like stock charts, irrational exeburance by the AGW crowd when temperatures were increasing, the whistling by the graveyard as global temperatures fall, the lack of accuracy in their models, etc. I suspect AGW will go the way of CDO’s (collaterelized debt obligations) in the next 2-3 years (i.e., no one will want a piece of it). Bold prediction: AGW will not merit a single question in the televised presidential debates 4 years hence.

  39. Les Johnson says:

    Joel: the NAS report I have, is subtly different than what you have

    Same report…Just a different part of the summary than what I quoted. (Note that I linked to an online version of the entire report.)

  40. Michael J Bentley,
    My sentiments exactly. However, it takes lot’s of money to get elected to anything above the local level. Where does that money come from? Special interests. We all know this but cannot stop it. The only way I see it is to enact term limits on our Congress and Senate . But since they are the ones who must take that action there is probably more of a chance of Al Gore giving back his Nobel prize then them ever cutting their own livelyhood. They have lured us into a sense that they can take care of us in exchange of all our money and unfortunately the majority now are willing to give up their souls to be taken care of. It has been said that democracy will always fail as soon as 51% of the people realize that they can vote themselves the property of the other 49%. I think right now it’s way over 51%. Next they will take away our guns and then we are done. So long America, it was nice to know ya.

  41. I’m happy to say my congresslady Candice Miller stuck to her guns and voted against it. Way to go Candice!
    Senator Debbie Stabenow voted against it too. Hooray Debbie.

  42. Exactly what is wrong with Washington, was done again yesterday in the grandest way. Another corrupt bill filled with tons of pork.

  43. Tom,
    Yea, Al Gore giving back his Nobel LOL – um, oh, you weren’t joking!
    My post was whistling in the dark (cold) but I had to get it off my chest. From an environmental standpoint the only candidate with some (insert body part here) is a hockey mom. And she’s had to tone down to be more PC. McCain has no clue, Biden is a joke and Obama is ignorant. Before some Ron Paul supporter jumps in, his spoken record on CO2 isn’t steller either.
    There are some bright people in DC, but they are a small small minority. I just hope this ol’ mud ball chills quickly – it might take some of the breath out of the doom and gloom crowd.
    MJB

  44. Our 2 members of Congress, Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter, both Dems, also stuck to their guns and voted nay, which has raised my opinion of them significantly. Having said that, I remain hopeful that the bill, despite its flaws will do what it is supposed to do, i.e. keep our floundering economy from going completely into the crapper. We’ll see.

  45. “We know the dumbocrats are losers, but many had some faith in the ‘pubs. No longer, I’d rather vote communistic that republican ever again! Jack Koenig”
    Well Jack, you have your chance this election!

  46. Well, Americans are about to get much more patriotic (using Joe Biden’s definition). Enjoy paying more taxes!

  47. Robert Wood wrote: Somewhow, I expect to see a larger than normal amount of congressional oustering goin on this year. The sense I get of this bailout looting is that it is incredibly unpopular amongst the American people, of both political flavors. But I am in Canada.
    Robert I wish this were true but the impact from this will probably be minor when elections roll around. Primary reason is Americans seem to have lost all long term memory and can’t be angry more than a week or two before they forget what they were angry about in the first place. One major event in the news and the national ADD kicks in. Second very few in the MSM are willing to put the blame anywhere other than at the feet of the president and none of the other players who had a hand in causing this problem are stepping up to take responsibility for it. In fact i believe if some of those other responsible parties got a do over knowing what the consequences were, they would do the exact same thing because they would say “yea it’s gonna be bad but i’ll get reelected”

  48. Our representatives are pretty canny when it comes to their constituencies. I doubt if any have stepped over some overly dangerous line.
    Post that people can use to label WUWT’ers into various groups of social fringe dwellers — such post will only aid those of the opposing (AGW’ers) view who jump every chance to obfuscate

  49. I have to ask this. If the first bill failed to move out of the house because Republicans didn’t like it, and the second one the passed the Senate and the House filled with pork (presumably that’s why it passed), who wanted the pork? And before you answer, pork is pork whether in the form of a tax break or funding grant.

  50. Pamela Gray (14:59:53) : I have to ask this. If the first bill failed to move out of the house because Republicans didn’t like it, and the second one the passed the Senate and the House filled with pork (presumably that’s why it passed), who wanted the pork? And before you answer, pork is pork whether in the form of a tax break or funding grant.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    I have just start to read portions concerning AGW /energy/environment — anything pertaining to usual WUWT focus.
    Long way to go. Lots of stuff has been on the “books” for years / decades — being extended and/or slightly modified. They did not write this stuff last week — it was ready to go on opportunity.
    A lot of the “stuff” is desirable regardless of the stated motivations for enactment into law.
    The SEC. 117. Carbon audit of the tax code was going to happen anyway. Without doubt, it is going to be a regurgitation of thirty years of AGW regurgitant. They are going to be many AGW’ers extremely pissed about waiting two years to present it.
    Discussion of millions of dollars worth of porkified wooden arrows and such , in my opinion, belongs not on WUWT.

  51. What they both utterly fail on though isn’t the maths or physics, it is the total reliance on ad-hoc assumptions about the underlying mechanisms combined with exceedingly poor validation
    Well, it IS rather hard to validate the future.

  52. Pofarmer (21:03:46) :Well, it IS rather hard to validate the future.
    Rather minor point –which never stopped congress in the past. 😉
    Seriously, this is “stupid is as stupid does,” business as usual. Government will wax and wain — and will neither intentionally, completely, annihilate voters nor destroy the tax revenue generating economic machine.
    Relative to AGW, how many other world governments have we seen proclaim x goals to reduce CO2 but, in the end, pursue a significantly smaller subset of x.?

  53. What bothers me about this carbon stuff in the bailout bill–besides the obvious of course–is that it had already passed one chamber AND WE DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT IT.
    The only reason we know now is because everyone and their cousin their cat their chimney sweep is pouring over this bill.
    Well, we only have two years until the NAS report is due.
    BTW, I think most of those tax extenders are legit. The Jamaican rum stuff is actually sending the taxes we get back to the island for that government to spend on infrastructure. The arrows are non-hunting arrows which means they are being excused from the excise tax on arrows used for hunting. All these extenders are just that, nothing new, just extending the credits or arrangements for another FY.

  54. FWIW, my cats couldn’t care less. One is blind and almost deaf, and the other’s most pressing concern is which lap to attempt to sit on.

  55. Capturing CO2 from air? Didn’t a previous thread talk about converting airborne CO2 back into gasoline? Memories fade, I recall to took about 7 million cubic feet to get the 19 lbs that a gallon of gas produces. If the good folks in the GWN can get 10x the CO2 out that they put in, that means they can move 70 million ft^3 with one gallon equivalent of gas. I’ll believe it when I see it.
    Of course we need lots of carbon taxes. We just bought $700 billion worth of bad mortgages. That money has to come from somewhere.

  56. ” House Democrats Push Climate Tax While Negotiating Fiscal Bailout – They just don’t get it
    ” During a week where Americans were focused on perhaps the greatest economic challenges this country has faced in over a generation, House Democrats released a set of principles on October 2nd that outline an aggressive plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions.
    ” The plan could be even more economically restrictive than the failed Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would have cost $6.7 trillion dollars, according to the bill’s own sponsors.
    ” That $6.7 trillion cost would have been passed on to families and workers across the country in the form of higher gas prices, higher electricity and heating/cooling bills, more expensive consumer goods, and higher workplace costs.
    ” As we learned during this past summer’s debate on the failed Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill and with the recent victory on offshore drilling, the appetite of the American people to unlock America’s affordable energy resources is very strong. When it comes to being in touch with Americans, the House Democrats need a reality check.
    “The current financial crisis only reinforces the public’s wariness about any climate bill that attempts to increase the costs of energy and jeopardizes jobs. ”
    (EPW Press Blog)
    http://www.junkscience.com

  57. Markets are tanking again. Dow now down another 500.
    Commodities, including the energy complex, metals, ag, are down across the board.
    I well remember just six months ago that inflation was going to (literally) eat our lunch.
    DE-flation is now back in force.
    You know, I’m starting to wonder if – maybe – the big expensive bailout didn’t inspire a lot of confidence…

  58. Is the glass half empty or half full?
    You are all complaining about having to declare your CO2 emissions from breathing. Have you thought about the huge tax returns you could be getting if you hold your breath for a mere 7 hours a day?
    I figured out I could quit my job if I can get up to 9 hours of breath holding a day. Woo hoo. No work, free money, and saving the world…

  59. Markets eating it big time. Dow may well surpass the one-day point-drop record set just last week.
    The VIX (“Volatility Index”) – a pretty good “panic indicator” – hit new record highs today.
    “Colorful financial analyst” Jim Cramer was on the Today show this morning, telling his devoted followers he wanted them out of the markets…
    “…“Whatever money you may need for the next five years, please take it out of the stock market right now, this week. I do not believe that you should risk those assets in the stock market right now.” ” – so sayeth Cramer
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27045699/
    Somebody remind me…
    WHY was it so important that we had to pass the “bailout” bill (especially with most congressmen not reading it or ignoring what was in it) ?

  60. “The United States needs a new economic stimulus plan that pumps billions of dollars into infrastructure projects and budget relief for cash-strapped state and local governments, Democratic lawmakers said on Sunday.”
    http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre49b35b-us-financial-usa-stimulus/
    The individuals in the article read like a who’s who of AGW alarmists. Not much doubt about what will happen when the Democrat’s gain a majority with a Dem president. We’re going to get change whether it works or not.
    The oil companies will not be provided an incentive to drill, trillions more will be spent on programs that will not benefit anyone in the long run.. we’re all in big, big trouble.

Comments are closed.