If any WUWT readers have moderates in their congressional district, now is the time to make your opinions known.
May I suggest that you send your congressional representative this story with a request to read it on the floor. And while you are at it, the EPA shenanigans and my surfacestations report. – Anthony
From CNN political ticker
House Democrats unsure of global warming bill’s passage
WASHINGTON (CNN) – House Democratic leaders are furiously lobbying their members and moderate Republicans to support a landmark energy bill in the face of resistance from some conservative members of their own party, and staunch opposition from the GOP — roadblocks that are making it difficult to find the 218 votes necessary to pass the measure, according to Democratic leadership aides.
A vote on the Clean Energy and Security Act, which would restrict emissions of green house gases and require use of alternative energy in an effort to slow the effects of global warming, is scheduled for Friday.
The legislation’s lead sponsors held a pep rally outside the Capitol on Wednesday to whip up support for the legislation’s passage.
“We are going to pass the most important energy and environment bill in history,” declared Rep Ed Markey, D-Masachusetts, chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “We are going to reduce the carbon we send up into the atmosphere but at the same time we are going to begin to back out the oil that we import from countries that we should not be importing it from.”
The legislation would require a 17 percent emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2020, mandate electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources by 2020, provide $90 billion for new investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, along with $60 billion for carbon capture and sequestration. Another key provision, termed “cap-and-trade,” would require industries and manufacturers to cut carbon emissions by setting up a system where they could buy and sell pollution credits.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded Wednesday evening that there were not enough votes to pass the bill, but that meetings with Democrats and Republicans were ongoing. Many Democrats from rural districts are concerned about the bill’s effect on the manufacturing of ethanol and other biofuels, while Republicans have questioned the overall price tag to Americans.
“This legislation has really been quite an experience for all of us,” said Pelosi. “This is really about regional differences, as well as philosophical differences.”
Democrats are hoping that a recent evaluation by Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which estimates that the annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion — or about $175 per household, is enough to alleviate concerns of some members.
But House Republican leaders claim the CBO estimate is too low, and doesn’t adequately gauge the harmful effect that stricter regulations will have on business and industry.
“There is no question that the cap and trade bill will cost millions of jobs and it is pretty evident, I think now, given the word that we are hearing that the other side has 190 votes at this point, far short of that which are needed to pass this bill,” said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Virginia.
Despite concerns about not getting any Republicans to ultimately support the bill, Democratic leaders are hoping their more conservative members coalesce around a “grand agreement” being worked out with Rep Colin Peterson (D-MN), chairman of the Agriculture Committee and a leading voice for rural Democrats concerned with the bill.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve let my congresscritter know in no uncertain terms that this is going to kill rural Oregon…
Wow. If it’s this bad in the house, the Senate can’t be any easier. CFC legislation was easy. It only cost the economy a few paltry billions. But the pricetag for this one comes with a “T”.
It doesn’t seem to occur to a lot of people that a good economy is going to be vital if AGW somehow does turn out to be a real problem.
Not to mention solving all the other problems, environmental or no.
If any WUWT readers have moderates in their congressional district, now is the time to make your opinions known.
Nadler. Sorry.
When I went down to vote in the primaries, they simply handed me a democratic party ballot. When I asked for the “other”, the GOP poll watcher was delighted. I was the first one who had shown up all day.
The Dem watcher made a comment that I looked GOP. It wasn’t a compliment. (A month earlier my hair was foot and a half long. That would no doubt have caused some confusion.)
Collin Peterson made the deal. They’re, probably going to pass it.
However, it IS tremendously watered down. It’s not exactly going to be the stuff of your worst nightmares.
http://corncommentary.com/
It would surely kill off rural No. Calif. as well.
I am positive it would kill all of rural America as well as kill most of what was left, including our currency, recovery and output.
I am pleased to hear we are not falling on our sword today.
Thanks for the update. I will write my congressman tonight, although I am certain that he is on the rational side on this one, representing West Texas.
Additionally, I would like for congress to start to present the cost of these things in scientific notation. Millions, billions and trillions all seem to run together after awhile.
I’m in Portland Oregon, so my Congressman isn’t going to help, but someone with a Rep. of a more conservative bent might also want to forward the comments that Steve Mcintyre submitted to the EPA (available on his web site). After reading them, I found them to be pretty devastating as far as the shoddy peer review standards of the IPCC. I think it goes without saying that the perception of our politicians that CO2 has contributed to the majority of whatever warming we’ve seen, comes from the pronouncements of the IPCC which are viewed as definitive. The credibility of its report has to take a serious hit, however, when it baldly states to one of its reviewers that he has no business even asking for the raw data behind the work he is reviewing.
Even if the cost is ONLY $22 billion…it is a pointless waste of money we cannot afford. Not one red cent for “climate change”.
I really don’t see that having the votes matters any more. The administration will find some way to do it with executive orders and regulations.
If the EPA can regulate CO2, and it can, then exactly what can’t they do in regard to those who produce or use fossil fuels?
[sorry, just too far OT for us, but best of luck and well-wishes – Anthony]
“Kum Dollison (19:31:09) :
Collin Peterson made the deal. They’re, probably going to pass it.”
As I read the original article, the Democrats are questioning whether they have the votes even in light of Peterson’s deal. I read about the agriculture deal this afternoon. Pelosi’s comments were attributed as being made this evening. From what I understand, farmers are scared to death over this legislation, and I don’t know that a representative is going to get off the hook by explaining to his constituents “don’t worry, your livelihood won’t depend on the caprice of EPA any more, but on the whim of some other government bureaucracy.” I wouldn’t be reassured by that.
All lobbying efforts should be a felony. If any congressman/congresswoman can’t read a bill and then think for him/herself about a vote, he/she has no business to be in the congress.
I am a bit worried it’s another bait-and-switch at work. Awhile ago the first bailout bill was voted out, but only to be replaced by another bigger one, which passed with little resistance.
If cap and trade goes ahead it will consign millions of people to poverty. Remind your representatives that is is an American duty to fight for liberty from oppression of any kind including being forced to live on rations and pay high taxes. This is why Americans fought for liberty in the first place.
K (19:52:08) :
I really don’t see that having the votes matters any more. The administration will find some way to do it with executive orders and regulations.
If the EPA can regulate CO2, and it can, then exactly what can’t they do in regard to those who produce or use fossil fuels?
The second instance is the Senate. The last one is the Supreme Court of the United States (SCUS). When there is no consensus among congresses, SCUS has the last word, with or without citizens’ approval:
According to the Constitution (Art. III, §2):
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens there of, and foreign States, Citizensor Subjects.
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
“Appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Supreme Court by various statutes, under the authority given Congress by the Constitution.”
“The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.”
For example, this one:
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/05-01120qp.pdf
When SCUS declared the carbon dioxide as a toxic pollutant.
Time for you Americans to get on the phone, lobby your congresspeople. I’m Canadian and ex-pat Brit, so I can’t do anything here.
Kurt,
Thanks, I didn’t realize that.
However, I’ve still got a sneaking suspicion they’ll get it passed. If they’re not there, they’ll make some more deals. The “good” news is, the more deals they have to make the weaker it’ll be.
I think they’d pass a blank sheet of paper, now, just to say they did.
Link to the CBO report:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf
There are some interesting statistical assumptions throughout this document to say the least. basically the gross cost per household will be significant but at the end of the shell game the net is lower for everyone!
Also per Table 2 the total to $175 per house doesn’t appear to add up. looks like $180 to me.
The “free” assigned pollutions allocations are repeatedly said to have “value” because it can be sold or allowed to expire, but there is no mention of taxing that income.
Oops! Sorry… I forgot to include a resource to the last paragraph (“The complex role of the Supreme Court…”):
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf
Sorry, again… 🙂
It is my understanding that the deal takes authority from agriculture and gives ag authority to the USDA.
The whole deal is about city folks wanting to punish farmers.
Power, power, who’s got the power?
Vote for the bill – here’s a piece for you & you & you;
Just pet those drooling dolts called voters on the head;
Tell ’em we’ll take care of ’em.
How about this thought, Congress –
Get out of my wallet; get out of my life;
The Mafia’s protection racket is small and innocent compared to what you do.
Kurt, from the above post:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded Wednesday evening that there were not enough votes to pass the bill,
I think the worst part of the bill is the silly sequestration scheme. THAT is, literally, wasting money.
I wrote my congressman (a party line dem) last month and he replied (more or less) and I replied back to him. I blogged about it on my station’s website:
http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/news_blog_post.aspx?id=295986
My representative, or his aides who answered used all of Gore’s alarmist talking points. Those who have their agendas will not even look at anything else.
“For example, this one:
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/05-01120qp.pdf
When SCUS declared the carbon dioxide as a toxic pollutant.”
That’s not being entirely accurate. The Supreme Court was reviewing the decision of the EPA that it lacked the authority to regulate CO2, on the basis that it was a global problem in both source and consequences, rather than a local pollution issue. The majority opinion quickly noted that EPA’s position was tenuous given its regulation under the Clean Air Act of CFCs to prevent ozone depletion at the poles. Their ruling was to overturn the EPAs decision that it lacked the authority to regulate CO2 as a “pollutant”, but remanded with instructions that if the EPA determined based on scientific evidence that CO2 emissions were harmful, they were required under the Clean Air Act to regulate them. That’s an important caveat. The EPA could still (not that it will under this administration) conclude that there is a deficiency of evidence for anthropogenic global warming, and if it does, there is no requirement by the court that they regulate it. In short, the court only held that the fact that CO2 issues were global in nature did not exclude it from the definition of a “pollutant.”
Incidentally, I agreed with the dissent of the opinion regarding the standing issue, i.e. the prospective harm suffered by the plaintiffs was too tenuous for them to sue over, but that was a separate issue.
“Kum Dollison (20:39:14) :
Kurt, from the above post:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi conceded WEDNESDAY evening that there were not enough votes to pass the bill.”
Not sure if you are suggesting that my earlier post was incorrect, in which I referred to her statement as being this evening, but today is Wednesday, at least in the U.S. It could be that you are on the other side of the date line and are working from a different day.
kurt (20:43:15) :
“For example, this one:
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/05-01120qp.pdf
When SCUS declared the carbon dioxide as a toxic pollutant.”
That’s not being entirely accurate.
For my fortune, it was not I who misinterpreted the SCUS edict:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30264214/
Roll the screen down to the § “Shift started with Supreme Court”.
Oh, Jeez, Holy Mackeral
I thot it wuz thursday. Yikes, I’m dum.