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.
Pamela,
Einstein famously said “When the facts change I change my mind” although he did not in the end follow his own advice. As for Sarah Palin, well, maybe she has been following some of these excellent blogs.
Back on topic, economic theory mandates that if you make an input more expensive as by taxing it, then in the short term the supply curve shifts to the left, so that less goods are produced at a higher price which is somewhere between the original price and the price + tax. Both the manufacturer and consumer shoulder the extra burden. In the long term, firms exit the market (no surprises here) and the price rises to include the full amount of the tax – the full burden of the tax is now bourne by the consumer. It follows from the demand curve that less goods will be consumed at a higher price, which translates to a contraction of the economy when the tax is on something as universal as energy.
The only silver lining to the cloud is the very long term supply curve. This is effected by new technologies which lower the marginal costs of production and increases supply once again. Yet to me, this is such a big IF and such a huge gamble. I am unsure if policy makers understand this.
@Tim James
Fascism is not conservatism. Fascism is actually far-left, not far-right. That may be why it’s hard to distinguish from Communism.
“The only place where there’s enough money to fund the new healthcare scheme is the middle class.”
Maybe Obama should take a leaf from the book of Dennis Healey. Healy was the Labour chancellor (treasurer) in the 1970’s who famously boasted he would tax the rich “till the pips squeaked.” As good as his word he raised the upper band of income tax to 80% and additionally decided that income received as interest was a special evil and added an 18% supplemental charge to that. 98% tax on interest! I kid you not. I believe that was the main reason Michael Caine moved to Hollywood. I don’t know if tax receipts went up. I guess not, but hey, why let reality get in the way of taking a position of “leadership” in a “moral crusade.”
BJL Does Co2 in anyway contribute to high pressure? Thanks
CO2 it is only the 3.8 per TEN thousand of the atmosphere. It is heavier than air (Air is composed mainly of 60% nitrogen and 21% oxygen….and 0.038% CO2) so it can not fly away, nitrogen weighs 12, oxygen 32…and CO2 44, so if you look for it…look down.
[snip] ~ ctm
“Fascism is not conservatism. Fascism is actually far-left, not far-right. That may be why it’s hard to distinguish from Communism.”
It’s all the more difficult to understand why Hitler and Stalin were such idealogical enemies. If I was to think of the difference, I would opin that communism is based on the teachings of Marx and Engels who write about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Yet behind this ideaological underpinning, there was in practice, no difference between them.
Socialism is a very different beastie. It always astounds me how traditional socialists have aligned themselves to a plutocratic ideaology which will benefit the rich and clobber the poor. I am referring to cap & trade of course. Maybe they just aren’t as smart as I gave them credit for.
The difference between communism and socialism is the following: Communism is the exploitation of man by man, socialism is the inverse.
Personally, I don’t trust McCain as far as I can throw him. He almost switched twice to the DNC and he’s a believer in AGW. If anything, he thinks this bill is a farce because it doesn’t go far enough in capping and altering our lifestyle.
Well McCain is still wrong, even though his opinion of the California idiot and Malarkey’s bill is correct.
McCain is still a staunch AGW believer; “I’ve been there and seen the results for myself” , or words to that effect. He’s still a very dangerous ideolog; who believes in sleeping with the enemy.
Looks like cap and trade might be off the table.
@ur momisugly Smokey (13:17:24) :
It was admittedly an unusual situation of a low wage, part time job with a long commute, but it does illustrate the inelastic nature of fuel demand. In fact, fuel demand is to a great extent pre-determined at the time of vehicle purchase. Clean diesel technology has the potential to permit consumers to continue purchasing the vehicles that they desire the most (i.e. SUVs, large minivans, etc.) or that fit their needs the most without having to pay a huge fuel cost penalty.
According to http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/technology/clean/diesel_gasoline02.html, diesel engines have a thermal efficiency of 35% to 42%, while gasoline engines are only 25% to 30%. Diesel also has more BTUs per gallon than gasoline (about 138,690 vs. about 125,000).
P.S. My source for my previous comment comes from Table 2.5, Domestic Consumption of Transportation Energy by Mode and Fuel Type of The Transportation Energy Data Book (Edition 27) by Stacy C. Davis, Susan W. Diegel and Robert G. Boundy of the US. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (no longer available online). However, Table 2.5 from Edition 28 (http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb28/Edition28_Full_Doc.pdf) is available at http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb28/Spreadsheets/Table2_05.xls. Updating the numbers using the Edition 28 data, the 8.9% of the total domestic consumption of transportation energy becomes 8.8%, 2,454.5 trillion BTUs savings becomes 2,468.27 trillion BTUs and the reduction in consumption of about 17.8 billion bbl of crude per year becomes around 17.9 billion bbl.
SunSword (06:55:01) :
This is a precise example of what makes “weakapedia” an utterly unreliable source. No oversight, no quality control, no legitimate editors. Just printed mayhem from a political perspective.
crosspatch (15:15:29) : ” Looks like cap and trade might be off the table. ” Might is the operative word. It may be delayed some, but it will come back like a bad penny. There’s way too much money and political power to be had to let it die. It’s a tyrants dream.
And in case anyone missed it, don’t forget to rat on your fellow citizens about things that upset the Whitehouse. Health reform in this instance, but you can bet it will grow to include Cap&Trade, etc. Sounds like something I’d expect from Chavez.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/
” There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov. ”
Sounds like something I’d expect from Chavez.
Smokey (13:17:24) :
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]”
Well, not yet Smokey. Remember that the Senate has yet to complete its version, let alone reconciliation with W-M. My belief is that a climate bill is being pushed to the right (of the calendar) until health reform plays out. Then if climate revenues are required to fund national health, it’ll be all hands on deck for dems to craft/pass a revenue generating bill.
Phil…
Coming to this post a bit late, I apologize.
Something doesn’t ring right with your numbers or maybe I don’t understand your point of reference. Annual U.S crude consumption these days is something like 7 billion barrels. When you say that 17.8 billion barrels can be saved each year, are you sure your source data refers to the U.S.? 17.8 billion barrels is about half of world oil consumption. I’m not sure switching to diesel motors worldwide can bring about that kind of savings.
I am a big fan of European diesel autos, by the way. Europe’s tax and emissions policies have favored a transportation product that we don’t have.
All the best,
John Hyndman
tj:
Absolutely, totally and completely NOT SO. And I’m sure neither of the “extreme conservatives” would agree with you either.
My conservative leaning comes from watching how stupid liberals tend to be. They allow themselves to be completely and totally blinded by an ideal. Sure, let’s feed the children, sure, let’s save the poor eagles, sure, let’s have peace in our world. But there is a LAW (not a guideline or a principle, a LAW) of unintended consequences.
You can not, and never will be able to, make large social changes by decree. It is physically impossible to change from a petroleum society overnight, no matter how much money is thrown at the problem. We all drive petroleum-fueled vehicles, and most of us don’t WANT to part with our vehicles even if someone comes along with a free replacement. I have what I have for a reason.
Oh yeah, and there’s NO SUCH THING AS FREE (TANSTAAFL). Just because you don’t pay for something at the gate doesn’t mean you don’t pay for it somewhere else. I live in one of the worst socialized health care systems in the world, and the black-hole that it is has consumed our entire budget for decades now. Ever wonder why Canada’s military is so downgraded? Ever drive in this country and see the condition of roads? Most of our “government services” are hacked and slashed in order to pay for health care. Oh yeah, it IS that simple. I personally KNEW people for whom the rationed health care system failed. I say knew, because they are now dead.
And there is a whole wing of the US that thinks they want this. You don’t.
I’d be interested in hearing of ANY liberal-hatched or liberal-implemented scheme that has actually worked or been a net positive, because I bet for every one that someone pulls up I can demonstrate that it was actually a failure that has been covered up or ignored or worse, blamed on the right.
Generally speaking, conservatives want change too, but only for the better. There are many times that it is better to leave things alone and let them naturally resolve themselves than to try to throw money or laws at them to “fix” them. Conservatives wanted improvements to the levee system in New Orleans. Conservatives wanted to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Conservatives wanted to slow down the bubbles that were forming all around them, knowing they were due to burst. Conservatives do NOT want bailouts, incentives, kick-starts, government owned car companies, or giant intrusive cap and trade ponzi schemes.
The Government doesn’t pay for anything. You do. And if you don’t, they just come and TAKE it.
Ah, what’s the use? You’ve already decided that you have a handle on left vs. right, and like most people you think you’re in the middle.
The second the conservative party line expunges itself of its religiousity and psuedo-moral laws (abortion, marriage, end of life decisions, etc) they want stamped into the constitution, I will change my conservative liberal leanings to entirely conservative. The bottom line is this: for all the good that conservatives do, they still want to stick their nose into my bedroom, the ring on my finger, and my life and death decisions. It is the most privately intrusive party we have. On the other hand, the liberal party wants to stay out of my private life but makes the mistake of trying to save the world.
potential annual savings of 17 billion bbl of crude.
Eventually. It might take 5 years (new vehicle designs) to start getting any savings and another 15 years after that to get 1/2 the savings.
Why is diesel taxed higher? Because diesel is used in large trucks. The damage done to roads is roughly as the square of tire loading (IIRC – some one correct me if I’m wrong). So the higher diesel taxes pays for road upkeep.
Pamela Gray (20:33:47),
Absolutely. I’m a libertarian Republican. I am making an effort to change the “conservatives” from within.
Contact yer critters:
House of Representatives
The Senate
Communism: government owns the means of production
Fascism: government controls the means of production
Both are variants of socialism. Socialism is a “spread the wealth” philosophy.
Paying someone to plant trees to sequester carbon is a big rip-off. After 24 years of tramping through National Forests as an Engineering Geologist, I have seen trees grow, trees mature, trees grow old and fall on the forest floor to decay and give of carbon dioxide or be eaten by methane emitting termites. So much for carbon sequestering. The only way to sequester carbon for the time of human kind existence is to precipitate it as limestone on the ocean floor and bury it with hundreds of feet of sediment. Even then some volcano will grab it up and belch it back into the air again as carbon dioxide.
Pamela Gray (20:33:47) :
Sorry, but I gotta disagree with you in this one. The notion that society does not have an interest in your sex life, your life-time alliances and how your life ends is just plain false. Whether the class is Intro Soc, Deviance or Cultural Anthro, I still have to deal with a chapter on either sexuality or family structure… so I ask the kids, “ahh, any of you got a hot cousin? Ever think of dating him…..” even better, in the gerontology chapter…. “hmmm? Do you think your grand parents are still doing it?” After calling in maintenance to deal with the vomit we may. perhaps, start dealing with reality. Norms exist for a reason. Ask Thomas Hobbes or John Locke.
@ur momisugly John Hyndman (19:17:22) :
The trouble is that the table states gasoline consumption in trillions of BTUs. I tried to convert to barrels of crude by dividing the savings in trillions of BTUs by the number of BTUs per barrel. That may not be the best way to do the conversion. If someone knows of a more correct way to convert trillions of BTUs of gasoline to barrels of crude, I would be most grateful. In any event, the potential savings is huge.
@ur momisugly M. Simon (22:19:28) :
Your point about the time it would take to achieve these savings is very accurate, but the technology and infrastructure to begin immediate conversion to diesel is already developed and the potential savings well known. Conversely, alternative technologies for fossil fuel savings suffer from technical difficulties, infrastructure issues and complexities. The most promising alternative, hybrid gasoline vehicles, can be improved upon by roughly 30% by making them diesel hybrids. Battery technology has a long way to go to make all-electric vehicles a practical alternative and infrastructure to recharge them is also a big issue.
Hydrogen is, for the foreseeable future, a dead end. First of all, it is not found in nature in a form from which energy can be readily extracted. It needs to be manufactured with processes that use up about as much energy as it contains, which makes hydrogen compete with other energy storage methods like batteries. In other words, the energy to manufacture hydrogen needs to come from somewhere else. Furthermore, at present hydrogen is being manufactured from fossil fuels, so an alternative source needs to be developed if we are to find a substitute for fossil fuels.
Furthermore, a recent trial by the Valley Transportation Authority in San Jose, California using 3 hydrogen-fuelled buses is even more discouraging. According to a report issued early last year and reported by the San Jose Mercury News on February 26, 2008,
The biggest cost component was parts, with a cost per mile of $34.40.
Further, according to a VTA memo dated January 24, 2008,
Furthermore fuel losses are a huge problem. From the memo:
That would be like spilling one gallon of diesel for each gallon consumed by the engine. Reduction of such losses to minimal levels may be a challenge.
Also, the main manufacturer, Ballard, a pioneer in fuel cell technology has stepped back from this effort. From the memo:
Clean diesel should be the logical choice for near term reduction of both oil imports as well as CO2 emissions. It seems to me that it has both a greater potential for CO2 emissions reductions as well as a much lower cost (in fact, probably a benefit) to the economy.