McCain Echoes Hansen: Waxman-Markey is a ‘Farce’ (The Civil War widens among climate alarmists)
by Robert Bradley MasterResource
August 3, 2009
“[The Waxman-Markey] 1,400-page bill is a farce. They bought every industry off—steel mills, agriculture, utilities…. I would not only not vote for it. I am opposed to it entirely, because it does damage to those of us who believe that we need to act in a rational fashion about climate change.”
– Senator John McCain to Stephen Moore, Wall Street Journal, August 1-2, 2009, p. A9.
“The truth is, the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. It is an exceedingly inefficient way to get a small reduction of emissions. It is less than worthless….”
-James Hansen, “Strategies to Address Global Warming,” July 13, 2009.
The death of federal climate legislation in 2009 will not only be because traditional Republicans and conservative Democrats said “no”. It will also be because true believers like Senator John McCain realize that politicized cap-and-trade is all pain and no gain. A scorched earth economic policy that does not meaningfully address a feared “scorched earth” to come is worse than no policy at all.
Consider the conversation between Stephen Moore and Senator McCain in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal:
Since Mr. McCain was the co-sponsor of the McCain-Lieberman bill last year to limit CO emissions through a cap-and-trade system, I ask him about the climate change bill that passed the House last month and he surprised me with his opposition. “I believe climate change is real . . . but this 1,400-page bill is a farce. They bought every industry off—steel mills, agriculture, utilities,” he says.
So you wouldn’t vote for the House bill? “I would not only not vote for it,” he laughs, “I am opposed to it entirely, because it does damage to those of us who believe that we need to act in a rational fashion about climate change.”
And compare this to what NASA scientist, climate alarmist, and Al Gore confidant James Hansen has said about the original version of Waxman-Markey:
“Governments are retreating to feckless ‘cap-and-trade,’ a minor tweak to business-as-usual….
“Why is this cap-and-trade temple of doom worshipped? The 648-page cap-and-trade monstrosity that is being foisted on the U.S. Congress provides the answer. Not a single Congressperson has read it. They don’t need to – they just need to add more paragraphs to support their own special interests. By the way, the Congress people do not write most of those paragraphs—they are ‘suggested’ by people in alligator shoes.”
And Dr. Hansen later spanked harder on the final bill:
“The alternative approach is Cap & Trade, or perhaps more honestly Tax & Trade, because a ‘cap’ increases the price of energy, as a tax or fee does.
Other characteristics of the ‘cap’ approach: (1) unpredictable price volatility, (2) it makes millionaires on Wall Street and other trading floors at public expense, (3) it is an invitation to blackmail by utilities that threaten ‘blackout coming’ to gain increased emission permits, (4) it has overhead costs and complexities, inviting lobbyists and delaying implementation.
The biggest problem with [cap and trade] is that it will not solve the problem. It may slow emissions, but because of the long lifetime of atmospheric CO2, slowing the emissions does little good. As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy they will be used eventually. There is no hope that cap and trade can get us back to 350 ppm CO2.
Hansen also addressed his critics on the Left who are politically stuck with Waxman-Markey:
Some environmental leaders have said that I am naïve to think that there is an alternative to cap-and-trade, and they suggest that I should stick to climate modeling. Their contention is that it is better to pass any bill now and improve it later. Their belief that they, as opposed to the fossil interests, have more effect on the bill’s eventual shape seems to be the pinnacle of naïveté.
The truth is, the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. It is an exceedingly inefficient way to get a small reduction of emissions. It is less than worthless, because it would delay by at least a decade or two the possibility of getting on a path that is fundamentally sound from economic and climate preservation standpoints.
And Hansen will not kow-tow to the Administration:
Officials in the Obama administration privately admit that the science demands much more rapid emission cuts than Waxman-Markey would yield, but they say that their hands are tied by a recalcitrant Congress. Is that so? Has President Obama provided direction or guidelines for what he expects from Congress?
Waxman-Markey–aka the Enron Revitalization Act of 2009– is in deep trouble because it fails to either help the economy (the ‘green jobs’ myth) or address alleged climate change. Its death will be bipartisan.
Be sure to visit Robert Bradley’s MasterResource for more insight
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
McCain is my senator. I was composing a letter to encourage him to vote against cap-and-trade. Now I can do something more useful!
McCain is always looking for a big cause … that’s why he sometimes seems like a liberal. Anyway, AGW is a big cause. But so is saving democracy. In his farewell speech Eisenhower cited two threats to American democracy … both internal: the Military Industrial Complex and the Scientific-Technology elite (the mutual dependence of government & research to the determent of the taxpayer). AGW and Cap-and-Trade is a good example. My idea was to get the Senator to switch from AGW to saving democracy by looking into the funding of “politically-driven science”. Maybe I still will … but now there is no rush.
Llanfar (06:26:59) :
Jack Winters (23:26:18) :
“Why not just put a $2.00 tax on gasoline? That might help pay for this unbelievable
string of bailouts and “stimulus” spending.”
It was the rising price of gasoline that triggered the avalanche that is our current recession.
Not at all dissimilar to our lack of understanding the complex systems that make up our climate, gasoline prices did not trigger the recession. There were many, and in some cases far more powerful influences – none of which the very complex and completley wrong economic forecasting models predicted, that precipitated this recession.
Waxman-Markey is a tragic joke, but where so-called “Environmentalists” have won this battle above reason: the position that politicians take in supporting AGW because it has been marketed as environmentally sound. If you are opposed to the theory (more a hypothesis) then you are of course not environmentally friendly.
I dont like the idea of taxing gasoline, unless the goal is to force US consmuers to buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars. My issue with taxation in general is the fiscally irresponsible behavior of our government. This “bill” is a round-about tax – with lots of potential for further taxation on “evil” corporations – who of course will pass on the burden of these taxes to consumers.
Jack Winters (23:26:18) :
“Why not just put a $2.00 tax on gasoline? That might help pay for this unbelievable
string of bailouts and “stimulus” spending.”
How about a $3.00 tax on each gallon of gasoline and give a $1,200.00 tax credit paid to anyone with a taxable income (exclude the earned income people).
Adjust payroll withholdings so as to return $100 dollars per month of the tax immediately.
Let the people decide if they wish to spend the 100 bucks a month on gasoline or make adjustments to their lifes so as to retain part of the money for other things.
Waxman-Markey was not the only bill that was a farce. From Pewclimate:
\\Summary of McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2005
The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2005 (S.1151) introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT), would limit, from 2010 on, the total greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted by the U.S. electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial sectors to the amount emitted in 2000. The affected sectors represented approximately 85% of the overall U.S. emissions in the year 2000. The bill also would provide for the trading of GHG emission allowances and reductions.
Target: The bill would cap the 2010 aggregate emissions level for the covered sectors at the 2000 level. The bill’s emissions limits would not apply to the direct emissions of the agricultural and the residential sectors. Certain subsectors would be exempt if U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that it was not feasible to measure their GHG emissions. The U.S. Department of Commerce would biennially re-evaluate the level of allowances to determine whether it was consistent with the objective of the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change of stabilizing GHG emissions at a level that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Allowances: An entity that was in a covered sector, or that produced or imported synthetic GHGs, would be subject to the requirements of this bill if it (a) owned at least one facility that annually emitted more than 10,000 metric tons of GHGs (measured in units of carbon dioxide equivalents – MTCO2E); (b) produced or imported petroleum products used for transportation that, when combusted, would emit more than 10,000 MTCO2E; or (c) produced or imported HFC, PFC and SF6 that, when used, would emit more than 10,000 MTCO2E. Each covered entity would be required to submit to the EPA one tradeable allowance for each MTCO2E directly emitted. Each petroleum refiner or importer would be required to submit an allowance for each unit of petroleum product sold that, when combusted, would emit one MTCO2E. Each producer or importer of HFC, PFC, and SF6 would be required to submit an allowance for each unit sold that, when used, would emit one MTCO2E. The EPA would determine the method of calculating the amount of GHG emissions associated with combustion of petroleum products and use of HFC, PFC, and SF6.
Allocation of Allowances: The Commerce Department would determine the amount of allowances to be given away or “grandfathered” to covered entities and the amount to be given to the Climate Change Credit Corporation established by the bill. The Commerce Department’s determination would be subject to a number of allocation factors identified in the bill. The Corporation would use proceeds from the sale of allowances to reduce energy costs of consumers, assist disproportionately affected workers, help low income communities and individuals, disseminate technological solutions to climate change, and aid fish and wildlife in adapting and mitigating the impacts of climate change.
Flexibility Mechanisms: Covered entities would have flexibility in acquiring their allowances. In addition to the allowances grandfathered to them, covered entities could trade with other covered entities to acquire additional allowances, if necessary. Also, any entity would be allowed to satisfy up to 15% of its total allowance requirements by submitting (a) tradeable allowances from another nation’s market in GHGs; (b) a net increase in sequestration registered with the National Greenhouse Gas Database established by the bill; (c) a GHG emission reduction by a non-covered entity registered with the Database; and (d) allowances borrowed against future reductions (as described below). A covered entity that agreed to emit no more than its 1990 levels by 2010 would be allowed meet up to 20% of its requirement through (a) international credits, (b) sequestration, and (c) registered reductions, but not (d) borrowed credits. An entity planning to make capital investments or deploy technologies within the next 5 years would be allowed to borrow against the expected GHG emission reductions to meet current year requirements. The loan would include a 10 percent interest rate.
National Greenhouse Gas Database: The EPA Administrator would be required to implement a comprehensive system for GHG reporting, inventorying, and reductions registrations. Covered entities would be required to report their GHG emissions and non-covered entities would be allowed to register GHG emission reductions and sequestration. The National Greenhouse Gas Database would be, to the maximum extent possible, complete, transparent, accurate, and designed to minimize costs incurred by entities in measuring and reporting emissions. The Commerce Department, within one year of enactment, would be required to establish, by rule, measurement and verification standards and standards to ensure a consistent and accurate record of GHG emissions, emissions reductions, sequestration, and atmospheric concentrations for use in the registry.
Penalty: Any covered entity not meeting its emissions limits would be fined for each ton of GHGs over the limit at the rate of three times the market value of a ton of GHG.//
I was an active supporter of McCain AFTER he won the nomination. However, he is in completely over his head on climate and has not formulated a cogent position. He is completely into the POLITICS of the issue, not the underlying science.
But politics is the art of the possible and I’ll take his opposition to Waxman-Markey for the vote in the Senate that it is worth.
BTW, people ought to go over Markey’s history on energy issues. He and Ralph Nader are together on their long opposition to nuclear power. Markey has been the worst sort of demogogue on nuclear and now he’s expanding his portfolio to include coal.
Jack Winters (23:26:18) :
“Why not just put a $2.00 tax on gasoline? That might help pay for this unbelievable
string of bailouts and “stimulus” spending.”
I guess you don’t live in a fly-over state. Here in wyoming, the nearest town is always 100 miles away. For those of you that take the bus or subway, it sure seems easy to increase the gas tax. How do you think you have fresh fruit in your supermarket? It isn’t by magic. You increase energy costs, EVERYTHING goes up. This is what happened with ethanol. You keep energy costs low, the entire economy grows. It is as simple as that.
The vast majority of those decried here as “liberals” have been consistently misinformed and will change on a dime if given the truth. They are not wedded to a monolithic liberalism. They are wedded to the truth which they are not getting from the media — which is owned by some of the biggest conservatives/corporatists on earth. This does not add up and should be seen as odd. GE owns NBC, “Newsweek”, MSNBC and more so why would they spread the “liberal” gospel of AGW? McCain, Obama, et al are tools. The whole AGW debate may have been a ruse to keep minds off of what is really happening. Like the environmental movement of the 1970s, it diffuses the anger of those who truly want truth, justice and a better world when they think they are participating for the greater good. (Which, in their minds, is the future of your kids and theirs.)
Those who think that a $2 tax on gasoline is a good thing would have to agree that a $3 tax would be an even better thing. 50% better, in fact.
So let’s be really, really good people, and make it a $10 a gallon tax. Think of all the poor people we could help. Think of the children!
BJL (23:36:26) : “Noob Question for you pros out there. What is the relationship between High Pressure systems-High temperatures and Co2? Does Co2 in anyway contribute to high pressure? Thanks”
Well, CO² is pretty diffuse, so it’s doubtful that high pressure systems are related to CO². There are places, however, where CO² concentrations are much higher than average. Why don’t you look into where those spots are and see if you can detect any resulting temperature or pressure signal using climate records. With Mann-o-Matic statistical handling, you might come up with something…robust.
L Nettles (07:13:51) : “Steve this link is for you http://www.mcphee.com/items/11835.html”
But where can I get a set of little Waxman, Gore, Hansen and Pachauri dolls?
Palin is no better than McCain. They will say whatever is necessary to say at the time to get press, get elected, get funded, etc. Palin has said she believed in global warming during the campaign (via the Katy interview). Now she says she doesn’t. What will she say next time? Come on. It’s a 50/50 guess. If you are willing to risk it, vote for her. My opinion is that these two are classic “oil-slicked-teflon-coated-baby-kissing-back-stabbing-you scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours” politicians.
I would like to have a list of politicians who have said that CO2 is not warming the planet, and have said that for lets say the last 3 years. Regardless of election time. That would be a good list to have.
“We think we have come so far — that the torture of heretics and the burning of witches is ancient history. And then, before you can blink an eye, it threatens to start all over again. … Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot; those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camoflaged. … [They] will always be with us, waiting for the right climate to flourish, spreading disease in the name of liberty. Vigilance is the price we must continuously pay.”
* — Jean-Luc Picard
By the way, every representative in the House that voted for the cap and trade bill also can be described as such.
If he really is as vehemently opposed as he says, that will make him a double American Hero in my book-Once for getting tortured by Communist barbarians, and once for sticking it to the same once again.
tj, saying it doesn’t make it so.
The media is OWNED by the left. Even FoxNews. Left.
Not surprisingly, the left has managed to spin this into a dichotomy too, and it’s wrong. It is absolutely untrue that the “big evil corporations” are the domain of the right.
Hansen has always vehemently oppossed cap-and-trade. He would rather see a tax scheme that forces the poor and middle class to reduce consumption.
Surely the powers that be who want all the money and resources will find a way to buy off Palin too.
The only thing that will save us from these carbon monetization schemes is continued cooling of the planet. Eventually, the cold will snap people out of their waking, global warming dream.
tj – there is an excellent post regarding rent seekers over at Master Resource today . It specifically refers to GE , among others .
I think there are many politicians on both sides of the divide that would use something not actually entirely true to get something else if they wanted it badly enough. The subterfuge will even be justified once it has been uncovered. Covertness is the name of the game and we are played by both Repubs and Demos.
Code T, I didn’t mean to infer any such thing. Extreme liberalism and extreme conservatism are one and the same with a slightly different vocabulary (that is the place the divide exists). They must be totalitarian. Global corporations that completely eliminate competition are not conservative are they? Communism/Fascism are indistinguishable in their effect over the masses.
I first heard of wattsup…. from another blog. The owner their puts it correctly, in my opinion, and I paraphrase — I’m not right wing or left wing I’m truth wing.
We all need to leave our boxes behind, after all, that is what science is all about, right?
I’m with Pamela. The question is who’s playing the Repubs and Demos.
The predictor for Cap and Trade is Health Care Reform, specifically single-payer. It is the only possible way under discussion to actually pay for single payer health care. These two terrible bills are linked as the 1.3 – 1.9 trillion raised by Cap and Trade between 2012-2019 (according to Jason Furman) will be required to pay for national health care.
Jack Winters (23:26:18) :
Because the demand for gasoline is fairly inelastic. There is only so much that a given consumer can do to reduce their consumption without large sacrifices. I know of one relative in England who gave up a job because she could no longer afford to drive to work. Fortunately she wasn’t the main breadwinner. To make a significant dent in transportation fuel consumption requires a large investment and a major change in technology. The most attractive alternative is a major conversion to diesel for passenger vehicles, such as has happened in Europe.
Unfortunately, diesel has a very strong political opposition in the US. Consequently, we are chasing other technologies that are either immature (hydrogen, electric vehicles) or more complex than diesel (gasoline hybrids). In Europe diesel is taxed so that it is priced attractively compared to gasoline (high test is about 30% more expensive than diesel), whereas in the US diesel has a higher tax on it than gasoline.
Subsidizing the purchase of diesel engines for passenger vehicles might be a better approach, along with a realignment of fuel taxes so that diesel ends up being cheaper than gasoline.
The potential savings are huge. In 2006, 99.4% of the fuel consumption of cars and 94.9% of light trucks was gasoline. Converting to diesel has the theoretical potential of about a 30% improvement in fuel economy. However, theoretical improvements are rarely achieved, so even assuming you get only about half or about 15%, that would represent a reduction of about 8.9% of the total domestic consumption of transportation energy or about 2,454.5 trillion BTUs which at 138,095 BTUs per gallon of crude oil would be a reduction in consumption of about 17.8 Billion barrels of crude per year.
The beauty of this idea is that it would not only reduce dependence on foreign oil, but it would also drastically reduce CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it would do so in a way that would actually benefit the economy. Unfortunately, common sense is often left on the floor of the sausage factory that is politics, so I don’t have a great hope that this would become policy.
I noticed a typo, shouldn’t it be the “Taxman-Malarkey Climate Bill?”
Pamela, Pamela. A good VP candidate doesn’t contradict what the head of the ticket says. McCain toed the line on AGW, and thus Mrs. Palin being the good little soldier did the same, for the campaign. She has been aggressively pushing for the development of her state’s natural resources all her political career, as well those of the nation as a whole. She is only reverting back to her previously held opinions now that she no longer has to toe the “party line”.
As far Elizabeth’s comment to Mrs. Palin beng bought off, well, there are plenty that already claim she is bought and paid for by the oil companies. Nevermind the fact that she went around the big oil companies to get “her” pipeline deal done. And she demanded that those same oil companies fork over more in royalty payments to the State of Alaska for their Alaskan activities. Seems she doesn’t stay bought.
To think he almost became President. May have even been worse than who we got. The only consolation would have been, he’s old, and … 🙂
Phil. (11:46:20),
Good post. The only part of it that doesn’t pass the smell test [maybe due to incomplete info]:
Otherwise I’m in agreement, especially with the potential annual savings of 17 billion bbl of crude. As a true conservationist [not an environmentalist!] that number made me sit up straight and pay attention.
And Mark Bowlin (11:45:55),
Cap & Trade was originally designed so that the government would pay for the healthcare scheme by auctioning off carbon credits, producing huge revenues from businesses that would have no choice but to buy them.
But that’s not what happened. Instead, in order to get the necessary votes to pass W-M, Congress ended up giving away the credits! Now they’ve got a big problem.
Obama wants to pass his healthcare proposal, but the money that was supposed to pay for it is gone — given away for free [actually, given away to buy votes].
The upshot of the whole boondoggle will be quite an enormous tax increase, and not just on “the rich.” The only place where there’s enough money to fund the new healthcare scheme is the middle class. Obama will have to break another campaign promise: his pledge of no tax increases for 95% of the population. It’s either that, or keep his word.