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.
WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052970204313604574327992553917308.html
I’m happy these two nitwits (McCain and Hansen) …well, ok, ONE nitwit, and ONE Eco-zealot….have ANY REASON whatsoever to oppose the lunacy of Waxman-Markey. Infighting among the faithful will doom them to failure….
But I also find it comical that Hansen in particular is saying, this bill doesn’t STICK A KNIFE IN OUR THROAT and bleed us out quickly enough, so it’s worthless!
McCain will come around if he gets an education on the issue. I’m afraid Hansen is lost in the Eco-vapor forever.
@ur momisugly John Hyndman (19:17:22) :
I forgot that the answer to life the universe and everything was 42. I should know better. Anyway, if you divide my previous estimate of the savings by 42, you get an approximate savings of about 426 million bbl of crude per year
I totally concur with the diesel statement. My BF drives a diesel Jeep sport wagon and gets 21 mpg with no maintenance (what would you need to “oil?”). He can pull anything he wants behind it and its only a 6 banger. I run a ranch so my Jeep is an 8 cylinder with a tow package and on demand low 4wheel drive. It is a bit of a gas guzzler at 18 but I need that kind of power to run a ranch so don’t tax me and then tell me I can’t increase the price of ^%&*^$ meat!!!!!!
re Curiousgeorge (16:48:56) : I will take advantage of your offer to rat to Obama.
I plan to send the complete bill with a note “This smells fishy to me.”
Thanks for the inspiration.
M. Simon (22:41:58) :
“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.”
I understand this is a tongue-in-cheek statement. However, some explication is in order, imo. Both variants are a “spread the near-poverty” philosophy. The elites who control the government and who “control” those who control the means of production live high on the hog, while everyone else — unless they are a relative or otherwise well connected — bottom-feeds the left-overs. As a modern classical liberal (a what?), I believe that government is essential for practical reasons, one of which is national defense. What the private sector cannot solve, government gets to work with attempts to solve; what problems the private sector creates, government regulates — mainly to keep competition and equality of opportunity alive. James Madison is alive and well in modern classical liberalism.
I rue the Enron days when private industry took over power generation (see CA for example); public utilities did a far better job, especially in competition with private ones. It is not just government regulations that created a dearth of new power generation for increasing populations. Those corporations found they made far more by limiting production than by enhancing affluence. Those private industries have globalized with our dollars and are paying the way for the cap-and-trade travesty — including buying our present government.
We must stop calling the media “the main stream media” (MSM); it is “the corporate-controlled media” (CCM). Who are those (global) corporations and what are they telling their minions (there are few investigative or educated reporters left) to report and to ignore? It is time for citizens to take back our country and our world.
All this talk of diesel is ignoring one simple fact: the amount of diesel and gasoline derived from a barrel of oil is fairly constituent. On average you get 19.4 gallons of gasoline and about 7 to 10 gallons of diesel per barrel of oil. Yes, it does depends on the type of oil, as Venezuelan crude yields little gasoline (about 5%), whereas Texas or Arabian crude yields about 30% gasoline. And yes, the refiners can shift somewhat to get a higher yield of diesel vs gasoline, but you will still end up with more gasoline than diesel. There is a reason gasoline became the fuel of choice for autos, not diesel.
Well, umm, you need to oil the cylinders, the cam shafts, all that moving stuff. Though diesel is “fuel oil” it’s not a great lubricant in that respect.
M. Simon (22:41:58) :
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.
Interesting to note that all the above systems worship competition via gaming and sports (e.g. 1936 Olympic games.) But when it comes to accepting market-based competition, it is an unholy creator of privilege. A successful businessman is evil. A successful athlete a god.
@ur momisugly Tarnsman (09:55:24) : I’m not totally up on refining technology and percentages, but I believe jet fuel is also a diesel type product, correct? Then there’s shipping (bunker oil?), and various petrochemicals (plastics, fertilizers, etc. ) Anyway, I agree with you that it (switching to totally diesel) is not as simple as it sounds, if only because of massive up-scaling. Nothing ever is. And what would we do with all that left over gasoline? Maybe we could convert all the trucks, buses, and trains to gas. 😉
Similar problems with other technologies, such as electric, bio, and so on. Scaling, logistics, etc., are the really tough problems. Making ethanol is simple. My granddaddy was real good at it. 🙂 Transporting, storage, etc. of the inputs, as well as the finished product, is quite another problem.
Chuck Bradley (08:11:55) — Do you have the complete bill? Does anyone?
Vincent wrote:
“Einstein famously said ‘When the facts change I change my mind'”
That was Keynes who said it.
“I believe jet fuel is also a diesel type product, correct?”
No, it’s kerosene.
@ur momisugly AnonyMoose (17:47:14) :
“Chuck Bradley (08:11:55) — Do you have the complete bill? Does anyone?”
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c111query.html . Search on Bill Number (dropdown box ) HR2454. There are 4 versions currently. All 4 are available.
@ur momisugly AnonyMoose (17:47:14) : PS: the PDF version of HR2454 that is on the Senate Calendar is here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2454pcs.txt.pdf
No. More or less the petroleum industry can provide the fuel needed.
Standard Oil before it was broken up concentrated on supplying lamp oil, essentially paraffin [UK] Kerosene [US]. But whatever it’s other sins it was much more efficient than it’s rivals by turning heavier fractions into paraffin wax for candles and burning the lighter petrol, gasoline, fraction on site for power.
Except for Standard Oil the lighter gasoline fractions were a throwaway product as indeed were the heavier ones.
So uncertain was the supply of fuel for spark ignition engines that Henry Ford built his model T to run on either gasoline or ethanol.
Likewise a British government was so worried about suppliers diluting lamp oil with lighter and dangerously inflammable petrol, gasoline, that in 1908 it passed the Petroleum Act which specified, and still does, the permitted flash point of paraffin [Kerosene].
The rise of the motor car and it’s demand for gasoline used all the production capacity, so that by the 1930’s the price of gasoline was about four times that of heavier fuel oils which were so cheap they rivalled coal as many had predicted. A point not lost on the British Admiralty which decided as early as 1908 to use dual coal/oil fuelling in all future designs.
The industry responded to the vast excess of heavier fule oil and the demand for lighter fractions by Cracking the heavier oils: conversely countries which had no oil supplies developed synthesis techniques to turn coal into oil.
True modern technology is a little more sophisticated than that of nearly a hundred years ago but the principle is the same.
The only real difference is the availability of natural gas, which is not only abundant around the globe but cheap to extract. And compared to oil cheaper to process into clean refined products too.
It is in the end only a question of price. At a price you can can have all the liquid hydrocarbons you require as might suit your needs. For the next few centuries anyway for there is no shortage of supply.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
Unless you are worried about CO2 of course. In which case you will become very cold, poor and starving.
Kindest Regards.
EPA DENIES SENATE REQUEST FOR COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF WAXMAN-MARKEY
Administrator Refers Senators To Source ‘Independent of Political Appointees’
Washington, D.C. – In a letter to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson summarily denied the Senators’ request for economic analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill and how it would affect families, small businesses, and farmers. In her response, Jackson implied that EPA’s analysis is politically biased by referring the Senators to a separate analysis by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), which, she said, “operates independently of any political appointees.”
So the EPA is secret now?
Actually the lazy EPA is using only regurgitated outside information and it is embarrassing they can’t produce their own work or findings.
Hi all-
I think it likely that the Senate will make a deal with pro-nuclear advocates, and pass a compromise climate bill in the fall.
This would be a very good thing, I think.
Waxman/Markey, and the Senate version of it, are way too weak, but they do start the process of massive industrial change that will be necessary to head off AGW. The clean energy bank is a good thing, and may make it easier for American firms to turn American clean energy inventions into American clean energy industries.
Opponents of the bill would not vote for a carbon tax, either.
~snip~
Leland, of course opponents would not vote for a carbon tax. Since you seem to have missed the most important part, I’ll restate it here:
THERE IS NO NEED.
I’m very sorry that you think the current level of ultra-clean combustion already mandated for industry and transportation is “dirty”, but in that you are completely wrong. The vast majority of emissions from energy is harmless H2O and CO2. The real tragedy is that CO2 is being called “dirty”, which it is NOT.
The obvious next step of these dishonest people is to claim that H2O is dirty… it is, after all, a “chemical”.
The real problem is unstable and high energy prices. The only way to in a hurry stablize energy prices in the cheap range would be to take over world oil sources from terrorist leaning cartels, and long term for developed nations to source cheap energy internally or flat out own external cheap energy sources.
I firmly believe that the current economic woes came from spiraling energy costs due to cartel-set barrel prices rising above the $50.00 mark in chaotic ways. It destabilized industry worldwide in an every increasing snowball till it closed down housing, manufacturing and industry, exports, etc. leading to job loss and and an end to beyond bare-bones spending by the common person.
Even now, barrels and barrels of cartel oil are being held in on-land tanks and offshore in tanker after tanker, just sitting there, yet the price keeps jiggling up and down and mostly up. That oil should be forced into the market, lowering energy costs, and putting the world back to work. And then those that held onto it should be brought to world courts for bringing harm to the world by forcing prices higher than supply and demand warrants. It’s time we stopped financing limos and harems among the hamper heads.
CO2 is just a little bug on the ground compared to what is really happening.
Quoting Vincent:
“I believe that was the main reason Michael Caine moved to Hollywood.”
Commmenting:
You can add Alfred Hichcock and half the Beatles (George and Ringo) to the list of British tax refugees. There were no doubt many more.
Bipartisan opposition is emerging in the Senate to a plan by House lawmakers to spend $550 million for additional passenger jets for senior government officials.
The resistance to buying eight Gulfstream and Boeing planes comes as members of both chambers of Congress embark on the busiest month of the year for official overseas travel
So it is not avout less CO2 It is about taxing us.
Climate can’t even be measured for more than a few days. my weatherman seldom gets it right. Why don’t we control earthquakes, volcanos, underwater eruptions, and all other earthly phenomenon. It makes as much sense as climate change—by Man. Gore is the father of this great lie(actually it was a communist scheme). We’re being scammed. Too many have jumped on the money wagon and perpetuated the great lie. Man does not cause global warming. I’m constantly amazed at “the depth of dumb in washington” and congressmen who can’t read or understand the bills they foist on us. God help us!