Carbon Cap and Trade in Trouble?

https://i2.wp.com/www.env-econ.net/images/2007/05/22/envecon.jpg?w=700

Guest post by Steven Goddard

The Senate Budget Committee chairman said today :

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said he has spoken to enough colleagues about several different provisions in the budget to make him think Congress won’t pass it. Conrad urged White House budget director Peter Orszag not to “draw lines in the sand” with lawmakers, most notably on Obama’s plan for a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon emissions.  “Anybody who thinks it will be easy to get the votes on the budget in the conditions that we face is smoking something,”

So who is Senator Conrad referring to with that last comment?

Orszag acknowledged concerns over the budget and added that the budget plan represents the administration’s “best judgments.

I wonder if the people in Michigan fighting to keep ice from destroying their houses, are willing to pay extra taxes to fight global warming?

“Despite the Obama administration’s claim that its budget wouldn’t raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year, ‘the budget before us assumes large amounts of money’ from the climate-change legislation, Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said at a hearing Tuesday. ‘And that means higher prices for Americans for food, for gas, for electricity, and in a state like Michigan for home heating – pretty much anything that they buy.'”

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

Candidate Obama in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle January 17, 2008

I wonder if any of that huge sum might get passed on to people making less than $250,000?  What do readers think?

Advertisements

175 thoughts on “Carbon Cap and Trade in Trouble?

  1. All they need to do is insist that the President hold true to his promise made Monday: to base “public policies on the soundest science” as well as to “appoint scientific advisers based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology” and “to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making.”
    Or is it too late because he has already based the carbon cap policy on weak science from advisers driven by ideology and consequently skirted scientific integrity in government decisions?

  2. Here’s Candidate Obama on VIDEO, an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle January 17, 2008. Same interview as the audio posted Steven Goddard :

  3. Nearly 70% of Australians polled want “action on climate change”. That is one reason Kevin Rudd (KRudd747 as he’s always flying about here and there etc) secured his victory in 2007. I’d imagine a similar number US voters also wanted action on climate change, one reason why Obama won.
    It’s clear most people are stupid (Although I do believe Obama will prove to be a big improvement on Bush).

  4. I’m sure some of the people required to administrate cap and trade will make less than $250,000 per year …

  5. “I wonder if any of that huge sum might get passed on to people making less than $250,000? What do readers think?”
    I am always amazed at the number of people who either:
    A) Are stupid enough to not understand that at a fundamental level onlypeople can pay taxes, corporations cannot.
    B) Understand A) but are able to suspend their critical faculties in order to maintain a belief system.

  6. Many elderly will die in America’s ever-harsher winters once the coal plants of the mid-west are shuttered and energy prices sky-rocket. Snow-covered solar panels will not warm anyone.
    Now that savings accounts across the globe have been robbed by Rep. Barney Frank’s special friends, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, many elderly will be unable to afford heating bills, even with meager tax credits.
    No compassion will be shown for the poor. It will all be reserved for the anthropomorphic “Mother Earth”. Come to think of it… is this about Anthropogenic Global Warming or Anthropomorphic Global Warming?

  7. To be honest, while Obama does seem a little hung up on the whole global warming thing, he is such an improvement from his predecessor and when you think that we could have had Palin in the white-house… Well, what more can I say.

  8. P Folkens (22:16:19) :
    All they need to do is insist that the President hold true to his promise made Monday: to base “public policies on the soundest science” as well as to “appoint scientific advisers based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology” and “to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making.”
    Or is it too late because he has already based the carbon cap policy on weak science from advisers driven by ideology and consequently skirted scientific integrity in government decisions?
    P Folkens
    The set policy is nothing more but a smoke curtain.
    Those who do not agree with the set science can start a legal procedure.
    This will take time and in the mean time the legislation is put through Congress and the Senate.
    What is more important is to know the OBJECTIVES behind the set legislation, the Government policies and it’s CONSEQUENCES?
    We know that AGW/Climate Change is a Hoax supported by BAD SCIENCE. So why should we take any CO2 mitigation measures?
    The frigtning reality lies behind the AGW /Climate Change hoax.
    By setting legislation directed at CO2 reduction (80% by 2050) the Government will gain total control over the economy and it’s citizens and their behavior.
    The introduction of CO2 Climate legislation is just a step in to start the first Global Revolution.
    We risk to be overtaken by an ECO FASCIST REGIME in an attempt to control world population and human activity.
    This coup is prepared for a long time (20 years) and Obama is the Trojan Horse to make it happen.
    It is in all our interests to prevent the CO2 LEGISLATION and Climate Taxation in any form.
    It is also in our interest to see which threat Obama represents and get him out of office as soon as possible.
    We need to inform people about the climate hoax and clean up our administrative and political institutions.
    If we fail to stop the current process now, we will face a long and bitter struggle.

  9. How soon before fizzy drinks are banned or are subjected to carbon tax? The billions of bottles and cans of carbonated pop and beer sold every year are a catastrophe in the making. Why stop at carbon? Let’s have a methane tax too. Methane is a greenhouse gas and all that flatulence, human as well as bovine, must be wreaking havock. Perhaps they should be investing in methane capture technology for underwear? They can transform the captured carbon into charcoal filters to neutralise nasty smells.
    Makes you wonder how far this madness will go and where it’s going to stop. ;0)

  10. It should be obvious that the real issue is not and never has been “climate change”. Induced climate change hysteria is simply a means to an end. That end is the heart and soul of the enviro-political movement, which has always been the abandonment of “dirty” fossil (and nuclear) energy sources in favor of “clean” renewables. The demonstrable fact that neither the scale nor ecnomics of renewables necessary to achieve parity with traditional forms of energy are even remotely achievable with present technology has never deterred proponents of alternatives. Penalizing carbon while subsidizing renewables is a perverted way of “faking” economic parity while conveniently offering up the excess “penalty over subsidy” funds for other “good” governmental programs. The problem of scale is one of inherent “energy density”; there is no solution to that one in sight and no way to “fake” that unfortunate physical reality. That being the case, carbon “cap and trade” will simply become just another tax on every citizen and business in the U.S. at a time when we can ill afford the additional drag on our economy.

  11. Pat (22:25:27) :
    Nearly 70% of Australians polled want “action on climate change”. That is one reason Kevin Rudd (KRudd747 as he’s always flying about here and there etc) secured his victory in 2007. I’d imagine a similar number US voters also wanted action on climate change, one reason why Obama won.
    [snip – this is way OT, let us stick to climate cap and trade please – Anthony]

  12. Pat (22:25:27) : I’d imagine a similar number US voters also wanted action on climate change, one reason why Obama won.
    Actually “climate change / global warming” had a very, very, low priority in the election.
    Public Priorities & Climate Change
    http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/?p=284
    That is given even more highlight by the fact that Conrad is a democrat… speaking out against Obama and carbon caps. That really hurts Obama because he was counting on scamming (taxing) Americans to the tune of almost 3/4 trillion dollars per year in carbon taxes. Americans are slowly learning that the ONLY thing that the AGW agenda will accomplish is an increase in taxes / revenue for the government.
    Most people are learning that our CO2 emissions, for the most part, are inconsequential. The miniscule amount that they affect global temperatures is essentially a non-issue. On the other hand.. The greatest changes caused by man are due to deforestation, land-use, and urbanization. Yet, no one advocates reforestation of agricultural lands, removal of roadways, leveling of cities and towns then replacing them with forests, etc.

  13. “Pat, which pole was that?
    I know of a Pole which has been published stating that 90% of the Australians don’t believe Global Warming /Climate Change is caused by humans.”
    Not seen that one, my quotes are from current affairs prograns recently discussing impacts of CC. Clearly one must be vary cautious about what reports get reported.
    I don’t quite understand that for both Obama and KRudd to gain power, one of the pre-election promices was squarely directed at CC action. Politicians are not to be trusted.
    “UK Sceptic (23:48:48) :
    How soon before fizzy drinks are banned or are subjected to carbon tax? The billions of bottles and cans of carbonated pop and beer sold every year are a catastrophe in the making. Why stop at carbon? Let’s have a methane tax too. Methane is a greenhouse gas and all that flatulence, human as well as bovine, must be wreaking havock. Perhaps they should be investing in methane capture technology for underwear? They can transform the captured carbon into charcoal filters to neutralise nasty smells.
    Makes you wonder how far this madness will go and where it’s going to stop. ;0)”
    I wonder how politicians will tax termites as they produce more methane than all other living things? I wonder how politicians will tax forrests as they produce more CO2 and methane than all of human activity?

  14. You can’t grow the economy by transferring wealth from the productive to the non-productive sectors.
    Obama is virtually forced to push Cap & Trade – whether he wants to or not. The environmental elements in his party are so powerful that they would never tolerate him backing down.
    Obama is between a rock and a hard place.

  15. “slowing of the clocks recently are best attributed to increase of ice on the poles.”
    Actually, it is not having to add leap seconds that the article is talking about. The clocks go the same speed. It is the rotation speed of the Earth that is changing and the article is about how only one leap second has been added since 1999.
    Also, as the icecaps are not symmetrical in their mass distribution and not situated directly on the pole, what we should also see with ice building up is a very slight shift in the rotational axis. The rotational axis will align with the center of mass distribution. If ice builds up in Greenland, it will slightly change the mass distribution and therefore the rotational axis. But one must look at the total distribution at both poles. Even so, any significant change in mass distribution at the poles should cause a slight drift in the rotational axis that should be measurable over time.

  16. “I know of a Pole which has been published stating that 90% of the Australians don’t believe Global Warming /Climate Change is caused by humans.
    See: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wrong_answer
    Appears to be a poll about the recent heatwave(Still DID not beat the 1926 or there abouts record) bushfires and if listeners believed it was due to GW. It appears ABC wipped it off their site PDQ due to the answers, a bit “Gaurdian-like” IMO. Fools!
    No-one I know here, some fireies (Aussie term for people who work for fire services), do not consider the heatwave and bushfires as a result of GW. Politicians and “Politically motivated groups” will tell you that however, the facts are MOST of the deadly fires were started by arsonists.

  17. UK Sceptic;-)
    Charcoal is almost pure carbon. That’s the beauty of it all. Thames Water among others use the same technology as domestic water filter companies, granulated activated carbon to filter the treated water just before they add chlorine to it as it goes into the mains! The chief way we could remove particulates from the atmosphere is thro carbon filtration, i.e charcoal filters! The same technology is used in building & car air conditioning systems to remove pollen, dust & dirt, etc. However, you won’t remove CO2 that way & who in their right mind would want to?
    I see my forecast has been confirmed, the BBC has been issuing Global Warming doom & gloom all week along with that poor old Prince of Fools. Good old Met Office scientists are allegedly claiming CC is happening faster than experts expected, again, yawn yawn, & that sea levels are guess what, rising faster than experts expected! Didn’t the good Dr Vikiy Pope recently say that climate alarmism doesn’t help the science of CC. Surely there needs to be some level of consitency, but perhaps because climate is so chaotic, the papal bulls issued from the Met Office Inquisition need also to be chaotic. Charlie thinks we’ve got barely 8 years to avoid catastrophic GW, reaching a tipping point for irreversable CC. Perhaps he might be kept on the South American continent indefinitely? He should stick to talking to his plants so that they can benefit from the extra CO2 he breathes out!
    On the EU Referendum blog there is an article about a GCSE Physics exam (for 16 year olds) question that is so loaded for brainwashing, the dumb candidate has to fit statements A,B,C,D to answers 1,2,3,4, one statement reads “All fossil fuel power stations produce carbon dioxide which causes…………….” & of course the answer was “Global Warming”! If the candidate isn’t so dumb, & says it is crap they fail their exam, great! Talk about brainwahsing & the Ministry of Information ala 1984.
    Be on your guard USA, the rot has well & truly set in the UK & Europe, it may only a matter of time before you too succumb to the insidious malevolence of the enviromental disease that has infected all walks of life here, although the only saving grace is that you don’t have the mountainous state bureaucracy that we have, which has increased by some 650,000 since 1997.

  18. Ron de Haan (23:43:33) :
    It is in all our interests to prevent the CO2 LEGISLATION and Climate Taxation in any form.
    I think the US is still a democracy with rules, no matter how hard Bush worked to subvert them. Thus there are routes to take to inform legislators of your displeasure in plan for cap and trade and the subsequent large indirect taxation.
    It is also in our interest to see which threat Obama represents and get him out of office as soon as possible.
    [snip – this is way OT, let us stick to climate cap and trade please – Anthony]
    We need to inform people about the climate hoax and clean up our administrative and political institutions.
    See above. Are advocating revolution?

  19. Ron de Haan (00:09:28) :
    It’s clear most people are stupid (Although I do believe Obama will prove to be a big improvement on Bush).

    Shouldn’t be too difficult!

  20. Obama will push it through. He and Al Gore have chums on the Chicago Carbon Exchange and obviously Gore himself is heavily invested.
    After they accomplish the mission of taxing CO2 it will be all greenhouse gases, then it will be water, then it will be every step you take.

  21. “Claude Harvey (00:04:36) :
    It should be obvious that the real issue is not and never has been “climate change”. Induced climate change hysteria is simply a means to an end. That end is the heart and soul of the enviro-political movement, which has always been the abandonment of “dirty” fossil (and nuclear) energy sources in favor of “clean” renewables.”
    Claude, I disagree. The heart and soul has always been a re-allocation of wealth, period. Any method/means/story line that allows that will be fully supported and repeated until it is “common knowledge”. The people that go along thinking it’s about renewables are more the fools for it.
    “Pat:
    I don’t quite understand that for both Obama and KRudd to gain power, one of the pre-election promices was squarely directed at CC action.”
    Pre-election promises have absolutely nothing to do with what happens when one gets elected. There is no feedback loop…it is indeed an open system, with run away results. In fact, the ONLY thing Obama needed to say to get elected was “I am NOT George Bush…things will be DIFFERENT.”
    “Politicians are not to be trusted.”– Okay…now you’re just funnin’, right? 😉
    JimB

  22. “Pat:
    I don’t quite understand that for both Obama and KRudd to gain power, one of the pre-election promices was squarely directed at CC action.”
    Pre-election promises have absolutely nothing to do with what happens when one gets elected. There is no feedback loop…it is indeed an open system, with run away results. In fact, the ONLY thing Obama needed to say to get elected was “I am NOT George Bush…things will be DIFFERENT.”
    “Politicians are not to be trusted.”– Okay…now you’re just funnin’, right? ;)”
    I realise that, unfortunately, the unwashed, gullible masses don’t.

  23. From the very first post:
    P Folkens:

    All they need to do is insist that the President hold true to his promise made…

    Obama stated very clearly during the campaign that he would eliminate earmarks from the budget.
    There are over 6,000 earmarks in this proposed new budget, and Obama’s promise appears to be worthless. It used to be that a man’s word was his bond. Mr. Obama believes he is exempt from that gauge of character.

  24. Regulations are a silent tax increase. At my job, at least until I got it stuck on someone else, I was responsible for keeping track of a certain type of air pollution our building generated. The pollution is a cause of smog and it is probably in the States interest to keep track of emission sources. but it does add cost. Each person using the polluting product had to write down his use, and once a month I had to total up the amounts, make up a new tally sheet, post it and forward the results to the facility air pollution manager who compiled the complete report for the State. Someone at the State level also went through all this for all the companies and other sources in the state compiled his report which was then forwarded to the Federal Government.
    At each of these levels someone is getting paid to do this work, and the bill is paid by taxpayers, consumers, or investors. For each new regulation this chain of spending is instituted and even if the Feds reimbursed the States the costs and the States the companies in the end taxpayers (consumers) would still be covering the bill. At my level the costs are not huge probably around $70,000 a year for all the facility personnel reporting and compiling data and the resultant overhead charges. but that is just for one source of pollution at one facility, multiply that by all the national facilities for all the various pollution sources and it is a lot of money, even with nothing spent on actually reducing the amount of pollution.

  25. Alan the Brit: Charlie Jug-Ears should stick to muttering sweet nothings to his sweetpeas. It’s what he does best after all. And it’s not just the GCSE physics paper that is politically correct and dumbed down to the point of imbecility. You want to take a gander at the biology and chemisty ones too. For science papers they are singularly lacking in anything approaching science. It’s nothing short of mental grooming. If it had been cold war Russia doing this it would have been called brainwashing.

  26. Alex wrote: “To be honest, while Obama does seem a little hung up on the whole global warming thing, he is such an improvement from his predecessor and when you think that we could have had Palin in the white-house”
    FYI, the Vice President lives at the United States Naval Observatory, not the White House.

  27. I love that cartoon!
    Stay in bed and sell carbon credits.
    There is a down side to staying in bed.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/bedbugs-return-to-british-hotels-1640159.html
    Yes BED BUGS!!!!!!
    Why are they reappearing and in such numbers?
    You guessed it CO2.
    “Bedbugs are attracted by exhaled CO2 and body heat, not by dirt. And they feed on blood, not waste.”
    Oh non, exhaled CO2 there goes my carbon credits business.
    And it is not just a UK problem:
    http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/health/ny-libugs116065065mar11,0,7884729.story
    So why are we being invaded by the Bed Bug?
    Well about six years ago I read an article about low temperature washing powders. These powders appeared too good to be true, there had to be a catch. My suspicious nature.
    We were encouraged to switch to save money and more importantly save the planet. Meanwhile we were also being told that using low temperature washes will give us Clean Bed Bugs. The little blighters just love 30C and they come out of the wash sparkling clean and ready for the night a head or foot or hand or…
    So far I have not seen advice telling people to wash bedding at +60C, I guess it is better to blame CO2 and spend a fortune of low temperature washing powder.

  28. I see the Cap & Trade as another bubble boondoggle. The economic sharks will have another feeding frenzy as wealth is transferred about, and when the bubble pops the nations stupid enough to let this ravenous feeder out of the cage will suffer the consequences. The bubble will most likely burst as a lazy Sun fails to get it’s Solar Cycle in gear and the crops that were mismanaged fail. Along with the economic panic will come outrageous prices for food & fuel. The failure of renewable energy sources will be telling as there isn’t an output from the Sun to sustain them as a permanent replacement for abundant fossil fuels even in good times, let alone a massive Grand Minimum. The failure also to keep up with power plants will be salt rubbed in the wounds.
    Oops. Cap & Trade looks good only on paper.
    Carbon Default Swaps.
    Green Toxic Assets.
    Didn’t learn anything from this last round of bubblegum, did they?
    Apparently not.
    How much renewables can you expect from a comatose Sun 20 year hence?

  29. Politicians are generally not stupid and will play the game of looking like they are doing something while doing nothing. If they can raise extra revenue along the way through an emissions trading scheme they will readily do that. They are more interested in symbolism like wind farms so that green voters (mostly in urban areas) will they are wonderful for mitigating global warming. In Australia where 95% of our electricity is produced by coal and will continue to be because of reluctance to adopt nuclear power for baseload rural residents in places like beautiful Macedon Ranges will have inflicted on them thousands of near useless turbines to satisfy green voters. Meanwhile not one coal fired power station will close.
    PS Macedon Ranges is one the most bushfire prone regions in the world and turbines have been known to cause fires HYdro Tasmania and the Victorian?Australian Government do not care as longa sthey look like they are doing something and can get the urban vote to keep them power.

  30. For those of you in the “At least Obama’s better than Bush” camp, give the man time.
    He’s only been in office a few months and he’s racked up a pretty impressive list of failures already.
    He knew in November that he would be coming into office in a recession, yet he nominated a man, (Geithner), as Treasury Secretary who can’t even get his tax returns right, even using TurboTax, and the list of unfilled positions at Treasury is frightening.
    He talks about taking politics out of science then appoints the likes of Chu, Holdren and Browner to positions that will have enormous impacts on scientific and technical development in the US.
    Not to mention the diplomatic faux pas with the Brits and Russians.
    I predict that a lot of US, (and world), citizens will be pining for the good old days of Dubya in a few years time.

  31. “It’s clear most people are stupid (Although I do believe Obama will prove to be a big improvement on Bush).”
    Oh, the irony!

  32. Cap and trade? Don’t know what, if anything, it’ll do for the environment, but for the economy it’ll be more like scrap and fade.

  33. Alex wrote: “To be honest, while Obama does seem a little hung up on the whole global warming thing, he is such an improvement from his predecessor and when you think that we could have had Palin in the white-house”
    Huh? McCain/Palin would have been 1000 times better than Obama! At least my government wouldn’t be squandering my kid’s future earnings away on global warming boondogles…

  34. I feel quite smug. I believe in pre-soak, hot water and a non-bio powder (Fairy). No rashes. No bug bites. No stains.
    Charlie Jug-Ears might think that environment comes before poverty (probably received that pearl of wisdom from one of his geraniums or maybe a pansy). I prefer to believe that cleanliness comes before stupidity.
    To be honest, Charlie is considered a bit of a joke by many Brits so perhaps he’s doing us a favour tooting his bugle for the other side. I mean, his apocalypse within 100 months was met with derision by all except the warmists, the eco-sheep, the government and the BBC. In a recent poll the environment issue came a poor last in importance for the UK electorate who perceive AGW alarmism and “green” policies as a cynical instrument of taxation and control.
    At least you guys aren’t alone in your cynisism. Keep up the good work.

  35. David Ball (19:45:49) :
    (…) Then announcing that a cap and trade implementation will bring in $650 billion. Will this not be felt in the pocketbook by every American? Will the cost not eventually be felt by the consumer in every imaginable product? Is this slight of hand, or am I missing something?

    No you haven’t missed anything. But the President announcing that income taxes are to go up in order to cover the gambling debts of our financial institutions just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
    Artificiality capping CO2 (in effect all energy) will have but one outcome – an artificial rise in energy prices followed by an equally artificial rise in the price of most everything else. (Or an ‘everything tax’ as we call it)

  36. I had just noticed that a Nazi children’s book ‘Der Giftpilz/The Poisonous Mushroom’ used the same propaganda against Jews that the Greens and Alarmists now use against their opponents.
    One chapter in the book was called How To Identify A Jew. The Guardian has had four articles in the last week including one today – How To Identify A Denier.
    The chapter of Der Giftpilz in question also labels all Jews as criminals, which is also a word used by Alarmists to describe energy producers and opponents.

  37. WUWT it is a SABBATH of deniers, kind of Witches of Salem congregation, they should be sent to the stake! (Al the Magnificent, Superior of the sacred order of the Green Inquisition)

  38. Alex Llewelyn,
    From the Vice-Presidential debate. Looks to me like Palin gave a very sensible answer and Biden was clueless and inarticulate. She was hammered by the MSM for telling the truth, and Biden received high praise for perpetuating nonsense.
    IFILL: Governor, I’m happy to talk to you in this next section about energy issues. Let’s talk about climate change. What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?
    PALIN: Yes. Well, as the nation’s only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it’s real.
    I’m not one to attribute every activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man’s activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.
    But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don’t want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?
    We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that.
    As governor, I was the first governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet to start dealing with the impacts. We’ve got to reduce emissions. John McCain is right there with an “all of the above” approach to deal with climate change impacts.
    We’ve got to become energy independent for that reason. Also as we rely more and more on other countries that don’t care as much about the climate as we do, we’re allowing them to produce and to emit and even pollute more than America would ever stand for. So even in dealing with climate change, it’s all the more reason that we have an “all of the above” approach, tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change.
    IFILL: Senator, what is true and what is false about the causes?
    BIDEN: Well, I think it is manmade. I think it’s clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden — Governor Palin and Joe Biden.
    If you don’t understand what the cause is, it’s virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That’s the cause. That’s why the polar icecap is melting.

  39. UK Sceptic (04:43:05) :
    I feel quite smug. I believe in pre-soak, hot water and a non-bio powder (Fairy). No rashes. No bug bites. No stains.
    Oh no you cannot be that smug, the BBC knows best “Because washing machines use CO2-intensive electricity to heat up cold water rather than gas”.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bloom/actions/lowtempwashing.shtml#quickjump
    Now if I understand this highly qualitative BBC science, Electricity is bad and Gas is good. I’m getting confused.
    “According to the washing powder manufacturer Ariel, over the course of a year, washing at 30°C instead of 60°C saves enough CO2 to fill four million double-decker buses”.
    I take it that this refers to 4 million double-decker buses at STP.

  40. This is a situation similar to tobacco, a substance which could be banned outright for many reasons, but is kept around for the tax revenue it generates. If AGW is a real problem then take all the revenue generated by emission reduction schemes and attack the problem directly.
    I wonder what the carbon footprint of Buckingham Palace and its grounds is?

  41. having a president and many congressman devoted to the global warming lie is proof we are being governed by an institution of idiots…cap and trade is a joke, just ask the europeans…its time for a tea party!!!

  42. I absolutely think that some of that money will be used to subsidize people. I’ve always thought this…
    I also think some of that money will be going to 3rd world and developing nations where some of it will be used to build infrastructure, and electrical power and water systems so that companies will be able to build manufacturing plants there and suck more of our jobs away.

  43. Adolfo Giurfa wrote:
    “WUWT it is a SABBATH of deniers, kind of Witches of Salem congregation, they should be sent to the stake! (Al the Magnificent, Superior of the sacred order of the Green Inquisition).”
    Well IT IS NICE TO SEE YOU SHOWING YOUR TRUE COLORS, PAL!! JUST AS WE THOUGHT. A NEW WORLD RELIGION.
    The New Purtians and the new Inquisition wrapped up in one.
    Question for ya: Is that goofy hat that your Bishop James Hansen wore at the snowbound AGW protest in DC last week, part of the new religious garb?
    By the way, Steven, I laughed my — off at that cartoon. Thanks for that.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA
    (or should I say…I am from Salem Massachusetts, now?)

  44. smoking something
    Not only are the “smoking something” but they want us to pay for it
    .. and then won’t share.

  45. As usual, there are many fine, thoughtful responses above to which I can add little at this point, other than feel a little relieved that there is resistance in the legislature to passing this insanity. There is little a government can do effectively, less that it can do efficiently, and at best leave the people to live minimally encumbered by the idiotic actions of its members. The most obvious disconnect to reality is the present administration’s fallacy to tax big business, which never pays taxes, only the consumer does. This is how everyone’s taxation will go up regardless of income. It will be labeled cost of living increase due to ‘obscene’ profits by evil corporations, or whatever the mot de jour is for the latest windmill jousting event by our elected elitists. I was making an allusion to Quixote, but see the metaphore has a new dimension in light of the inefficient, alternative-energy-producing machination.

  46. I just realized, looking at the posting time, your server must still be on PST, unless Colorado is now in CDT…

  47. RECORD REPORT
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SPOKANE WA
    617 AM PDT WED MAR 11 2009
    THE HIGH TEMPERATURE AT RITZVILLE IN THE PAST 24 HOURS ENDING AT 600 AM
    WAS 27 DEGREES. THIS SETS THE RECORD FOR THE COLDEST HIGH TEMPERATURE
    FOR THIS PERIOD. THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 32 DEGREES WAS SET IN 1962.
    RECORDS HAVE BEEN KEPT AT THIS SITE SINCE 1899.
    THE LOW TEMPERATURE AT RITZVILLE IN THE PAST 24 HOURS ENDING AT 600 AM
    WAS 12 DEGREES. THIS SETS THE RECORD FOR THE LOWEST TEMPERATURE
    FOR THIS PERIOD. THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 16 DEGREES WAS SET IN 1950.
    RECORDS HAVE BEEN KEPT AT THIS SITE SINCE 1899.
    By the way gauges at airports, a notorious CO2 source, are also setting record cold daily high and low temps in Washington. I’m wondering if airports and the companies who fly planes will be willing to buy carbon credits when their own urban heat island gauges are setting record cold temps. Those credits are worthless and might (?) end up helping the stock market to stay crashed if they were to begin today.

  48. @ UK Sceptic
    “To be honest, Charlie is considered a bit of a joke by many Brits so perhaps he’s doing us a favour tooting his bugle for the other side”
    I’m still waiting for the world to be turned into a grey goo thanks to nano technology in makeup and hair products. He did warn us, and we didn’t listen.
    I love the man. I still remember when he said:
    “”What is wrong with everyone nowadays?”
    “Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities?”
    “People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability.””

    Fine words for a man who left school with virtually no qualifications, and whose job is basically waiting for his mother to die so he can carry on his father’s tradition of insulting every race on the planet (if the planet doesn’t turn into a “grey goo” before then.)

  49. From a future news report…
    After fixing the banks, then fixing the economy, then fixing education, then fixing health care, then fixing the environment , then fixing global strife the president has taken a vacation from the effort of 60 days of work.

  50. Anthony:
    You have “guest posts” a lot. Interesting as they are, I’d like to have an idea of who are the writers. Do you have those bios somewhere I’ve missed?
    Regards,
    L

  51. Obama has loaded up his cabinet and staff with AGW types. I don’t buy the argument that he is being pushed into this against his will, It is a fantastic way to redistribute wealth and save the planet at the same time.

  52. Hi Adolfo
    Here is Der Giftpilz
    http://ia301320.us.archive.org/3/items/ThePoisonousMushroom/PoisonousMushroom.pdf
    Note the chapter ‘How To Identify A Jew’.
    And here is today’s Guardian article on how to identify a denier, complete with disinformation and a lack of scientific perspective/debate
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/10/climate-change-denier
    I asked all of the Guardian’s contributing writers for debate. I have never gotten into mudslinging contests or ad hominem attacks. I only posted the science. I put forward the motion that 19th century to mid 20th century temperature records should be higher if we account for the dimming effect of dense urban smog, therefore we need a new temperature reconstruction and recognise that the total warming over two centuries is probably half of the currently accepted figure.
    The result was they banned me for one day and since then have kept me under moderation. Most of my comments where I contest Alarmism with real verifiable science are not allowed through the moderation filter.

  53. Well, I guess Obama and his taxaholic buddies have just got to ask themselves one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, climate punks?”
    Go ahead, pass Cap’n Trade scam legislation, make my day.
    We’ll remember in two years, and especially four.

  54. Alex Llewelyn (23:29:50) :
    To be honest, while Obama does seem a little hung up on the whole global warming thing, he is such an improvement from his predecessor and when you think that we could have had Palin in the white-house… Well, what more can I say.
    You could say based on what we have seen so far, that conclusion is not at all self evident!

  55. Adolfo
    Try copying the name of the book into the clipboard and pasting it into something such as Google. It worked for me.

  56. 0bama an improvement on his predecessor?
    Jeez, as a skeptic I’d like to know exactly how anyone can possibly come to that conclusion. Seriously. And hey, if you actually think he’s the one running this show then you can’t know much about politics on the left.
    Just as Clinton “governed by polls”, 0bama does what his special interests tell him. I can’t believe intelligent people buy into the whole “no more special interests” or “no more earmarks” garbage, it’s just a different group and different earmarks.
    I was highly entertained when a man with absolutely NO experience at anything was somehow sainted, while a woman with years of experience governing was written off as “inexperienced”… The power of the media is great. Apparently their power is even greater when they are delivering a message you want to hear.

  57. anna v (01:34:02) :
    “I think the US is still a democracy with rules, no matter how hard Bush worked to subvert them.
    The US endured the eight years of Bush, and the rest of the world with it, with its war mongering, its adoption of torture as a means to ends, its subversion of constitutional rights, etc. etc. People waited for the election.”
    It’s late Anna and your brain is getting warped. I highly recommend some sleep!

  58. “Obama has loaded up his cabinet and staff with AGW types. I don’t buy the argument that he is being pushed into this against his will, It is a fantastic way to redistribute wealth and save the planet at the same time.”
    Yes, it sounds like a fantastic way to do it even if it based on the demonisation of CO2.
    But then I thought about it long and hard and worked out that the rich could afford to buy carbon credits from people less well off.
    The working and middle classes can’t afford it and would be forced to purchase from the lower classes. This represents not only a lowering of middle class quality of life, but the creation of a new type of lower class or jobless person who purposely does nothing productive so that he can always sell carbon credits. Neither does he spend the money he accrues because the very act of spending cuts into his carbon credit ration.
    So money filters from the top to the bottom to create wealthy bums who sleep all day and the economy suffers as a result of lower spending by the public. And the middle classes, where most of our talent and consumer spending comes from, feels the pain of becoming impoverished.
    We will see people from the poor classes suffer too. Many of our star athletes came from incredibly poor backgrounds. Sports are recourse intensive endeavors. They require high level of nutrition for example. Now imagine some kid from the ghetto decides he wants to become a footballer, boxer or bodybuilder. He’s going to have to consume 3000-4000 quality calories a day. That is going to cut into his carbon credits quite heavily, forcing him to buy credits from people with jobs who have more money than he has. So he is forced to become poorer while pursuing his dreams or he has to give up his dreams because he pursuing them would be expensive.
    This is the same way the poorest developing countries would always remain the poorest. Every time they try to do something resource intensive to develop their way out of poverty, they will be forced to purchase carbon credits which would rewind their progress by cutting into their coffers.
    By implementing carbon trading we aren’t so much as spreading wealth around as we are creating class warfare by imposing elitism and imperialism upon those who work the hardest or are the poorest.

  59. Here’s a stimulus package that I wouldn’t mind seeing.
    Some quotes:
    a plan that, in their estimation, would create two million new jobs, reduce the cost of energy, especially for lower-income Americans, make the U.S. less energy dependent, and not add to the national debt.
    And would
    speed up leasing for oil and gas exploration in the outer continental shelf; open up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge for energy production “in an environmentally-sensitive way” and with revenues directed to renewable energy projects; speed the licensing procedure for new nuclear power plants; speed the resolutions of lawsuits over federal oil and gas leasing; and prohibit the Endangered Species Act and Clean Air Act from being used as the basis for cap-and-trade and other carbon regulation/taxation.
    It would be a start.

  60. Let’s keep on laughing: In order to capture CO2 it is used milk of lime in gas washing towers: CO2+CaO=CaCO3 (insoluble calcium carbonate)…BUT
    in order to obtain burnt lime (CaO) you have to burn calcium carbonate (chalk, marble): CaCO3+Heat=CaO+CO2. Funny, isn’ t it?…BUTThat calcium carbonate comes from previously marine life fossilized shells, etc. That is: from previously ecologically recycled by nature CO2. In short, and again, “Hollywood Science”

  61. Last I checked, Obama was elected by a good majority. Deal with it. If you find a place with a better system, moved there.
    The president is misguided on climate change, and we need to get that message to him. Write your respective politicians.
    If you can confine your post to climate and climate policy (as most do), please post. If this site is going to degenerate into an Obama bashing party, I’ve made my last donation.

  62. There’s a major dilemma with being eco-friendly. Is it better to a) use disposable items or b) use re-washable items. Option a) uses up more precious resources but option b) uses more energy and dumps more detergent in the sea. What to do?

  63. It’s all smoke and mirrors…Obama wants taxes, taxes, taxes and a huge govenment and socialism. It’s a feed the bears strategy, you can’t stop the bears once you start feeding them. Evil large companies are raping the middle class workers, ect, ect and Obama is going to get even. That’s what he says, however, it’s easy to see that he will tax everyone and not just what he labels the rich.
    CO2 = tax opportunity. Gore sees this, Hansen I think has lost his mind.
    my 2 cents
    Steve Hill

  64. Some very rough numbers.
    Peabody Energy, said to be the world’s largest private-sector coal company, on its Web site http://www.peabodyenergy.com/default-netscape.asp says:
    ” … with 2008 sales of 256 million tons and $6.6 billion in revenues. Our coal products fuel 10 percent of all U.S. electricity generation and 2 percent of worldwide electricity.”
    If I neglect the difference between US Tons and SI Tonnes, and assume all the income is from coal sales, I calculate that a rough average price for Peabody’s coal is about US$26 per ton. A Carbon Tax of US$25 will more-or-less double the price of Peabody’s coal and a Tax of US$50.00 per ton will triple the price.
    Of course, Peabody can simply pay the Carbon Tax and not pass their increased taxes on to consumers. One small problem here tho is, the US$25 Carbon Tax is just about equal the total income for 2008. The US$50 Tax would represent Taxes of US$12.8 BILLION.
    I guess Peabody will have to get into the money-printing business. That appears to be what is happening elsewhere.
    All corrections will be appreciated.

  65. Pamela Gray wrote:
    “…wondering if airports and the companies who fly planes will be willing to buy carbon credits when their own urban heat island gauges are setting record cold temps…”
    Problem is…record cold temps nothwithstanding (and thanks for that info, by the way)…as more and more people get sedentary to conserve the planet’s resources ala the above hilarious cartoon….the FATTER people get (as if that was possible LOL).
    Therefore, the POOR AIRLINES CAN’T AFFORD TO PURCHASE ANY CARBON CREDITS because they had to remove some seats on the flights for bigger total butt-area and also they are spending all of their available $$$ (and depleting the world’s fossil fuels at a faster rate!) TRANSPORTING ALL THAT EXCESS WEIGHT THROUGH THE AIR!
    Maybe in the next grand minimum when there is less food available means people will eat less I dunno….so it could be good for us.
    Well I’m hungry….time to step out for some lunch LOL.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  66. D W

    Last I checked, Obama was elected by a good majority. Deal with it. If you find a place with a better system, moved there.

    Last time I checked, 0bama’s predecessor was elected in 2004 by a “good majority”. I think we all know how that made him immune to criticism.

  67. JamesG (07:10:32) :
    There’s a major dilemma with being eco-friendly. Is it better to a) use disposable items or b) use re-washable items. Option a) uses up more precious resources but option b) uses more energy and dumps more detergent in the sea. What to do?

    By the time the greens have finished you will be down to only one option:
    Take your laundry down to the nearest river, soak it, and bash it on the rocks.

  68. I don’t live in NYC, but in NYC it takes $250k just to barely survive. That is about like someone in Texas making $80k a year. Six pack of beer is $16 at the store…
    REPLY: Having just come from there, I can vouch for that. Basic goods are incredibly expensive. – Anthony

  69. [snip – this is way OT, let us stick to climate and carbon cap and trade please – Anthony]


  70. Steven Goddard (06:18:52) :
    Obama has loaded up his cabinet and staff with AGW types. I don’t buy the argument that he is being pushed into this against his will, It is a fantastic way to redistribute wealth and save the planet at the same time.

    BINGO! The only way to fund his budget is through Cap and Trade fees. This is about funding social re-organization, nothing more.

  71. I am still trying to figure out how paying tax to government, solves the globa warming crisis and lowers the sea level. Does God get a kickback on the taxes collected? If He plays along?

  72. If they are too many GWrs. in your locality, which would it be an ecological sound policy? To let local predators reproduce in sufficient amounts as to feed from the excess GWrs.( 🙂 ) THIS IS REAL ECOLOGY, not what the majority thinks, or dreams about, a kind of romantic seeing flowers everywhere.
    So, ecology is the solution…just wait and see

  73. Let’s see what happens when we start paying off the huge debt that Government is creating. No, it’s not just Obama, it’s both parties, past and present. You prepared for 50%+ taxes, huge utility bills?, more sales tax?, more property tax? Elimination of write offs for gifts to charity?
    In my opinion we are heading for a 95% peasant and 5% elite classes. USSR type.
    CO2 taxes are just another step in this direction.

  74. Dan,
    You have it exactly right. a carbon tax of $26/ton will double the cost of coal. Peabody’s won’t pay it, power utilities who buy and consume the coal will. On a (very) rough basis, generating fuel is about 50% of the cost of electricity, as delivered to the end customer. If you double the cost of fuel, you add 50%, FIFTY PERCENT to the cost of electricity. At $50/ton, electricity DOUBLES!!
    In either case, you get massive outsourcing of jobs from manufacturing to high tech, heat deaths in the southern summers and cold deaths in northern winters. This would represent the greatest economic damage ever seen in the US, quite likely leading to civil strife, but on the plus side, cheap condos for Canadians like me.

  75. [snip – this is way OT, let us stick to climate and carbon cap and trade please – Anthony]

  76. Cap and trade creates a new currency which the government owns and fully controls. The government profits initially as the credits are sold to brokers, investors, speculators and business.
    This new currency is means to transfer wealth to government, which controls it. It is also a means for the government to control consumption and energy usage. Certain lifestyles will be rewarded and other punished.
    Notice that cap-and-trade doesn’t redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. It does make the poor and the middle class more dependent upon government and does provide Congress a means to sell more favors to campaign contributors and other constituents.
    Cap and trade will result in higher costs for everything, but it helps to disguise the reason for the increased costs. Hear that giant sucking sound? It’s our jobs being moved to China, India and South America.

  77. The Guardian has posted its 7th alarmist article of the day.
    We all remember the Met Office’s Vicky Pope. Just a couple of weeks ago she warned against alarmist language, but here she is today using it herself
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees
    She is saying that 85% of the Amazon is going to disappear because of climate change and that even severe cuts in deforestation and carbon emissions (huh?) will fail to save it. Oh well, that really makes people take action doesn’t it? Of course, it is all theoretical but published as fact.
    Brazilians just need to follow the American model of planting more quick growth trees than they use.
    And in the future, genetic science will enable the planting of rapid growth trees that could intelligently monitor the atmosphere and automatically take steps to control greenhouse gases to any level we like. As long as Greens don’t get in the way of geneticists the way they have done so far.

  78. [snip – this is way OT, let us stick to climate and carbon cap and trade please – Anthony]

  79. One other point…did you see the effect of $4 a gallon gas? Imagine higher cost for gasoline, ng and electricity. Talk about inflation!

  80. savethesharks ,
    Thanks. The cartoon was actually Anthony’s contribution. It is brilliant.

  81. I don’t live in NYC, but in NYC it takes $250k just to barely survive. That is about like someone in Texas making $80k a year. Six pack of beer is $16 at the store…
    There was an interesting article in the NY Times about that
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?em
    If you look at the grocery list of expenses a typical Wall Street banker or stockbroker has, you can see how many jobs rely on the income of just one man.
    By limiting their pay to 500K, Obama is basically hurting the incomes of many people. What happened to redistributing wealth?
    This is what socialists don’t understand. They don’t understand the concept of a free society in which productive people are putting money into each others pockets in a very natural way.
    They can’t understand how a society can function without a Nanny State.

  82. @ Jon H (07:23:36) :
    “Six pack of beer is $16 at the store…”
    Roughly double (or more) anywhere else?
    ______________________________________________________________
    @ CodeTech (07:23:16) :
    “D W — Last I checked, Obama was elected by a good majority.”
    Yeah, right, …”good” majority…
    http://chicagoagainstobama.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/polling-update-dead-not-moved-by-palins-stellar-debate-performancecontinue-to-move-in-big-numbers-towards-obama/
    ….good laugh, but the joke is on us.
    Democrats, SHEEESH!

  83. [snip – this is way OT, let us stick to climate and carbon cap and trade please – Anthony]

  84. @John Galt
    LOL
    I just found this
    http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/3930/hadcrut3scattervj2.png
    It’s the first I’ve heard of it, and it appears to blow the models right out of the water.
    Move along, AGW warmmongers, nothing to mitigate here, nothing to mitigate. And get your #$%&* hands out of my wallet!
    REPLY: Assuming you trust the magnitude of the HadCRUT record, the graph is true. But as we’ve seen, the anomaly may be lower due to weather station siting and urbanization issues. – Anthony

  85. Adolfo Giurfa wrote:
    “…So, ecology is the solution…just wait and see….”
    No sane person would disagree with that, Adolfo (please note my handle on this site).
    The saddest part about the whole AGW thing, is that the REAL environmental and ecological problems we face today…such as the strip-mining of the oceans of biological systems…all of that is being THROWN UNDER THE BUS. What bus?
    The old rickety, tie-dyed Volkswagen bus of the AGW agenda.
    In other words….if they were just honest, and did not use SCAM SCIENCE as a front…there would be a lot more people protesting the extreme coal pollution of China and every other environmental problem.
    They (Hansen, Holdren, Gore, et al.) are truly GUTTING THE PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC TRUST to historic levels….not to mention making a laughing stock of the scientific method….AND not to mention, ironically DIVERTING ATTENTION FROM THE REAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL TIME BOMBS WE FACE!
    Check out http://www.sharkwater.com to tackle a REAL and solvable problem.
    And sharks have survived through FIVE mass extinctions on this planet (only to be threatened by man now). Hopefully and somehow they will survive this.
    But I can assure you the Kings & Queens of the Ocean, never enacted CAP and TRADE policies for the 450 million years they have been on this planet!!
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  86. [snip – this is way OT, let us stick to climate and carbon cap and trade please – Anthony]

  87. Anna:
    The US endured the eight years of Bush, and the rest of the world with it, with its war mongering, its adoption of torture as a means to ends, its subversion of constitutional rights, etc. etc. People waited for the election.
    Anna, i read your science with great respect, but everything you impute to the all-Evil George Bush is either blown far out of proportion or false. Seriously, you’ve got a pretty bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Strictly for your own good, try comparing anti-Bush propaganda to AGW alarmism.
    Or as a psychodynamic tactic, you could also try just forgetting about Bush! He’s gone!

  88. Love the cartoon! But…how do I as a tech challenged guy go about setting up my carbon offset business? And I see another offset opportunity growing out of this. If I lay around in bed, I may need to purchase ‘fat offsets’ as I gain weight. This stuff is brilliant! Look at all of the new “green industries” growing out of one humble mans (algore) courageous quest…
    BTW, DW, Alex and Anna V, all of the attacks on Pres. Bush and Gov. Palin have been personal hate filled demonizations (also implied in your own attacks) while comments I’ve read on this site attack Obama’s cartoonish appointments and policies. Pres. Bush resisted the AGW lunacy while Obama supports and promotes it. That’s the difference. Now, don’t be so thin skinned when someone on this site is critical of “the One”.
    “At least the war on the economy is going well…”

  89. [snip – this is way OT, let us stick to climate and carbon cap and trade please. In your case you get a time-out. I don’t want the sort of angry things you’ve been posting. Do NOT do it again or you’ll find yourself banned. Final warning.- Anthony]

  90. HasItBeen4YearsYet? (08:34:13) :
    “REPLY: Assuming you trust the magnitude of the HadCRUT record, the graph is true. But as we’ve seen, the anomaly may be lower due to weather station siting and urbanization issues. – Anthony”
    Right, but doesn’t it at least set an upper limit that shows the models to be way off? or is it sufficiently unreliable that we can’t count on it either way?

  91. [snip – this is way OT, let us stick to climate and carbon cap and trade please – Anthony]

  92. I believed that Obama Administration would draw their philosophy from Karl Marx; but, I now realize that I had the wrong Marx, they are students of Groucho.
    Michael Ronayne
    Nutley, NJ

  93. Ron de Haan you are my brother! I agree with everything that you said. We owe it to the rest of the World population to inform them of the fraud that AGW is. Otherwise we will have the suffering and probably deaths of millions on our hands because we knowingly did nothing.

  94. Fascinating as usual but find the blanket acceptence of Obama being a step up from his predeccessor as bizarre given his daily loony left policy statements. This is a man who believes (man induced as thr majority factor) Global warming /Climate Change is a dead cert and puts zealots into powerful positions and yet several general murmerings of approval. This is as far beyond my comprehension as those who so avidly believe in a warming that isn’t happening. I know the warming disappearing doesn;t prove anything neccessarily but it does if your belief system is built on predictions from computer models that are totally wrong. Back to the drawing board as a minimum.

  95. I just found this
    http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/3930/hadcrut3scattervj2.png
    It’s the first I’ve heard of it, and it appears to blow the models right out of the water.

    That is the standard HadCRUT observation that doesn’t take into account urbanisation, smog and land use changes.
    If we were to simulate what the 19th to mid 20th century’s temperature records would have looked like without the dense urban smog that existed at the time, and then also make adjustments for the growing urban heat island effect, we would be left with something like this:
    http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hadcrut3scattervj2.jpg
    The blue line represents the new temperature reconstruction and sensitivity to atmospheric CO2. Instead of the 0.6-0.8C warming of the last century and a half, we get half of that or about 0.35C. Total temperature with a doubling of CO2 would be about a degree, if unpredictable positive or negative feedbacks don’t occur.

  96. I did not think that this was a political blog; yet this thread is very political. So to continue in the violating the blog’s purpose, here are a couple of thoguhts. Disgust with Bush is very understandable, especially if one limits his/her analysis to surface examination. Yet, Bush is basically the only one who made any efforts to stop the momentum to the current financial crisis. He tried to reign in the excesses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he objected to the abusive use of the Community Reinvestment Act. If you are not aware of how these moves were stymied, I suggest keeping up with current events and going beyond MSM surface reporting. Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Ind Avg is a forward looking metric of investor anticipation of future cash flows. Since Obama took a commanding lead in the polls, the Dow Jones Ind Ave has fallen from 11500 to 6600. (The return to full double taxation of corporate income alone could account for a 10 to 20% fall in the index.) Yet the real relevance to this blog is Obama’s cap-and-trade policy which really is a tax on all Americans — a point that seems to escape the mental capability of MSM. This tax will further reduce future cash flows (as well as employment) and likely is another reason why the index has fallen so much. Of course, as the index falls, wealth is destroyed which reduces spending which spurs more unemployment — such a vicious cycle!
    As for discussion of warmongering and constitutional abuses, those subjects are very much off topic, and I will not further those subjects.
    REPLY: I agree. I’ve been away from moderating a bit, and those issues have been removed with an admonition to commenters added. Sometimes the comments get a bit out of hand, as they do at any blog. In this case I’ve taken steps to put it back on track. – Anthony

  97. IMPORTANT NOTE:
    I will close this thread if the comments continue to stray towards anything other than cap and trade or directly related issues.
    – Anthony

  98. [snip – this is way OT, let us stick to climate and carbon cap and trade please – Anthony]

  99. I’ve noticed lately, and especially in this thread, that there are too many attacks against other posters, mainly based on party affiliations. Hating G.W. is not a reason to love Obama; conversely, thinking that Obama’s policies are socialist, or thinking Gore is a self-serving liar, is not a reason to say that Bush’s policies were good. But, these attacks are beside the point.
    Please people, let’s keep this blog about science and truth. Anthony, failing self-policing of comments by posters, I would suggest that you may want to use your scissors a little more aggresively until this nastiness lets up.
    Reply: Yes, please. No more personal politics. Stick to science commentary, or comments on general carbon cap and trade tax policy. ~dbstealey, mod.

  100. UK Sceptic (23:48:48) :
    “Let’s have a methane tax too. Methane is a greenhouse gas and all that flatulence, human as well as bovine, must be wreaking havock.”
    Correct. Which is why there is a proposed methane tax on legumes (commonly – beans.) The Legume Flat (ulence) Tax will be based on the estimated methane conversion rate of common black, red and garbonzo beans in the human gastrointestinal system. “This second, most deadly of human GHG emissions must be regulated as the flatulence of six billion people is speeding the melting of ice caps.” Winifred Bumford, Flat-Tax Now coalition.

  101. As many of us have learned both here and in other interactive internet activities, never assume the people you’re talking with share your politics. Ever. If politics are something important to your discussion group, then make sure you get it all out before the fights start.
    Personally, I am offended by any grotesque display of anti-President, no matter who it is. Neither the current nor his predecessor nor even his were “evil” or any of the other ridiculous names being thrown around. (Although I might cut some slack at Carter bashing).
    Either McCain or 0bama would have had to deal with this, and no matter how you cut it it is going to be ugly. I’ve told people for years that cutting CO2 emissions is NOT something that affects others, IT AFFECTS YOU. It’s YOU that will not be able to heat your home or drive your car every time you want to, it’s YOU that will not be able to buy certain products because their carbon cost is too high, and it’s YOU that will be wondering why you got a huge raise last year but are making so much less.
    Yes, I wish the world was the beautiful Utopia of lollipops and rainbows that certain people want it to be, where our wonderful next generation technology doesn’t pollute and animals all live in harmony near the rainforest. But we’re not there, and “CAP AND TRADE” is a buzzword that means FINANCIAL HARDSHIP and SKIMMING by the privileged few. Ask those currently going through this crap. It’s not pretty and never will be.

  102. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5io0CdRQb86KOIapmxnNKJ7YQLoLw
    US Senator: Recession wrong time for cap-and-trade
    1 hour ago
    WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States should not impose a cap-and-trade system to battle climate change this year because it amounts to a painful tax during a deep recession, a Republican lawmaker said Wednesday.
    “Now is not the time to put a national sales tax on every electric bill and every gasoline purchase,” Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, who sits on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told reporters.
    “I’m open, as are several Republicans, to cap and trade, but it’s getting increasingly difficult to think about it in the middle of a recession,” said Alexander, who hails from Tennessee.

  103. SO we have the FTC the FCC the FAA the DEA the IRS the INS…..what’s next on the horizon???
    The F. C. T.? (The FEDERAL CAP and TRADE Commission).
    LOL….don’t laugh…it probably already exists.
    More bureaucracy to put more bureaucrats to work in the failing economy that they helped cause.
    And you don’t see Walmart or predatory corporations like them aggressively trying to reduce its “carbon footprint” because it costs them extra $$$ and because their lobbyists will ASSURE them the ability to continue raping small towns across the world.
    The real FALLOUT from the Cap and Trade policies is going to ultimately adversely affect you and me… Joe and Jane Average Citizen.

  104. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/carbon_cap_and_trade_for_fido.html
    March 11, 2009
    Carbon Cap and Trade for Fido?
    Richard Henry Lee
    There is a serious shortcoming in Obama’s global warming initiative since pets are excluded as a significant source of greenhouse gasses. In the EPA’s recently released CO2 initiative, there is no mention of dogs, cats or other pets as CO2 polluters. There are the usual culprits such as cement makers, refineries and chemical manufacturers, but dogs and cats are nowhere to be found.
    This is a serious omission since our pets contribute significantly to global warming. There are estimates that there are 90 million cats and 73 million dogs in the US and the pet food they eat is loaded with meat, poultry, fish and grain which all require heavy emissions of CO2 to put the food in their dish. Then there are the petroleum based plastic dishes and other pet paraphernalia such as mutt mitts which all contribute. And don’t forget the trips to the veterinarian where we need to include the carbon footprints of the office and professional staff along with the expensive, polluting SUV’s those veterinarians drive.
    There is an estimate that each dog’s carbon paw print is 1.75 metric tons of CO2 annually and cats about half a metric ton. By doing the math, this means that dogs contribute about 128 million metric tons of CO2 and cats another 45 million for a total of 173 million metric tons. This is slightly more than half the 314 million metric tons CO2 that our personal vehicles release annually.
    To remedy this oversight, we need a grass roots effort to start a cap and trade program for pets. To start, there should be a federal tax on pets based upon their carbon paw prints. In addition, pets who received large inheritances, like the $12 million that Leona Helmsley’s dog received, should pay a much higher tax so that the government could redistribute the wealth to less fortunate pets.
    Finally, the taxes received should be used to fund research into developing sustainable pets to replace our heavily polluting dogs and cats. Perhaps a solar powered robotic pet might be the answer.

  105. Re the cost to consumers:
    Cap and trade indicates a carbon-emitter will either purchase offsets, or invest capital to reduce his carbon emissions. That is known as Carbon Capture and Sequestration, or CO2 capture.
    From the Dept of Energy: “CO2 is currently recovered from [power plant] combustion exhaust by using amine absorbers and cryogenic coolers. The cost of CO2 capture using current technology, however, is on the order of $150 per ton of carbon – much too high for carbon emissions reduction applications. Analysis performed by SFA Pacific, Inc. indicates that adding existing technologies for CO2 capture to an electricity generation process could increase the cost of electricity by 2.5 cents to 4 cents/kWh depending on the type of process.” [bold emphasis added]
    Therefore, coal-fired power plants will not be shut down, but their customers will pay a bit more for electricity. Per the EIA, U.S. residential customers paid an average (nationwide) price of 11.35 cents per kwh in 2008. Prices would increase around 35 percent (4 divided by 11.35)
    There is an issue of where to sequester the captured CO2; converting the CO2 into solid NaHCO3 is one possibility. The starting material, NaOH, is produced from electrolysis of salt water using wind-generated electricity.
    The overall benefit is power supply remains reliable, (coal-fired plants still running), wind-power is used as required and available to sequester the CO2, jobs are created through making and maintaining wind-turbines.
    The economic burden on consumers is large, especially those on fixed incomes or very low income. Replacing coal-fired plants by building a bunch of nuclear power plants would increase power costs much more.
    Ok, fire away. This is sure to bring many critical comments!

  106. J. Peden (09:07:55) :
    This is not a political blog, nor a political thread. My view of the politics during the Bush years was formed from the european left to center press, and the snipped view I posted is a view a lot of the outside the US world holds. No anti anti Bush propaganda was necessary, it was being much closer to the Iraq war than the average Joe in the US.
    The reason I was responding strongly was to what a poster said:
    Ron de Haan (23:43:33) :
    It is also in our interest to see which threat Obama represents and get him out of office as soon as possible..
    pointing out that changes of politicians happen with elections and changes of laws by influencing legislators. So if the cap and trade is a bad law, the legislators should be enlightened asap.

  107. Surely the sad truth of all this is that the US and UK Governments are desperate for more money. Extracting money via ‘green’ taxes is more politcally acceptable- at least in theory-than other more direct taxes, as it appears that it is industry paying. However the consumer always ends up picking up the bill in the long run.
    In the UK we have around £1000 a year per family in green taxes-electric, petrol, air travel etc. Some have been delayed due to the down turn but around the same again is on the way. [snip] I think it is clear that much of the funding will come from ‘green’ taxes of one sort or another and Obama will likely have 8 clear years-two terms-to carry out the democratic will of the people.
    Tonyb

  108. [snip off-topic, please stick to cap and trade, not who would be the better president- Anthony]

  109. IEA figures November update.
    electricity
    Total OECD production reached 814.2 TWh, a decrease of 3.2% or 27.2 TWh over the same month last year.
    “- Production from Combustible Fuels declined by 6.7% to 511.1 TWh in OECD, led by a 9.6% and 7.4% decline in OECD Europe and OECD North America respectively.
    – Indigenous production declined by 3.2% to 814.2 TWh in OECD mainly due to a 4.6% and a 3.2% decline in OECD Europe and OECD North America respectively.
    – Imports and exports declined by 5.3% to 31.8 TWh and 1.1% to 31.9 TWh respectively in OECD.”

  110. Kevin B (07:23:22) :
    JamesG (07:10:32) :
    “There’s a major dilemma with being eco-friendly. Is it better to a) use disposable items or b) use re-washable items. Option a) uses up more precious resources but option b) uses more energy and dumps more detergent in the sea. What to do?”
    By the time the greens have finished you will be down to only one option:
    “Take your laundry down to the nearest river, soak it, and bash it on the rocks.”
    If you get so lucky and your not lynched for exhaling CO2!

  111. Michael Ronayne (09:25:27) I agree. If you came of age in the 60s, you may recall an album of non-PC silliness “Waiting for the Electrician or Someone Like Him” by the Firesign Theater, the album has Marx & Lennon, Groucho & John in the cover. It presented a warped history of the US.

  112. More scientific arguments against Cap & Trade:
    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/climate_change_driven_by_the_ocean_not_human_activity1/
    If Cap & Trade wil make it through Congress and Senate, I really can’t say.
    It’s a kind of testing the IQ of it’s members.
    If Cap & Trade is viable in economic terms, I am not sure either.
    Is it bad for the economy in terms of competition and public spending it is very bad.
    It’s an economy blocker.
    If Cap & Trade is necessary from a scientific point of view, I am very shore.
    The answer is NO.
    As is every solution that takes care of a non existing problem.

  113. Aron (07:47:46) :
    The Guardian has posted its 7th alarmist article of the day.
    We all remember the Met Office’s Vicky Pope. Just a couple of weeks ago she warned against alarmist language, but here she is today using it herself
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees
    She is saying that 85% of the Amazon is going to disappear because of climate change and that even severe cuts in deforestation and carbon emissions (huh?) will fail to save it. Oh well, that really makes people take action doesn’t it? Of course, it is all theoretical but published as fact.
    Brazilians just need to follow the American model of planting more quick growth trees than they use.
    And in the future, genetic science will enable the planting of rapid growth trees that could intelligently monitor the atmosphere and automatically take steps to control greenhouse gases to any level we like. As long as Greens don’t get in the way of geneticists the way they have done so far.

    Three of my favorites from Aron’s link:
    1. “the destruction of large parts of the forest is “irreversible””.
    2. “….damage to the forest won’t be obvious straight away, but we could be storing up trouble for the future.”
    3. “The study…used computer models to investigate how the Amazon would respond to future temperature rises.”
    Raising the temperature 2c in a tropical rain forest will make it stop raining?

  114. John Kerry says that not doing cap and trade is equivalent to suicide.
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5ce05834a0919b70bceb002f810b5e70.fb1&show_article=1
    Kerry: Climate change delay is ‘suicide pact’
    Mar 11 05:20 PM US/Eastern
    A leading US senator warned on Wednesday that deferring potentially costly actions to combat climate change because of the global economic slump amounted to “a mutual suicide pact.”
    “Climate change is not governed by a recession, it’s governed by scientific facts about what’s happening to Earth. And you either accept the realities of the science or you don’t,” said Democratic Senator John Kerry.
    He spoke after some of his colleagues argued that the United States should not impose a cap-and-trade system for so-called greenhouse gases blamed for global warming because it amounts to a painful tax during a deep downturn.
    “You don’t enter a mutual suicide pact because the economy is having a hard time right now,” Kerry said after meeting with UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon seven months before global climate change talks in Denmark’s capital.

  115. Steven Hill (07:51:18) :
    One other point…did you see the effect of $4 a gallon gas? Imagine higher cost for gasoline, ng and electricity. Talk about inflation!

    $4 gas !
    (sorry I’m in the UK)

  116. Every time a politician loses a debate to a Texan simpleton they go on to claim they are versed in advanced sciences that scientists struggle with.

  117. This is what I meant when I said this blog should be taken to the next level. Great job, Steven!

  118. Clearly “cap and trade”, “carbon taxes”, “emissions trading schemes” and the like are certainly grabs for tax revenues, but I don’t see CO2, CC, AGW and “saving the planet” to be (Or rather will be) the main driver. One thing I consider to be a future factor in these “new world order” of tax grabs is demographics. The western world populations are in decline, Italy being a prime example of this right now, more people retired or not working than those working and paying income taxes. It’s obvious to me that “carbon taxes” will be used to bolster Govn’t revenue streams as direct income tax revenue declines in 20-30 years time (Or less).

  119. “Mary Hinge (01:40:02) : ”
    The tax on carbon is based on predictions, predictions about where temperatures are going. Temperatures on earth are in a cooling, not a warming trend. There was some “weather” last week that caused some record heat. But Mary, did you hear about the record cold yesterday in the US ans the severe record cold in Canada? I hope you’re not going to be “all quiet now” about that.
    I hope you are deeply concerned over carbon tax for a warming world when the world is, in fact, not warming. I also hope you are concerned about raising taxes and increasing regulations in a time of recession. If President Obama isn’t careful his runaway taxing-on-a-bobsled is going to kickstart a depression.

  120. An Inquirer (09:56:58)
    said
    “Of course, as the index falls, wealth is destroyed which reduces spending which spurs more unemployment — such a vicious cycle!”
    Positive feedbacks are very popular in the AGW community.
    I think I have figured out the real reason for “Cap and Trade”. Since the financial crisis people won’t be making any money/profits so they won’t be liable for (as much)income tax.
    So cap and trade was invented to make up for the expected reduction in the tax take. But now I am thinking conspiracy because people have been talking about cap and trade before the financial crisis began. They must have known it was about to happen.
    It’s spooky

  121. Cap and trade would be an inconvenience for the US and a disaster for the third and fourth world. Anything that reduces wealth in the first and second worlds is a horseman of the apocalypse in the third and fourth. Look at the horrible human cost of biofuels. (And anything that reduces wealth directly in the third and fourth worlds is an outright crime against humanity.)

  122. I wonder if Hansen really thinks this is what the government has in mind… if so he is more naive then I gave him credit for..
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf
    I quote: “One is Tax & 100% Dividend – tax carbon emissions, but give all of the money back to the public on a per capita basis.
    For example, let’s start with a tax large enough to affect purchasing decisions: a carbon tax that adds $1 to the price of a gallon of gas. That’s a carbon price of about $115 per ton of CO2. That tax rate yields $670B per year. We return 100% of that money to the public. Each adult legal resident gets one share, which is $3000 per year, $250 per month deposited in their bank account. Half shares for each child up to a maximum of two children per family. So a tax rate of $115 per ton yields a dividend of
    $9000 per year for a family with two children, $750 per month. The family with carbon footprint less than average makes money – their dividend exceeds their tax. This tax gives a strong incentive to replace
    inefficient infrastructure. It spurs the economy. It spurs innovation.”
    Oy!!! Maybe someone should tell him thats not what the gov has in mind and see if the temps sets stay … cooked:) I personally have not seen the gov ever give money back to the taxpayer willingly… Im sure they have already figured out a way to spend it for us.

  123. pkatt (00:04:12) :
    I think he’s saying that’s what the government should have in mind.
    On the surface it looks wildly progressive:
    A single person drives 50 miles/day * 365 days/per yr. / 35 mpg * $1/gal = $522/year increase in fuel cost.
    But that’s not the point. He is on the straight carbon tax side which is refreshing to me and, yes, it is naive to think the government would give back tax money.

  124. Al Gore has suggested replacing income tax with a carbon tax. I like that idea, because it gives people control over their income by the choices they make.

  125. Steven Goddard (06:14:09) :
    Al Gore has suggested replacing income tax with a carbon tax. I like that idea, because it gives people control over their income by the choices they make.

    And would this be a tax on carbon dioxide emanating products or on the individuals emissions? How would it be implemented without gross invasion of privacy if the latter?

  126. tallbloke,
    The point is that it (theoretically) gives people the opportunity to keep more of their money, while making sensible environmental choices.
    Hansen is suggesting that the Government have direct access to everyone’s bank account. Now that is scary.

  127. A lot of you have opinions, but have any of you ever done any science in your lives? Have you actually studied it? Not just reading papers, but doing actual science?
    Do any of you actually work in climate studies? Or teach at a university?
    I thought not.
    Just greedy people, worrying about what’s in it for yourselves.

  128. Do any of you actually work in climate studies? Or teach at a university?
    I thought not.
    Just greedy people, worrying about what’s in it for yourselves.

    You should not talk about Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, Leonardo Di Caprio, George Monbiot, Suzanne Goldberg, Fred Pearce, John Kerry, Barack Obama or Ban Ki Moon like that. They might find it offensive.

  129. What is in it for me?
    Free speech, intellectual honesty, good science, keeping government from confiscating money, a healthy economy, sane government. Did I miss anything?

  130. “”Do any of you actually work in climate studies? Or teach at a university? I thought not.”
    Have you browsed this site for more than a day? I thought not.

  131. Steven Goddard (10:53:25) : said
    “What is in it for me?
    Free speech, intellectual honesty, good science, keeping government from confiscating money, a healthy economy, sane government. Did I miss anything?”
    Yes.
    The opportunity to focus our time, effort, and money, on things that desperately need fixing, rather than on those that don’t.
    Tonyb

  132. The trouble with havin a popular place to come discuss is that some folks just come to stop the discussions, like Aron. We’ve had a pretty steady stream of them lately. I cant imagine how frustrated they must be coming here, no one screamin the world is ending, people having good natured non hatefilled discussions. What is the world coming to?

  133. Steven Goddard (09:52:39) :
    tallbloke,
    And would this be a tax on carbon dioxide emanating products or on the individuals emissions? How would it be implemented without gross invasion of privacy if the latter?
    The point is that it (theoretically) gives people the opportunity to keep more of their money, while making sensible environmental choices.
    Hansen is suggesting that the Government have direct access to everyone’s bank account. Now that is scary.

    You didn’t answer my question, which is it, a tax on products, or a tax on emissions? I can see why they’d like both. The former to make easy money, the latter for an excuse to monitor our every breath.
    It’s unlike you to concede the need for either, or are you just comparing the lesser of two evils?

  134. I have just Prince Charles announcing on the Brazilian TV that there is only 100 WEEKS left for saving the world, what we need, southamericans and owners of the Amazon forests is change it into carbon credits (in other word “they” will BUY OUR amazon forests for just a few peanuts…..I am sure his highness does not know us..
    Recently, last year, during the ALCUE (European and Latin american & Caribbean Countries Summit) held in Lima, Peru, some greenies introduced a whole phraseology which should have declared the amazon forests as a “resource of the whole humanity”-translation:THEIRS. This phraseology was REMOVED from the final agreement.
    Did you know it?

  135. Christopher Wing (09:54:42) :
    “Do any of you actually work in climate studies? Or teach at a university?
    I thought not. Just greedy people, worrying about what’s in it for yourselves.”
    Christopher, if you continue reading posts at WUWT, I think you’ll find a good number of scientists and teachers. The host here Mr. Watts, is IMO an excellent teacher. This site allows courteous opposing points of view and regularly moderates excess or discourteous comments.
    Sounds like you might be a student with a healthy dose of idealism. Hang on to it whilst you can – reality will soon interrupt it.

  136. At a lecture given in Copenhagen this tuesday (10th of March) by James Hansen he stated clearly that he was against the Kyoto-protocol. This is more or less a direct quote (any inaccuracy is only in the wording not the content and due to my hurried note scribbling.):
    “I would rather that the meeting in Copenhagen later this year (COP15) ended with no agreement than with an agreement similarly inefficient as Kyoto.”
    “Cap and Trade mechanisms do not work in any meaningfull manner”
    “Rather than a tax, which any cap and trade mechanism ultimately is I would endorse a tax and dividend policy where the money was returned directly to people so they can afford green technology rather than to the politicians in Washington”
    Now, I know that this doesn’t make him “all right” in the eyes of a lot of people (“Sceptics”) but I have to give him that he is right in these points. Add to this that there are other benefits for the US and Europe to become less dependent on fossil fuels (security policy, peak oil issues, energy-independence, ?) than a potential “risk” of Climate Change. He is not for government administrating the money which is basic sound thinking for any merely moderately economically savvy person. In fact the best quote was; “that Kyoto does not work should be logical to any A-student”. He also said in small-talk afterwards “that he disliked the whole ‘movement’ which Kyoto is essentially founded on.”
    I know it is a stretch from going to “opposing” climate change theory to actually “endorsing” doing something about it. The way I see it is that regardless of my opinion and all those smart criticisms of IPCC et al. fact is that the world is meeting in Copenhagen later this year to agree on the follow-up to Kyoto. Call it damage-mitigation or something else, but rather than merely fighting the (lost?) cause of arguing if climate change theory is correct or not in its predictions, then addressing whatever ideas politicians implement should not be completely ignored either. As outright opposition to doing anything is clearly being ignored right now I see it as considering the old ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’ paradigm. If we are to do something at least let’s make it as economically smart and efficient as possible. Relatively speaking of course. Don’t get me wrong I don’t buy CO2 as “original sin” or a new “white man’s burden” or any of such superficial mumbo-jumbo.
    All I am saying is that Hansen came of (on the “what do we do” issue) as a genuinely smart person. Accepting principles of economics rather than fighting them and coming of as a liberalistic economist where government influence is better minimized than maximized. (This of course doesn’t take much in Europe in general and especially not good old Denmark, 😉 )
    Anyways why not get a bit interested and practically active in trying to oppose that Obama goes with a cap and trade and the subsequent mass-monitoring and administrative chaos when simpler and more efficient opportunities exist? I know it’s a question of ‘evils’ in case one does not think anything in AGW is correct, however could this not be one of those times where it is necessary to choose between ‘evils’. Figuratively speaking: If one side is suggesting a plague – is then the flu not worth fighting for as an alternative?
    (As a side note during the Bush administration the US has actually done more for ‘green’ power technology in terms of implementation and research than what can be said of many of the ‘oh so green’ European countries. Wind and solar power in the US is growing tremendously whether we like it or not. Don’t let Obama, and implicitly Gore, take all the glory which we know this will generate from the MSM once they discover the expansion of green tech in a few years.)
    I know it’s not optimal what I am saying but based on rationally accepting that too many people and the MSM are backing this whole thing it could very well be a pragmatic path to choose?
    Regardless of whether you agree with my considerations of the situation in terms of COP15, Cap and trade and so on, I personally found it nice to hear Hansen be so honest and smart about the actions pursued by government as it is today.
    My apologies for any bad grammar, misspellings and wrong use of language.
    Regards
    Mikkel, Copenhagen, Denmark.

  137. tallbloke,
    I’m not making any suggestions about how to implement a carbon tax. I just find the idea of reducing traffic and pollution while eliminating income tax very appealing. It would be fantastic if we could cut our energy usage, CO2 production and traffic by 40%, – while increasing our available income. Who would argue with that?
    What concerns me is that cap and trade is just another tax piled on all the rest of them.

  138. Steven Goddard (19:50:18) :
    It would be fantastic if we could cut our energy usage, CO2 production and traffic by 40%, – while increasing our available income. Who would argue with that?

    The people who no longer had a job in a diminished economy?
    Those who dislike being monitored and controlled by beaurocrats?
    Those who know human emitted co2 doesn’t have anything much to do with global temperature?
    Pensioners?
    Farmers?
    A friend and I had a discussion the other evening. We like the idea of cutting down food miles by growing locally, but anticipate severe problems with production and distribution in a cooling world.
    Do you really envisage a return to cottage industry and smallholding on an island with a population of 60 million? It’s an open discussion and I’m ready to be convinced, because I believe in a lighter tread within our environment too. I’m just doubtful of how we turn wishes into reality. I’m not at all sure that a top down directive of ‘you can’t afford fuel anymore so just deal with it’ is going to work too well.

  139. tallbloke,
    I’m talking about doing things like telecommuting, four day work weeks, properly insulating homes, solar, fusion, Internet shopping, high speed rail, etc.
    None of those things would be harmful to the economy, they would improve the quality of people’s lives, and would reduce traffic deaths and injuries. More than 100 people die every day in the US in traffic accidents, and thousands more are injured. More Americans die in their cars every month, than did during the entire Iraq war.
    If people had more of their money to spend, that would boost the economy much more than flushing it down the government sinkhole.

  140. Christopher Whinge, (09:54:42) :
    A lot of you have opinions, but have any of you ever done any science in your lives? Have you actually studied it? Not just reading papers, but doing actual science?
    Do any of you actually work in climate studies? Or teach at a university?
    I thought not.
    Just greedy people, worrying about what’s in it for yourselves.

    Christopher, have you ever actually delved into the “science” of AGW/CC, or rather, do you just blindly accept what you are being told?
    I thought so.
    AGWers generally are like mindless robots, endlessly cranking out the same garbage they’ve been spoon-fed by the MSM, schools, and groupthink sites like RealNonsense, Desmogblinkered, etc.
    Just clueless people, worrying about a non-problem, and concerned only with pumping up their own egos with their idiotic desire to “save the planet” by demonizing humanity.

  141. Steven Goddard (04:13:40) :
    tallbloke,
    I’m talking about doing things like telecommuting, four day work weeks, properly insulating homes, solar, fusion, Internet shopping, high speed rail, etc.

    Sounds great, sign me up for some of that fusion powered warmth. Oh, you mean I’ll freeze until they can do fusion?
    My roof is already stuffed with rockwool and I already have double glazing, so I’ll just burn wood in the grate instead I guess. Oops, that’ll attract a carbon surcharge.
    Telecommuting sounds good though, I’ll just email a picture of a spade and some saplings to my boss instead of turning up to plant them.
    I love internet shopping. I pay with paypal and the item just pops out of nowhere onto my doorstep the next morning, no transport fuel involved from the centralised depot down south.
    Solar power: Hmm, ebay has some 60 watt panels at 180 pounds. Still, I’ll be able to save up with all that extra money from the tax breaks on the job I lost because the economy has gone bust. Errrr, hang on….

  142. I don’t know, Mikkel. Chamberlain’s signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, and his containment policy of Germany may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but look how that turned out.
    We must never give in.
    Carbon taxes may be the lesser of two evils, but they are still evil. Forcing the cost of energy up can never be good energy policy.

  143. Carbon taxes are an unnecessary evil, won’t do anything for the pollution situation, and will result in starvation and hypothermia deaths. Food & Fuel prices will hit the hardest at the worst possible time, undermining governments. Such pressures have happened in the past. To be avoided as deadly catastrophe.. The smarter countries will not follow such a foolish path, and will be ready to take full advantage.
    The countries that go down the Carbon Tax path will shoot themselves in the foot and become easy targets.
    Even if all countries were to agree & follow through, the result would be a Dark Age for all but the warmest climates.

  144. Another possibility is that people will quit wasting so much energy, and choose instead to keep their money.
    If I didn’t have to pay income tax, I could afford all kinds of ways to further reduce my fossil fuel wastage – and have lots of money left over.

  145. Steven, have you stopped to consider that the poorer members of society don’t pay much income tax anyway, but will be hit hard by taxes on fuels which they will have to pay at the same rate as the better off?

  146. Steven Goddard (19:53:15) :
    Another possibility is that people will quit wasting so much energy, and choose instead to keep their money.
    “Wasting energy” is generally a function of wealth, Steven, as is any type of conspicuous consumption. Having a huge home and driving, say a Hummer are two good examples. Those people are not going to be affected much, if any by a tax on energy. Those who are middle class would certainly already have an incentive not to “waste energy”.
    If I didn’t have to pay income tax, I could afford all kinds of ways to further reduce my fossil fuel wastage – and have lots of money left over.
    Nonsense. Unless you are living paycheck-to-paycheck that is.

  147. tallbloke,
    One of the primary complaints we always hear is that wealthy westerners generate 20X as much CO2 as poor people. Thus the “wealthy” would be the ones paying the taxes.

  148. Bruce Cobb,
    I’d suggest not using the word “nonsense” in this discussion. There are many different points of view.
    An investment in a fuel efficient car is expensive, but would be possible and attractive for millions if income tax was replaced with carbon tax. In the UK you can get a clean diesel that gets 50/mpg and has enough acceleration to keep you constantly in trouble with the police. But they are very expensive.
    Same for many things you could do around your house. And at a government level, the investment required is much larger, but also worthwhile in the long run.

  149. Interesting thread…I’m pleased to see discussion going in the direction of what I call “good stewardship” of this island earth we call home. Being good stewards of the panet is and should be a different and distinct discussion from AGW. I’m certain that most of the readers and posters on this website want to keep our air, water and landscapes clean despite the picture painted by the AGW cult depicting us as “deniers” on the scale of flatearthers or worse, holocaust deniers who wantonly foul and destroy the planet. AGW is 95% politics and 5% science with power and control at it’s roots fed by the politics of greed and envy. All thinking people should resist it while promoting a clean sustainable environment as a legacy for the next generation. Thanks for all of the thoughtful and thought-provoking posts on this site. I’m gradually becoming enlightened…
    “At least the war on the economy is going well…”

Comments are closed.