It seems difficult to figure out just what the Boxer-Kerry bill is these days. If nothing else, its a sloppy rush job, beyond that, is it climate, or something else? How much will it cost? Only the shadow knows.
From Wall Street Journal Blogs Environmental Capital:
By Keith Johnson
Okay, so Sen. Barbara Boxer has moved the energy and climate bill out of the Environment and Public Works Committee and onto the Senate floor. That doesn’t get the bill any closer to garnering 60 votes, but as Sen. Boxer said, it can’t get 60 votes while stuck in committee, either.
The chairwoman of the environment committee defended her decision to pass the bill despite a Republican boycott; usually, Senate panels require at least a token presence of the minority party. Rules do allow for a simple majority vote, rules that “are there to be used when the Majority feels it is in the best interest of their states and of the nation to act,” Sen. Boxer said.
The GOP wants to see more economic analysis of the impacts of the bill, which would create a cap-and-trade program, but Sen. Boxer said another report by the Environmental Protection Agency would be “duplicative and a waste of taxpayer dollars.” The EPA did sort of analyze the current Kerry-Boxer bill, but it largely cribbed from an earlier analysis of a similar House bill.
One interesting thing: Climate change and global warming does seem to be slipping down the list of Democratic talking points. Sen. Boxer said the bill “addresses a crucial issue of our time.”
What would that be? Turns out there’s several—but saving the planet from climate catastrophe isn’t one of them. The bill will “move us away from foreign oil imports that cost Americans one billion dollars a day, it will protect our children from pollution, create millions of clean energy jobs, and stimulate billions of dollars of private investment,” Sen. Boxer said.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A few weeks ago one of my Senators, Kirsten Gillebrand, had a WSJ editorial pointing out how prepared New York is for cap-and-trade. We already have Wall Street with all their experience in trading futures. She waxed rhapsodic about the boon this would be for Wall Street and all of New York.
An endless supply of government money and Wall Street traders, what could go wrong?
Take a look at the weather in CA during the winter of 1862-1863, I believe it was. It rained without letup from nothern border to southern border for 30 days and 30 nights. Something like 75% of the man made structures in the state got washed away. In Sacramento, all that could be seen (from a boat, of course) were the tops of the telegraph poles sticking out of the water. The San Joaquin Valley became a lake some 280 miles by 80 miles, traversible by boat. Half of the city of San Diego was washed out to the ocean, as were at least a half a million head of cattle. All rivers in SoCal changed their courses.
Now the eco-whackos want to return the Los Angeles River to its natural (unpaved) state. My background in hydraulic engineering tells me that it would then have only about half of the capacity to carry the runoff it now carries to prevent flooding of homes and businesses.
What a way to substantially reduce the problem of illegal aliens in the US. By all means, return the Los Angeles River to its natural state.
If an equivalent set of storms happened now, even with all of the flood control facilities that have been constructed since then, millions of people in California would simply drown. Millions.
Of course. were the New Madrid earthquakes circa 1812-1813 were to recur (as they will), the devastation in the Mississippi Valley would be enormous. Once again, millions of Americans would die quickly.
Oh, but we must spend all of our treasure to prevent . . . to prevent . . . Would someone at least wipe the sweat from the warmmongers’ brows? . . . they are getting feverish indeed. And want to pass their illness on to the rest of us.
Jim (06:09:23) : “Does Kerry think the more smug he can muster, the more likely someone takes him seriously?”
It’s all paht of his Kennedy impehsonation.
[snip]
Sorry to pick on Kerry, but so mnay pictures of him look like cardboard cutouts, this one included.
Chu talking like a chicken:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/11/05/more-on-secy-chu%E2%80%99s-convoluted-climate-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-29866