Two Senators upcoming presser on CLEAR Act

I get letters, I’m not sure how I ended up on this list. Looks like Harry Reid and John Kerry have some competition for a “Climate bill”. It seems like the public can attend, see how to register below. A video follows.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/pacificnw/2001/1202/cover1.jpghttp://www.rurdev.usda.gov/ME/HomePage%20Archive/sc2.jpg

Sen. Cantwell Left, Sen. Collins, Right

Please register for this event online at: http://www.aei.org/event/100268

Controlling Greenhouse Gases: The CLEAR Act Option

With Remarks by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan M. Collins (R-Maine)

Thursday, July 29, 2010, 2:00–3:30 p.m.

G11 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20002

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy, and Senator Susan M. Collins (R-Maine) will explain their proposed approach to control greenhouse gases: the admirably concise, 39-page Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act. This act follows the House’s passage of the 1,428-page* Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act and the introduction in the Senate of the 987-page* Kerry-Lieberman Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, both of which would strictly control greenhouse gas emissions via cap-and-trade. Alan D. Viard and Kenneth P. Green, resident scholars at AEI, will comment briefly after the senators’ remarks.

*as of July 19, 2010

Agenda:

1:45 p.m.

Registration

2:00

Introduction:

KENNETH P. GREEN, AEI

2:10

Address:

SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL (D-Wash.)

SENATOR SUSAN M. COLLINS (R-Maine)

2:40

Respondents:

ALAN D. VIARD, AEI

KENNETH P. GREEN, AEI

3:00

Question and Answer

3:30

Adjournment

_______________________________________________________________________________________

I will attend the Controlling Greenhouse Gases event on Thursday, July 29.

Name:

Title:

Affiliation:

Address:

City/State/Zip:

Telephone:

Fax:

E-mail:

___ Please check if this is a new address.

___ I do not plan to attend this event, but please e-mail me related event materials.

Please register online at www.aei.org/events or by faxing this form to 202.862.7171. Shortly after the event occurs, a video webcast will be available on the AEI website at www.aei.org/video.

For more information, please contact Hiwa Alaghebandian at hiwa.alaghebandian@aei.org.

For media inquiries, please contact Véronique Rodman at vrodman@aei.org.

Visit AEI’s new blog at http://blog.american.com.

==============================================

Here’s YouTube video from Cantwell’s website explaining her view of it:

Some links to documents:

Legislation

Documents

Advertisements

105 thoughts on “Two Senators upcoming presser on CLEAR Act

  1. CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you’ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it.
    CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (and Not SUV: That dark is SOOT=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in.
    CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
    There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases” are gases IN a greenhouse, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated not to lose its heat so rapidly. If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 like the window panes in a greenhouse, but …the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.
    See:
    http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf
    CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2… (you didn’t know it, did you?)
    You and I, we are made of CARBON and WATER.
    The atmosphere, the air, can not hold heat, its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic centimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times.
    This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles.
    Global Warmers models expected a kind of heated CO2 piggy bank to form in the tropical atmosphere, it never happened simply because it can not.
    If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.

  2. Greenhouse Gasses… I like growing plants in a greenhouse because they do much, much better than trying to get them to grow in this cold, windy, miserable world. The only people that want to control/limit greenhouse gasses apparently don’t want foodstuff production to increase (or they’re hooked on the false notion that polar bears can’t survive without plenty of ice). Apparently they haven’t read the research that shows plants need less water when CO2 levels are up. Apparently they haven’t learned that the earth goes through prolonged periods, about 100,000 years each, where temperatures are so low that feeding the current earth’s population will be very difficult at best, and that these 100,000-year frozen periods are intersperced with relatively short, 10,000-year periods where man generally thrives, especially during the warmest segments of those warm periods. Nor are they even slightly concerned that this current warm period is about gone. But then leave it to government officials to get it all wrong (they should work for the people but lately they’ve been working for someone else although you’re still supposed to foot the tab).

  3. We charge the companies X amount, so the price rise to you is X (100%), we keep 25% of X and you get back 75% of X, you will have to find your own 25% of X somewhere else.
    So, the money cycles through a government department and they skim 25% off the top. Better than Vegas.

  4. CLEAR is what you are after becoming an accomplished scientologist, right? Hmm, sounds like a bargain.

  5. This is just another way to increase the cost of energy, criopple American industry, drive jobs overseas and redistribute wealth. It is based on the incorrect idea that carbon dioxide gas is a pollutant or that it will unduly warm the earth. First, CO2 is essential to life and not a pollutant. Second, since levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have very little effect on temperature, and increasing the amount of CO2 improves agriculture, there will be no benefit to counterbalance the negative effects of this proposed legislation.

  6. Heh.
    Did you think they went away?
    They were just getting vajazzled for xmas.
    Nor all your talk can move but a breeze, sweet though it may be.
    That won’t stop the tsunami. Prepare to swallow the sea.
    They keep winning because they have all your money.
    You keep giving them all your money and you should expect to get what you got and have nobody to blame but yourself. They would not and could not do what they do except that you so eagerly pay for it. Would that half the effort went to not paying – you could stop it over night. But you believe in it. The proof is self evident- you indulge in the drama and keep paying. That’s 100% empirical, my skeptical friends.
    You have got what you paid for – that’s 100% empirical.
    It could not happen without your voluntary support – that is 100% empirical.
    Your money makes this happen. Control it better. Act as if you are worthy to be owner of a life (your own) 0r the proofs of the contrary will continue to mount.
    Things will change when you demonstrate your worthiness to live. You don’t really believe you are- that’s just empirical- one need only look at what you do.

  7. What can I say? The CLEAR act is intelligently put together by people who believe that global warming is real. They seem like nice people deceived by the global warming propaganda machine. Unfortunately, global warming is physically impossible. That is why it has never been observed as you can find out in my book “What Warming?” It is physically impossible because the infrared band of the atmosphere where carbon dioxide absorbs is saturated. This means that addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has no influence whatsoever on the already-existing greenhouse effect. This is not theory but empirical observations – facts about nature. Ferenc Miskolczi [1] used NOAA’s database of weather balloon observations to determine that “… the global average annual infrared optical thickness has been unchanged for 61 years, with a value of 1.87. It will be inferred that CO2 does not affect the Earth’s climate through the greenhouse effect.” This is because carbon dioxide must absorb infrared radiation to cause greenhouse warming, and this does not happen. Sixty one years of constantly adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has not changed the transparency of the atmosphere one whit or the optical thickness would have increased, and it did not. Case closed.
    [1] Ferenc Miskolczi, “The stable stationary value of the earth’s global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness” E&E 21(4):243-246 (2010)

  8. “climate bill”
    Never has climate responded to lawmakers. Never.
    Call it a shakedown on energy consumption. You could place any King, brand of religion or tax over the Sahara and the desert climate wouldn’t change.
    I suspect Soros and other speculators are drooling over carbon trading schemes.

  9. This should be called ‘The Rainbow Stew Act’.
    Ms. Cantwell, Washington states other socialist senator, declares that all fossil fuels will be controlled by carbon trading schemes, creating artificial shortages of our lowest cost, high BTU density energy forms to allow the higher cost, lower efficiency, taxpayer subsidized forms of energy to ‘flourish’. She declares that no consumers will be economically hurt by this and most will ‘come out ahead’. What a pile of Barbara Striesand!! Unfortunately, we’ll have to deal with Ms. Cantwell in 2012. Right now, the focus is on punting Patty ‘Cakes’ Murray out of her senate seat, for playing patty cakes with SEIU, ACORN, and a long list of socialist organization that are big money contributors to her and Maria.
    Why ‘The Rainbow Stew Act’? Merle Haggard was spot on, when he sang Rainbow Stew decades ago. Get your silver spoon ready for a heapin helpin of wishful thinking Rainbow Stew…… (Note: Bubble Up was/is a lemon lime soda pop that’s been around in the north central part of the US since 1919.)

    Rainbow Stew – Merle Haggard
    There’s a big, brown cloud in the city,
    And the countryside’s a sin.
    An’ the price of life is too high to give up,
    Gotta come down again.
    When the world wide war is over and done,
    And the dream of peace comes true.
    We’ll all be drinkin’ free bubble-up,
    Eatin’ that rainbow stew.
    When they find out how to burn water,
    And the gasoline car is gone.
    When an airplane flies without any fuel,
    And the sunlight heats our home.
    One of these days when the air clears up,
    And the sun comes shinin’ through.
    We’ll all be drinkin’ free bubble-up,
    An’ eatin’ that rainbow stew.
    Eatin’ rainbow stew in a silver spoon,
    Underneath that sky of blue.
    All be drinkin’ free bubble-up,
    An’ eatin’ that rainbow stew.
    Instrumental break.
    You don’t have to get high to get happy,
    Just think about what’s in store.
    When people start doin’ what they oughta be doin’,
    Then they won’t be booin’ no more.
    When a President goes through the White House door,
    An’ does what he says he’ll do.
    We’ll all be drinkin’ free bubble-up,
    Eatin’ that rainbow stew.
    Eatin’ rainbow stew in a silver spoon,
    Underneath that sky of blue.
    We’ll all be drinkin’ that free bubble-up,
    Eatin’ some rainbow stew.
    Eatin’ rainbow stew in a silver spoon,
    Underneath that sky of blue.
    All be drinkin’ that free bubble-up,
    Eatin’ rainbow stew.

  10. Arno Arrak says:
    Arno, i’m sure your book is great but instead of plugging it in every thread why don’t you just let your name link to an Amazon page about it or to a website of your own? That would be the legitimate way to do it IMHO.

  11. Arno Arrak: July 20, 2010 at 11:47 am
    What can I say? The CLEAR act is intelligently put together by people who believe that global warming is real. They seem like nice people deceived by the global warming propaganda machine.
    Nice people who are ignorant can be dangerous, too. Being mugged by a polite robber rather than an obnoxious one merely lessens the outrage — your money’s still gone.
    They believe passing this bill will reduce overall CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050? They’re fools, to boot…

  12. Same old song and dance — we pay more for pollution and put Americans out of work. Can’t they come up with something better than this tax and spend nonsense?
    From How Does the CLEAR Act Work?
    75% of [carbon permit] auction revenues are given back to consumers directly each month on an equal per capita basis to offset energy cost increases.
    • Average annual refunds for a family of four are estimated to be approximately
    $1000.
    • Sending auction revenues directly to consumers means 80% of the American public
    will incur no net costs and the lowest income population will receive net positive
    benefits. The remaining 20% percent – the highest income earners—will see less
    than a 0.3% decrease in income.
    25% of [carbon permit] auction revenues go into the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust Fund to pay for additional greenhouse gas emissions reductions, low‐carbon energy investment, climate change adaptation, and related regional economic adjustment projects.

  13. “75% of the auction revenue is returned directly to voters”
    Wahoo! I’m going to be rich if this passes.
    /sarc
    MikeEE

  14. On the positive side,
    1. While CLEAR is pretty stupid, at least it’s comprehensible, as opposed to the Kerry plan which is mind numbingly stupid and incomprehensible,
    2. CLEAR will be considerably easier to unwind once people realize the damage it’s doing, and the flying pink unicorn nature of the goals,
    3. They are planning to use the funds obtained (maybe a few percent) for some economically beneficial activities.
    Better would be to ignore the AGW hoax altogether, but when people are emotionally committed to doing stupid things, this is probably the best we can hope for.

  15. This is yet another attempt to separate people from their money among other things. “by 2012 the price of carbon shares shall not be less than $7/ton” explicitly enforced by govt. market dictate. Tell me that’s part of a free society. By 2050 limit emissions to 17% of 2005 levels. Translation: Destroy modern US society or at least set it back to late 1800’s. Effect on climate/weather? Zero. Effect on standard of living? Hugely negative.
    These competing climate bills are obviously a game to see which powermad, narcissistic, wannabe dictator can screw the public the most.

  16. Henry chance says: July 20, 2010 at 11:55 am
    “I suspect Soros and other speculators are drooling over carbon trading schemes.”
    We have monetized the air!
    And now the proletariat will pay us for it!

  17. Enneagram says:
    July 20, 2010 at 11:24 am
    Is there a contest to put the most errors, misdirections and extraneous material into one comment? I’ll just take one:
    “If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.”
    I challenge you to name one scientist, politician or activist who is advocating reducing CO2 levels to zero.
    There are plenty who are demanding zero emmisions, but that is a very different objective. Hansen has advocated stabilising CO2 levels at 350 ppm. That’s 70ppm above natural, and 350ppm above zero.

  18. The dry ice in the plastic soda bottle (presumably) to “represent” fossil fuels is a nice touch to the propaganda. It’s a nice change from the usual power plant smokestacks belching out steam to “show” “climate pollution”.

  19. Obama wants to cure the symptom of unemployment instead of the biggest cause, i.e., unsettling uncertainiy due to his “changes”. By shutting down almost all offshore drilling until November (maybe beyond), and foisting enactment of a carbon tax to fight the scam hysteria of “global warming”, Obama is pursuing a war on energy. Now he has some mainly foolish support from Maine. If they win, we lose — by suffering bigger balance of trade deficits because we’ll need more imported oil, and reap higher unemployment from much higher artificially hiked energy costs. Do they think American factories run on lobster power?

  20. Edward Boyle @11:40 am said it all in just a few words.
    Dave McK,
    Can you explain how we should avoid paying taxes? I don’t ‘give’ money to the gov’t, I pay taxes because the alternative is not worth the hassle. Then, they completely mis-spend the money they take. Remember the multi-thousand page healthcare bill, which no one was allowed to read before it was passed? And recently the Democrats “deemed” their bill to have passed — without a vote!
    They have learned to game the system. They cheat the citizens they purport to represent. Now the BIG LIE is being pushed hard; that “carbon” [by which scientific illiterates mean carbon dioxide, a harmless and beneficial trace gas] is a “pollutant.”
    This proposed “bipartisan” [IOW, 100% Democrat] bill is nothing but another tax increase. They lie when they claim that it will reduce atmospheric CO2; China has already surpassed the U.S. in manufacturing, and they heavily out-emit the U.S. with CO2. They won’t stop, they will continue building 2 – 4 new coal-fired power plants every week until at least 2024 [per the Economist]. India, Russia, Brazil, and a hundred smaller countries will follow their lead.
    This bill is yet another way for government to get its hands deeper into our pockets — and for no discernible effect. It is simply another money grab. So I would like to stop funding them. But I can’t see how it is possible to stop their funding – they have the police power of the state, backed by the legal system. If you personally don’t pay the government, I would like to know how you do it.

  21. Just don’t complain buddies!, in my country we pay US$5.40 per gallon and nobody gets mad. It’s all about Global Governance, ya know…
    The difference between global government and global governance is that, by the second one, pseudo independent countries enforce by their “own will” binding agreements signed with the UN and other nice international organizations.

  22. richard telford says:
    July 20, 2010 at 12:19 pm
    ‘Hansen has advocated stabilising CO2 levels at 350 ppm. That’s 70ppm above natural, and 350ppm above zero.’
    Who told you 280ppm was natural?

  23. Smokey says:
    July 20, 2010 at 12:31 pm
    That’s it!. Consumption won’t decrease anything after taxes on fuels are enforced. It has not happen everywhere and it won’t in your case. My hunch is that you will have to accept not only this tax but an Added Value Tax beginning at 15% and ending at 20%. Other alternative is a sudden thousand per cent inflation, from one day to the other. Though you can choose to face reality and wait standing up for the tsunami and after surfing it over, find the nice guys who caused it and give them their well deserved reward.

  24. Mongolia could do with some of that “global warming” these legislators are talking about:
    Mongolia’s winter of “white death”:
    The catastrophic winter of 2009-2010 has killed millions of animals and left thousands of rural families struggling to survive.
    Tsedendamba, who like many Mongolians uses only his given name, was experienced enough to foresee the dzud, or “white death”. He roamed far across central Övorkhangai province to ensure his livestock fed well despite the summer drought. He prepared fodder for the coming winter and built up their shelter. Others slaughtered the weakest animals to ensure more food for the strongest.
    None of it was enough. Temperatures fell to -50ºC and thick snow buried the grass. By the time it finally melted in May, nearly 9,000 families had seen their entire herds freeze or starve to death. Another 33,000, including Tsedendamba’s, lost half their livestock. Almost 10 million cattle, sheep, goats, horses, yaks and camels have died, a fifth of the country’s total, at a cost of 520bn tögrögs (£250m).
    Pregnant animals miscarried and weakened ones are still succumbing to illness. Only the ravens are fat here, gorged on carrion. For many households, their only recent income has been UN payments for burying carcasses.
    It took 14 days for Erdenebileg’s family to drive what remained of their flock the 300 miles from southern Dundgovi province to a bleak hillside in Töv province, close to Ulan Bator. Once, they enjoyed “a pretty decent life”, selling cashmere and spare animals for cash to supplement the meat and milk from their 600-strong herd. Then came the winter. “Every day we saw our animals dying in front of us. I was devastated,” said the 32-year-old, her face etched deep by the wind and worry.
    …Bet they’re all wondering when the “global warming” is going to reach Mongolia?

  25. richard telford says:
    July 20, 2010 at 12:19 pm
    There are plenty who are demanding zero emmisions, but that is a very different objective. Hansen has advocated stabilising CO2 levels at 350 ppm. That’s 70ppm above natural, and 350ppm above zero.
    What is this natural level you speak of.
    The CO2 level has changed dramatically over the last billion years on earth, so what is the “natural” level. From an Ice Age, the time of the dinosaur’s, the MWP, the LIA.
    Who defines the climate optimum and how can their desicion be called the “natural” level?

  26. To remember, what Kate says:
    For many households, their only recent income has been UN payments for burying carcasses
    Don’t forget it!

  27. John from CA says:
    July 20, 2010 at 12:11 pm
    25% of [carbon permit] auction revenues go into the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust Fund to pay for additional greenhouse gas emissions reductions, low‐carbon energy investment, climate change adaptation, and related regional economic adjustment projects.

    Bolded section should be interpreted as “income redistribution”.

  28. Well, Smokey, the very first step is to declare your sovereignty – if you determine that you are worth it. I don’t find it to be an alternative not worth the hassle – I find it to be the fundamental requirement for life as a human being.
    Next, I refuse to produce anything in exchange for stolen goods or for parasites who subsist on stolen goods.
    Next, I don’t wear a star.
    Then, I don’t blame others for the bad results of my own decisions and take full responsibility for myself.
    Finally, I made my words match my deeds and have no disconnect between my thoughts, actions, and reality.
    Whenever you find that you are surprised by something – that’s worth examining because it reveals a disconnect between perception and reality.
    Reality is never in error, so it calls for a readjustment of the perceptions to conform to the emirical data.
    I’m so seldom surprised. So much is a rerun.
    Smokey- in 1976, the 200th anniversary of Tea in the Bay, I was the youngest and highest paid section foreman on a large railroad. I had just finished reading Atlas Shrugged. It made sense.
    I proceeded to scrawl WHO IS JOHN GALT on half a dozen box cars, to mix with the hobo tags, and I quit. I have not since filed an income tax form. It is stupid and wrong so I won’t do it.
    If you ever come to mean what you say, you will find that it’s just that easy.
    Not even an army can break my NO.
    It is absolute.

  29. Cantwell says: ““The scientific debate about the reality of man-made climate change is now over: climate change is real, urgent, and largely man-made.”
    The CLEAR Act says: “three quarters of auction proceeds would be paid out equally and directly each month to every U.S. citizen and legal resident, regardless of their age, income, or level of energy use.” But: “States could also elect to levy income taxes on refunds in order to fund programs”
    See: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/CantwellCollins.htm for a look at CLEAR. This page also shows temperature history for Washington (Cantwell) and Maine (Collins) – both states have had Zero Warming over the last more than 100 years.

  30. Two things jump out at me about this Act. The first is that it plans to charge companies $X for these carbon shares, then give 75% of X to the American people to offset the resulting increase in energy costs. That means there is still 25% of the cost of the shares that will be passed on to consumers, and the additional admin fees that will be incurred in operating and participating in this system. And all of this hinges on Congresses ability hand that money over once they get it…
    Second, the Act plans to charge a “border adjustment to maintain fair markets for American manufacturers, as long as these adjustments do not violate any relevant international trade agreement or treaty to which the United States is a party.” That seems like it will be very difficult to enforce. I work for the gov’t in a similar capacity, and it is almost impossible to prevent circumvention of measures like this one. It will be much cheaper to move your production off-shore and find ways around the adjustment than to pay for your carbon credits. Plus, you can ditch those pesky high paid, healthcare benefit wanting American workers. All these plans incentivise taking production off-shore. Why make it less desirable to keep your manufacturing sector in your own country?

  31. And so, having revealed much, it’s down-periscope.
    And now, CTM – you know the rest of the story.
    All names are fake. Email is disposable.
    So long. I hope you figure out what winning is and what’s worth winning.

  32. Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal
    Renewal is not what happens when you hike the prices of people’s electricity.
    Renewal is not what happens when the government institutes massive new fees and regulations.
    Renewal is not what happens when you are splitting 20% of your previous economy between yourselves.
    Renewal is what happens when you send Senators home to play with their green plastic bottles spewing visible co2. And give them extra surgical gloves – that stuff is dangerous!

  33. richard telford says July 20, 2010 at 12:19 pm: “Hansen has advocated stabilising CO2 levels at 350 ppm. That’s 70ppm above natural, and 350ppm above zero.”
    Is the “stabilization” to be done in all 8,000,000,000 square miles of the Earth’s atmosphere, or only some of it?

  34. Edward Boyle says:
    July 20, 2010 at 11:40 am
    This is just another way to increase the cost of energy, criopple American industry, drive jobs overseas and redistribute wealth. It is based on the incorrect idea that carbon dioxide gas is a pollutant or that it will unduly warm the earth. ….
    ________________________________________________________________
    Actually it has nothing to do with CO2. CO2 is just the Trojan horse used to convince the public to open the gate.
    This bill has everything to do with the implementation of Holdren, Obama’s Science Adviser’s, ideas from 1973. Notice that CAGW was first raised by Maurice Strong at the UN’s First Earth Summit in 1972, so the economic “solution” came before CO2 was ever “shown” to be a problem.
    ” In their 1973 book “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions,” Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote:
    “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-devolopment means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.”
    “The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.””
    http://grendelreport.posterous.com/obamas-science-czar-advocates-de-developing-t
    CO2 causes global warming was the “massive campaign launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America.” Agenda 21 is the “stable, low-consumption economy” that these traitors have designed and plan to implement.
    Think I am nuts? then check out:
    Global Governance & Sustainable Development (B1) in a Climategate e-mail
    IPCC Emissions Scenarios
    Sustainable Development => Agenda 21
    * Sustainable Development ====================
    B1] 13th session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development
    (Source: Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Vol. 5 No. 218, 11 Apr 05)
    The thirteenth session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-13) takes place from 11-22 April 2005, at UN headquarters in New York. CSD-13 is the second session to be held since the new multi-year programme of work was adopted at CSD-11 in 2003. The new work programme restructured CSD’s work on the basis of two-year “Implementation Cycles.” Each Implementation Cycle is comprised of a Review Year and a Policy Year, and focuses on a thematic cluster of issues. Building on the outcomes of CSD-12 (which was the Review Year of the first cycle), CSD-13 will focus on policies and options to expedite implementation of commitments in the areas of water, sanitation and human settlements, as contained in Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and the Millennium Declaration. Various cross-cutting issues will also be addressed. “

    UN Division for Sustainable Development – full text of Agenda 21
    UN REFORM – Restructuring for Global Governance
    Our Global Neighborhood – Report of the Commission on Global Governance: a summary analysis
    a lot of research and links about Agenda 21 in the USA
    Oh, and do not forget Ged Davis from the climategate e-mail:
    “Ged DAVIS has a background in economics and engineering from London and Stanford universities. He joined the Royal Dutch/Shell in 1972 and stayed with that company for 30 years. During his time at Shell, he held positions predominantly in scenario planning, strategy and finance, including Head of Planning (Europe), Head of Energy (Group Planning), Head of Group Investor Relations, Head of Scenario Processes and Applications, Head of the Socio-Politics and Technology Team (Group Planning), and lastly as the company’s Vice-President for Global Business Environment and Head of the Scenarios Team. For the last three years, he has been Managing Director of the World Economic Forum, responsible for global research, scenario projects, and the design of the annual Forum meeting at Davos. During the late 1990s, he served as Director of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Global Scenarios and as Facilitator and Lead Author of the IPCC’s Emission Scenarios. Currently, he is Co-President of the Global Energy Assessment with the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA); a Director of Low Carbon Accelerator Limited; a Governor of the International Development Research Centre in Ottawa; and a Member of the INDEX Design Awards Jury.”
    Unfortunately people like me are “conspiracy theorists.” I am hoping I do not live long enough to see the full implementation of Agenda 21 but I am afraid I will not be that lucky.

  35. Increasing prices on anything affects what we buy, very little of which is necessary in order to live. US citizens especially are capable of forgoing replacing old with new and instead just duct-taping the old back together again. The economy will tank (as in tank more than it has), regardless of the kickback. Anyone who voted for these two and still support them must not like being employed.

  36. The scientific consensus demands urgent policy action.
    The scientific case for action to mitigate climate change grows stronger every day. In its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the most extensive analysis to date of climate change science, including historical data and projections of future changes. The IPCC’s analysis concluded with greater than 95 percent certainty that human consumption of fossil fuels and land use practices are contributing directly to observed changes in climate.
    The Panel went on to say that continuing these practices would accelerate and exacerbate changes such as sea level rise, desertification, and species loss, which could have catastrophic implications for human populations and ecosystems worldwide over the next century. In the two years since the publication of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment, new scientific findings have added even greater urgency to the case for immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    emphasis added – is there something they haven’t told us yet?

  37. Moderator… time to snip the “sovreigns” (along with birthers and truthers). The posts read like “conspiracy to commit tax evasion” — WUWT?
    To the point — why add a new market distortion when eliminating one (various forms of subsidy to the fossil fuel industry) would work as well, if not better?

  38. The government gives 25% to special interest groups and blue sky spin merchants.
    15% is spent on administration.
    20% is allocated for unemployment benefit needed for all those manufacturing jobs lost to overseas competitors.
    15% is needed to service the ever expanding federal deficit,
    10% is allocated to pseudo-scientists to manufacture another taxable crisis.
    10% will be used to publicise the urgency of solving the new crisis
    5% will be handed out to the working poor. That’s you.

  39. At least they are being honest, redistribution of wealth…
    “Sending auction revenues directly to consumers means 80% of the American public
    will incur no net costs and
    the lowest income population will receive net positive benefits.
    The remaining 20% percent – the highest income earners—will see less
    than a 0.3% decrease in income.”
    and Richard, what the hell is “natural”, are you kidding?

  40. Arno Arrak said at 11:47 am
    What can I say? The CLEAR act is intelligently put together by people who believe that global warming is real.
    I politely disagree. While the CLEAR Act may be “intelligently put together”, if you read between the lines, it is CLEAR the total purpose of the act is to create a massive new market, 100% controlled by the Feds to use for whatever economic political goals the now and future administrations may/will have and THAT is where the REAL intelligence lies. I seriously doubt but very few of the people (if any) who put it together believe that any reduction in the production of “FOSSIL CARBON” or – (A) carbon dioxide; (B) methane; (C) nitrous oxide; (D) a hydrofluorocarbon; (E) a perfluorocarbon; (F) sulfur hexafluoride; and (G) any other anthropogenically emitted gas that the Administrator, after notice and comment, determines to contribute to climate change. is going to have any effect on “Global Warming”! Actually, it is CLEAR to me there will not even be a reduction in the production of ANY of the above, as a result of this act, and “they” know it and are counting on it! More money in their pockets! Follow the money! As a matter of fact, the way it is worded, it will create a whole new underworld black market for “carbon” of all kinds (including some that do not exist) and carbon shares that the gov. will then have to have another dept. to investigate, arrest, prosecute, etc.
    Further, and again the way it is written, it does NOT differentiate between “FOSSIL CARBON” energy content or conversion efficiencies of current or foreseeable technologies. A “Ton of Fossil Carbon” is a ton of carbon. IF they were truly concerned about global warming AND/OR energy independence, the ACT wouldn’t be written to set-up a new market from “whole cloth with a negative “tax and penalty” Gov. bureaucracy to enforce compliance. This is a MASSIVE money boondoggle.
    Forgive me for repeating: Follow the money!

  41. Cap and Trade is poor public policy. It can not possibly do what anyone wants done except for a had full of traders who think they can profit from it and foolish politicians who believe they need to be seen to be doing something, even it that something is the wrong or ineffective thing.

  42. “richard telford says:
    July 20, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    I challenge you to name one scientist, politician or activist who is advocating reducing CO2 levels to zero.”
    Maxine Waters. On the House floor. In debate.

  43. Every time you shine money in the face of people most of them will jump on the money without really knowing or thinking where it comes from. Some people want to get reelected so badly that they will shine the dollar sign in the face of voters.
    If they think that the industry will only charge the 100% of increase… they are fools. Not only that but the costs associated in managing this system and printing those checks and the stamps and envelops… yeah, right… 25%
    Don’t touch my life giving CO2… I need it to live and feed my family.

  44. Gail Combs said at 1:17 pm
    Actually it has nothing to do with CO2.
    This bill has everything to do with the implementation of Holdren, Obama’s Science Adviser’s, ideas from 1973. …. first raised by Maurice Strong at the UN’s First Earth Summit in 1972, …..

    Absolutely correct! It’s about their fanatical belief that capitalism is the mother of all evils and must be totally controlled if not outright destroyed. And how ironic to use “capitalism” in the form of “Carbon Shares” to get total control of energy usage in the US, which then gives them total control of EVERY market, as they laugh all the way to their Dubai bank account.

  45. John W. said at 1:48 pm
    …..
    Maxine Waters. On the House floor. In debate.
    John, that’s not fair! Using anything Maxine Waters says is like – – – well, quoting Donald Duck – – – or Joe Biden.

  46. Notice the phrase“The IPCC’s analysis concluded with greater than 95 percent certainty that human consumption of fossil fuels and land use practices are contributing directly to observed changes in climate. “
    That phase allows government intervention in the use of energy AND in the use of landotherwise known as how farmers grow food. I thought humans had already tried that and failed miserably. First at Plymouth Colony,:
    “The colony was first organized on a communal basis, as their financiers required. Land was owned in common. The Pilgrims farmed communally, too, following the “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” precept.
    The results were disastrous. Communism didn’t work any better 400 years ago than it does today. By 1623, the colony had suffered serious losses. Starvation was imminent. “
    http://freedomkeys.com/thanksgiving.htm
    And later in the Soviet Union. Looks like THIS time we are going to try it worldwide and collapse our whole civilization when it fails again as it must.
    FOr those who believe “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” precept, you forgot one tiny problem. Humans, and all animals are lazy. It is hard wired into us as it should b. Only the young expend more energy than is needed without a reason. Remember the Pilgrims were a religious sect and probably the best case scenario for “communalism” to work. It did not.
    Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate….
    “In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”
    http://mises.org/daily/336
    Unfortunately the true story of Thanksgiving is never taught in schools so the myth of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” continues to find fertile ground in the minds of idealists.
    Do not bother trying to tell me that “communalism” is not the ultimate goal. The UN has already spelled out its view point on land ownership.
    The land policy of the United Nations was first officially articulated at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 – June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN’s official policy on land. The Preamble says:
    Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….” http://sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm
    As Wayne Hage stated: “If you can’t own property, you are property.”

  47. John W. says:
    July 20, 2010 at 1:48 pm
    Maxine Waters. On the House floor. In debate.
    ——————
    A bite!
    Since I don’t believe you, perhaps you would be so kind to link to something documenting Waters advocacy of zero atmospheric CO2 concentrations (not just zero emissions).

  48. Just great! Another taxpayer holdup by two brainwashed senators who have chosen to ignore the mountain of evidence refuting the CO2 greenhouse theory. Sen. Inhofe needs to take Sen. Collins aside and give her a crash course in elementary physics.
    There is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect. It is a physical impossibility. The earth is cooled through a process of conduction, convection, vaporization and condensation. The absorption and emission of longwave radiation by CO2 molecules merely slows the process of cooling. It doesn’t warm anything. It is background noise.
    If the CLEAR Act passes, hold on to your wallets and purses. The hot air emanating from the mouths of mindless politicians poses is a very real threat to humanity.

  49. richard telford says:
    There are plenty who are demanding zero emmisions, but that is a very different objective [from advocacy for zero atmospheric co2].

    In questions of public policy, what you are making is the World’s Biggest Distinction Without a Difference. In either scenario, you can’t exhale.

  50. kirkmyers says:
    July 20, 2010 at 2:29 pm
    There is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect. It is a physical impossibility. The earth is cooled through a process of conduction, convection, vaporization and condensation. The absorption and emission of longwave radiation by CO2 molecules merely slows the process of cooling. It doesn’t warm anything. It is background noise.
    —————
    A thought experiment: what happens if you “slow the process of cooling” while continuing to add heat from an external source at constant rate?

  51. richard telford says:
    July 20, 2010 at 12:19 pm
    …..There are plenty who are demanding zero emmisions, but that is a very different objective. Hansen has advocated stabilising CO2 levels at 350 ppm. That’s 70ppm above natural, and 350ppm above zero.
    _____________________________________
    So Richard, how much will the resulting CO2 drop and temperature drop reduce the world crop yield. Especially after we include House Concurrent Resolution 25 in addition to the above. I will give you a hint. The USA produces about 25% of the world’s grain.
    House Concurrent Resolution 25
    “The official title of the resolution [H. Con. Res. 25] as introduced is: “Expressing the sense of Congress that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the United States should provide from renewable resources not less than 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber.”
    WHY 25X25 IS GOOD FOR YOU”
    “American’s farms, ranches and forests – our working lands – are well positioned to make significant contributions to the development and implementation of new energy solutions. Long known and respected for their contributions to providing the nation’s food and fiber, an emerging opportunity exists for crop, livestock and grass and horticultural producers, as well as forest land owners, to become major producers of another essential commodity – energy.”
    http://www.freetofarm.com/resources/Part25_WhoseLandIsItAnyway.pdf
    For anyone who believes in 25X25, wind power and the like, I suggest reading the physics involved: Understanding E = mc2 & its corollary, E = mv2
    Unfortunately William Tucker spoke at a conference in Washington, DC in October 2009 and it still hasn’t penetrated the brains of our Congress Critters.

  52. With friends like Collins; and her cohort dope Snowe ; we really don’t need enemies (of the people).
    One of the reasons I have no desire whatsoever to go anywhere or buy anything from anywhere in New England, is I refuse to support the livelihoods of people who keep sending these birdbrains to the US Congress. Although they represent postage stamp type areas of the country and people locked in another century; they keep on screwing up the lives of everybody else.
    At least out here in California; we know that we have no representation in the US Congress; and we just ignore the two dames that the local fruits and nuts keep electing.
    So we ( CA ) are slowly turning into a third world Country; and we already are the world center for Leaf Blower Technology; but the market is already saturated.
    We are all closer to that tipping point than we think; but it has nothing to do with Climate.

  53. “”” kirkmyers says:
    July 20, 2010 at 2:29 pm
    ……………………..
    There is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect. It is a physical impossibility. The earth is cooled through a process of conduction, convection, vaporization and condensation. The absorption and emission of longwave radiation by CO2 molecules merely slows the process of cooling. It doesn’t warm anything. It is background noise. “””
    So what is your Physical Explanation for why the planet is not at -30 deg C or whatever it is that the equilibrium Black body Temperature is calculated to be at the position of earth’s orbit around the sun.
    If there isn’t any “greenhouse” effect; in the climate sense; not the agricultural sense; Other than it is impossible; then why is earth so hot ?

  54. This Bill, or the Cap & Trade Bill, in conjuction with the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts and the recently passed Healthcare “Reform” bill will drive a stake through the heart of our economy. The Financial “Reform” Bill will assist in the process. Unless there are big changes in November in both houses of congress the economy will take a huge dump, inflation will go wild and there will, indeed, be less green house gasses produced along with much less of everything else. Count on it.

  55. “”” Gail Combs says:
    July 20, 2010 at 3:15 pm
    …………………….. ”
    So Gail, isn’t it sufficient to know that TSI is 1366 w/m^2; and with luck we can get a max of 1000 out of that at some places on earth. And agriculture is about the least efficient way of collecting on that kiloWatt.
    Yes it’s renewable but it just doesn’t renew anywhere near fast enough to supply our needs. and about 73% of the total surface area is quite unsuitable for collection anyway; so we start out with access to only about 1/4 of what is available.
    George

  56. RE: kirkmyers: (July 20, 2010 at 2:29 pm) “Just great! Another taxpayer holdup by two brainwashed senators who have chosen to ignore the mountain of evidence refuting the CO2 greenhouse theory.”
    Unfortunately, I see the outcome of all these closed-door Climategate hearings being used as a springboard for a new push to finally get something done now that that ‘mountain of evidence’ has all been ‘washed’ away by these learned tribunals.
    I suspect that many of these people have come to believe, despite all the suppressed evidence to the contrary, that carbon dioxide is a dangerous industrial chemical that man is using to foul the environment and they want that process stopped as soon as possible. I would not be surprised to find that this teaching to be a mandatory policy in many of our public schools.
    Perhaps some of our elected representatives are hoping re-create themselves as genuine heroes of the green revolution to remedy their sagging popularity in the polls.
    Perhaps we need the release of a new cadre of non-partisan post-Climategate videos like “Global Warming, Doomsday Called Off.”

  57. George E. Smith says:
    July 20, 2010 at 3:32 pm
    I think it has been calculated at around -18 Celsius if there was no greenhouse effect.

  58. George E. Smith says:
    July 20, 2010 at 3:52 pm
    “”” Gail Combs says:
    July 20, 2010 at 3:15 pm
    …………………….. ”
    So Gail, isn’t it sufficient to know that TSI is 1366 w/m^2; and with luck we can get a max of 1000 out of that at some places on earth. And agriculture is about the least efficient way of collecting on that kiloWatt.
    Yes it’s renewable but it just doesn’t renew anywhere near fast enough to supply our needs. and about 735 of the total surface area is quite unsuitable for collection anyway; so we start out with access to only about 1/4 of what is available.
    George
    ______________________________________________________________
    George,
    Sorry I was not clear. Using food for fuel is the most idiotic idea I have heard from the idiots in DC and that is saying something. That is why I included the link to the information about the physics of renewable energy. http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469
    Since the whole scam of “renewable energy” falls apart when you look at the physics I will cut and paste it here so it is very clear.
    “The formula for kinetic energy is
    E= 1/2(m1-m2) (v) squared or E=m(v)squared
    Kinetic energy is the energy of moving objects, “E” once again standing for energy, “m” indicating mass and “v” representing the velocity of the moving object. If you throw a baseball across a room, for example, its energy is calculated by multiplying the mass of the ball times the square of its velocity – perhaps 50 miles per hour.
    The two formulas are essentially identical. When brought into juxtaposition, two things emerge:
    1. For any given amount of energy, mass and velocity are inversely related. For an identical amount of energy, the higher velocity goes, the less mass is required and vice versa.
    2. When compared to the velocities of moving objects in nature – wind and water, for instance – the co-efficient in Einstein’s equation is fifteen orders of magnitude larger – the same factor of one quadrillion.
    How is this manifested in everyday life? Most of what we are calling “renewable energy” is actually the kinetic flows of matter in nature. Wind and water are matter in motion that we harness to produce energy. Therefore they are measured by the formula for kinetic energy.
    Let’s start with hydroelectricity. Water falling off a high dam reaches a speed of about 60 miles per hour or 80 feet per second. Raising the height of the dam by 80 or more feet cannot increase the velocity by more than 20 miles per hour. The only way to increase the energy output is to increase the mass, meaning we must use more water.
    The largest dams – Hoover and Glen Canyon on the Colorado River –stand 800 feet tall and back up a reservoir of 250 square miles. This produces 1000 megawatts, the standard candle for an electrical generating station……
    Wind is less dense than water so the land requirements are even greater. Contemporary 50-story windmills generate 1-½ MW apiece, so it takes 660 windmills to get 1000 MW. They must be spaced about half a mile apart so a 1000-MW wind farm occupies 125 square miles. Unfortunately the best windmills generate electricity only 30 percent of the time, so 1000 MW really means covering 375 square miles at widely dispersed locations.
    Tidal power, often suggested as another renewable resource, suffers the same problems. Water is denser than wind but the tides only move at about 5 mph. At the best locations in the world you would need 20 miles of coastline to generate 1000 MW.
    What about solar energy? ….Thus, the amount of solar radiation falling on a one square meter is 400 watts, enough to power four 100-watt light bulbs. “Thermal solar” – large arrays of mirrors heating a fluid – can convert 30 percent of this to electricity. Photovoltaic cells are slightly less efficient, converting only about 25 percent. As a result, the amount of electricity we can draw from the sun is enough to power one 100-watt light bulb per card table….”

    Nuclear is the only non-carbon source of energy that is reasonable but the environuts are against it. If they had not killed nuclear in the seventies the USA would have a much smaller “carbon foot print” AND would not have lost its industry to Maurice Strong’s beloved communist China. (France is buzy selling her nuclear power to the rest of the EU)

  59. CO2 follows temperature, not the other way.
    CO2 (so far as we can determine via proxy) varies only around 100ppm from ice age to optimum. I currently accept the contention that the additional CO2 bump is anthropogenic. We add around 6 or 7 BMTC per year to the atmosphere and only around 4 BMTC are absorbed by ocean or land sinks. The remainder accumulates in the atmospheric sink (which contains c. 760 BMTC). So CO2 concentration increases at somewhat less than half a percent per year.
    Arguments that affect this equation revolve around possible variability in absorption levels and CO2 persistence time. YMMV.
    The real question is what effect a doubling of CO2 has on the environment in general and climate in particular. The raw-only effects of CO2 doubling would be roughly 1.2°C. Both Lindzen and Spencer accept that (and most other skeptical scientists). Including Lord Monckton.
    The real debate centers around feedback. Will feedback increase or decrease this effect.
    If feedback is negative, we can expect a mild upward pressure on temperatures and no emergency whatever. If it’s positive, then we may have a problem.
    So far, the observational evidence skews heavily towards negative.
    But let’s not kid ourselves about CO2. It does cause a modest warming (with diminishing returns). We are responsible for the extra 30% or so of the current amount. If we do not concede (nay, embrace) these facts (and most of us here do), we skeptics will never get anywhere. Unless some evidence shows up — and stands up — that proves otherwise, and I very much doubt that will happen.
    OTOH, misguided attempts to “control” CO2 aren’t going to do much of anything other than starve babies in third-world countries. So no false appeals to Pascal from the alarmist side, please!

  60. richard telford says:
    July 20, 2010 at 2:49 pm
    “[…]A thought experiment: what happens if you “slow the process of cooling” while continuing to add heat from an external source at constant rate?”
    It (the sytem in the experiment) warms. BUT this does in no way show that the atmospheric CO2 content has any such effect.

  61. evanmjones says:
    July 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm
    “[…]But let’s not kid ourselves about CO2. It does cause a modest warming (with diminishing returns).[…]”
    You mentioned negative feedbacks yourself, so be careful. CO2 causes a measurable change in down- AND upwelling LWIR; whether this results in a warming depends on the system dynamics. Especially the nature of the temporal response of the system depends nearly entirely on the feedbacks and the associated lag times.

  62. Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi has written a paper (Miskolczi, Ferenc M. 2007. “Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres.” Időjárás 111, 1-40) proving after 61 years that H20 and CO2 are in equilibrium and that there has been no global warming, whatsoever.
    After 3 years not one person, nor those “2,500” scientists at the IPCC, have been able to prove him wrong.
    But the myth of manmade gw rolls along, nevertheless.

  63. Arno Arrak: July 20, 2010 at 11:47 am
    What can I say? The CLEAR act is intelligently put together by people who believe that global warming is real. They seem like nice people deceived by the global warming propaganda machine.

    It’s also a pretty blatant wealth redistribution scheme, they are just using evil(Tm) Energy Corporations to collect the punitive taxes instead of the Government. I guess instead of letting Atlas shrug, the nice(Tm) people is going to break his knee caps.

  64. Of course, the primary Earthshine thermal infra-red band absorbing/emitting [Greenhouse] gas in our atmosphere is clear air dissolved water ‘vapor,’ not CO2.

  65. Allright, we have :
    -Senator Maria Cantwell
    -Senator Susan M. Collins
    So, whats the conclusion? Do we need all these morons?
    In Norway whe had a female minister of defense who’s only background was within pottery. (You don’t believe it? Thats your problem)
    We had a minister of transportation who didn’t have a drivers license. (Yes, it is true)
    So, how do we get rid of all the morons now? They suck your blood every night and day. For nothing.

  66. Paul Jackson says:
    July 20, 2010 at 5:38 pm
    “[…]It’s also a pretty blatant wealth redistribution scheme”
    It should be noted that the net redistribution effect will be from poor to rich as rich people do not have to use their entire disposable income for consumption and the goods they buy are often goods with a high imaginary or IP component that will not be affected by any CO2 tax (think iPhone – you don’t pay 600 bucks for the plastic it’s made of).
    The same effect happens with the energy prizes in Germany; the effects of the prize hikes (due to renewables cross-subsidizing) are felt dominantly by poorer people.

  67. I’m strictly in favor of helping those with developmental disabilities; but dog-gone it, how do they always end up in Congress?

  68. I hate to say it because people react so strongly to it, but this clearly sounds like a method of wealth redistribution with AGW as the cover story.

  69. Paul Jackson says:
    July 20, 2010 at 5:38 pm
    “[…]It’s also a pretty blatant wealth redistribution scheme”
    ________________________
    DirkH says:
    July 20, 2010 at 6:04 pm
    It should be noted that the net redistribution effect will be from poor to rich as rich people do not have to use their entire disposable income for consumption …
    __________________________________________________________
    Your forgot getting mega rich on the carbon trading derivatives market. Approximately 95% of the total volume in the European carbon market are seen in derivative trades (forwards, futures and options) with the remaining in spot trades. and of course getting out of the market before the whole thing collapses.
    “You’ve heard of credit default swaps and subprime mortgages. Are carbon default swaps and subprime offsets next? If the Waxman-Markey climate bill is signed into law, it will generate, almost as an afterthought, a new market for carbon derivatives. That market will be vast, complicated, and dauntingly difficult to monitor. And if Washington doesn’t get the rules right, it will be vulnerable to speculation and manipulation by the very same players who brought us the financial meltdown….” click Even some of the Greenies can see WUWT.
    This does not include all the corporations sucking down government grants, subsidies or what ever for going “green” or producing “green” products.
    Yes it is the typical wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, luckly only some of the activists wearing green colored glasses do not see that.

  70. 280 ppm is natural. Best not learn anything about the history of CO2 levels on this planet and just listen to a proven fraud artist. SSheesh

  71. The fools are in the process of creating thousands of Enrons. Al Gore will be an Enron. There is going to be a market in “AGW credits.” Yet there are no reasonably confirmed hypotheses which explain the so-called “forcings” in cloud behavior and related matters that are necessary if warming is to exceed the harmless level of one degree this century. There is no confidence among the public in the claims of AGW. As public confidence waxes and wanes, so will the values of the shares on the market. Al Gore will be really busy making new movies to shore up public confidence and keeping the bucks rolling in. If public confidence plummets, and we are likely to learn in November that it has, then the market crashes. So, who will be to blame? Won’t it be our Senators and Congressmen?
    This situation is truly extraordinary. It is as if a nuclear weapon hits Baltimore, a bunch of senators are yelling that it came from Russia, so on incomplete evidence we nuke Russia. The point here is that this situation is unprecedented yet senators are willing to take irreversible risks. There has to be a bigger story behind this. This is not expected human behavior by a legislative body, not in all of human history.

  72. You mentioned negative feedbacks yourself, so be careful. CO2 causes a measurable change in down- AND upwelling LWIR; whether this results in a warming depends on the system dynamics. Especially the nature of the temporal response of the system depends nearly entirely on the feedbacks and the associated lag times.
    All quite arguable. Arguing about the effect of CO2 is quite reasonable. But I think it very probable that a.) it’s there, and b.) it’s anthropogenic.
    Yes, the feedback question is still very much open (as is the radiation budget question).
    But I think is is not productive, sans startling new evidence, to argue that CO2 measurements are way off or that the current rise in CO2 is mostly “natural”.

  73. Gail Combs says:
    July 20, 2010 at 6:51 pm
    ‘Yes it is the typical wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, luckly only some of the activists wearing green colored glasses do not see that.’
    And more control by “crony politics” on an international scale, promoting one world governace and making the U.S Constitution more irrelevant. To bad it is illegal to tar and feather.
    Again I ask: Since we are trying to become independent from foreign oil, why would we want to become dependent on foreign carbon credits?
    Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970’s, ‘If you control the oil you control the country;(which is being done not only with the input side, but with the output of a byproduct, CO2) if you control food, you control the population;

  74. I have just done a web search for recent public opinion polls on global warming and I find that the most comprehensive surveys are reposted echoes of much older studies such as an April 2007 New York Times/CBS survey reporting that 90 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of independents and 60 percent of Republicans believed that immediate action was required to stop global warming. Given that the Senate is seriously considering action on this problem, I find this recent silence rather curious.
    I did, however, see a Reuters’ report of a study by conducted researchers at Yale and George Mason universities indicating that the Gulf oil disaster has convinced a majority of Americans that government should take a more active role in energy management and pollution control.

  75. Kill all the Cap’N-Tax bills and anything related.
    China is now the worlds largest energy consumer, and it’s 70% coal, and it’s rising fast ( at 11% / year for electricity in a ‘recession’ year…).
    NOTHING we do can reduce CO2. All it can do is move it to China where more will be made as they are less energy efficient that we are and use more coal vs oil and gas than we do.
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/china-makes-western-co2-control-pointless/
    If you really care about Global CO2 production, keep it in the west.

  76. The bill shall not pass, and neither shall personal carbon trading of any kind. Try harder to stifle our liberty and development in the name of your dumb UN religion.

  77. Oh, and on the UN and Maurice Strong issue: Maurice now lives in China, as does his $Millions ( $Billions?). So as China benefits…
    George Sorros made his $Billions betting against the British Pound when the UK first started playing with socialism and wealth redistribution. So now he’s advocating socialism and wealth redistribution all over the place…. Hmmm…
    The list goes on from here, including Elk Hills Navel Oil reserve and papa Gore’s holdings in the oil company that got it for a song from the US Government, but that’s ancient history now. I’m sure baby Gore paid no attention…
    The bottom line is that an awful lot of the folks advocating and funding all this AGW charade have ‘made their bones’ off the manipulation of government actions. Kind of makes me a mite suspicious.

  78. Oh, and this interesting link (thanks to Luis in comments in my linked article):
    http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6700
    As neat graphs of coal consumption and growth in China. Seems that China is now 50% of world coal consumption. Yeah, that’s world coal consumption…
    So, you want to stop CO2 growth? Talk to China. Nothing else will make any difference at all.
    It’s presently 50%, and it’s growing at 10% / year minimum, (so call it 5% of global per year). That’s 10 years to equal ALL present coal consumption.
    Clearly something is going to hit the wall here, but CO2 production is NOT going to go down. Even if the rest of the world consumes NONE.

  79. Hmmm…
    In one company I am involved with, we are discussing the eventual production site of a new construction product.
    Our product consumes by-products of natural gas production.
    If we are hit with a CLEAR tax, it looks as if the production will go to one of the following: China, Canada, or Mexico. If NAFTA is allowed to work, we will get our product into the US without the CLEAR tax.
    Too bad for the people we would have put to work in Denver, Atlanta, and two other locations in the US.

  80. ” E.M.Smith says:
    July 21, 2010 at 3:10 am
    It’s presently 50%, and it’s growing at 10% / year minimum, (so call it 5% of global per year). That’s 10 years to equal ALL present coal consumption.”
    If you are saying that the Chinese consumption of the year 20xx will be what the whole world consumes today, the correct time would be 7.5 years of less (“minimum” growth).

  81. Oil companies love cap and trade.

    Despite leaving U.S. CAP, BP officials — including CEO Tony Hayward — have generally voiced their support for cap-and-trade legislation and the company was expected to attend the formal unveiling of a bill from Sens. Kerry, Lieberman and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in April.
    “BP still firmly believes that the best way to move this process along and tackle man-made climate change is by putting a price on carbon,” said BP America President Lamar McKay in testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday. “A price reflecting tightening constraints on carbon would both drive energy conservation and make lower carbon energy choices more cost competitive.”

    See http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/06/17/17climatewire-conservatives-work-to-tar-cap-and-trade-bill-42785.html
    Now why would BP want cap and trade? Because it will increase the cost of oil and no one will notice the little price hikes included for additional profits after the taxes have been added.
    Greenpeace and BP sitting at the table and breaking bread.
    Sounds almost Biblical.

  82. E.M.Smith says:
    July 21, 2010 at 2:02 am
    “[…]George Sorros made his $Billions betting against the British Pound when the UK first started playing with socialism and wealth redistribution. […]”
    Not exactly right; Soros forced the Sterling down in 92 or 93. The Brits had much more socialism in the 70ies before Maggie ruled; up to 95% income tax if i am informed correctly.

  83. Richard Telford says:
    “Hansen has advocated stabilizing CO2 levels at 350 ppm. That’s 70ppm above natural, and 350ppm above zero.”
    You suggest a contest – Let’s have one! You assert 280ppm CO2 to be the “natural” level for our earthly atmosphere. I challenge you to provide a definition of “natural CO2 level” that meets a statistically rigorous measure (something approaching at least +/- 5ppm), as derived from historical CO2 levels over the last 600 million years, and is agreed to by a majority of scientists skilled in paleogeology, ice core gas measurements, and the necessary related fields to determine CO2 levels over this entirely natural time span. If we really want to determine the “natural” CO2 level, we need to establish a strong baseline before anthropomorphic interference. Anything less would be cherry picking, of course. Hansen, Jones, and the ClimateGate cabal et. al. and all of their unreliable work are excluded from consideration, due to their established participation in various “nature tricks” to hide the decline” schemes, etc.
    Show your work, include measures of accuracy and precision, and cite your data sources. Extra credit will be provided for any rationalizations attempting to show the derived “natural CO2 level” to have relevance to today, the last century, or any century within the last 600 million years of natural climate and atmospheric change.
    Then we can move forward to the “natural” sea level height, the “natural” height of mountain ranges, the “natural” amount of precipitation, and the “natural” amount of cloud coverage for the planet and get these stabilized as well. I’m sure Jim Hansen would agree……….

  84. evanmjones says:
    July 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm
    “But let’s not kid ourselves about CO2. It does cause a modest warming (with diminishing returns). We are responsible for the extra 30% or so of the current amount. If we do not concede (nay, embrace) these facts (and most of us here do), we skeptics will never get anywhere. Unless some evidence shows up — and stands up — that proves otherwise, and I very much doubt that will happen.”
    ========
    Well said and I completely agree.
    Whether CO2 from the deep oceans released centuries after the warming period is contributing to the rise is largely irrelevant. We have only to look around to see the inefficient systems that waste resources future generations will need. The conversion waste (lost energy during power generation) is due to poorly designed equipment and antiquated thinking.
    If our goal is to eliminate pollution and preserve resources in the most efficient way, then our solution should include decentralization of power generation. Every home should generate the power it needs and sell the excess.
    We will never eliminate the need for oil as a resource. But should we use it as petrochemical fertilizer?
    We already have the technology to do address the issues. Water heaters should be point of use water hammers that do not waste resources in the off chance that someone needs to take a shower. High voltage storage systems in the home tied to solar, wind, or natural/biogas fuel cells or used to level peak grid loads.
    The problem with this political approach is that we have been taxed for the research since the last oil crisis and instead of implementing solutions we are to be taxed again in the HOPE that they can figure out what we already know. It also perpetuates pollution instead of eliminating it.
    There is no question that we “should” eliminate pollution and preserve resources but is it too much to ask that it be in an efficient and insightful way that actually benefits taxpayers?

  85. Gail Combs July 20, 2010 at 1:17 pm rambles:

    Unfortunately people like me are “conspiracy theorists.” I am hoping I do not live long enough to see the full implementation of Agenda 21 but I am afraid I will not be that lucky.

    In the meantime, could your trim/refrain from such long, rambling, far/over-reaching posts? (In the future, could try to make your points simply, and succinctly without over-bearing NWO/UN/’Agenda 21′ references?)
    Thanks in advance from a LOT of us (I suspect) …
    .

  86. John from CA says: “The scientific case for action to mitigate climate change grows stronger every day….”
    I hate to tell you that there is no scientific case for climate change, hence nothing to mitigate. First, the so-called “anthropogenic global warming” has never been observed as you will learn from “What Warming?” Second, it has not been observed because it is physically impossible as Ferenc Miskolczi has shown. Using NOAA’s database of weather balloon observations he has demonstrated that the “… the global average annual infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere has been unchanged for 61 years, with a value of 1.87.” Sixty one years of constantly adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has not changed the transparency of the atmosphere one whit or the optical thickness would have increased, and it did not. This is actual observation of nature, not theoretical values like IPCC computers use. The carbon dioxide hypothesis of global warming is the chief input to these computers. But these modellers quickly found out that carbon dioxide alone does not cause enough warming to worry about so they invented the concept of positive feedback from water vapor. Only this way can they get warming of five pr six degrees out of their computers. And these computers are the sole source of their predicted climate catastrophe. Take that away and the entire global warming science collapses and is seen for what it really is: a pseudoscience without any experimental support.

  87. Arno Arrak says:
    July 21, 2010 at 12:47 pm
    John from CA says: “The scientific case for action to mitigate climate change grows stronger every day….”
    ========
    I never said that, I said:
    “Whether CO2 from the deep oceans released centuries after the warming period is contributing to the rise is largely irrelevant. We have only to look around to see the inefficient systems that waste resources future generations will need. The conversion waste (lost energy during power generation) is due to poorly designed equipment and antiquated thinking.”

    The problem with this political approach is that we have been taxed for the research since the last oil crisis and instead of implementing solutions we are to be taxed again in the HOPE that they can figure out what we already know. It also perpetuates pollution instead of eliminating it.
    There is no question that we “should” eliminate pollution and preserve resources but is it too much to ask that it be in an efficient and insightful way that actually benefits taxpayers?

  88. Well I think that we should file a law suit against the EPA; calling for them to control the emissions oa ALL greenhouse gases; not just CO2; on the theory (sound) that GHGs do nothing but heat the atmosphere through the capture of LWIR radiation from somewhere else; and that any global warming is a consequence of that warming of the atmosphere; and is quite independent of whatever GHG gas or mechanism caused the atmospheric heating.
    The subsequent global warming contains no information of any kind about the GHG species that caused it; only that the atmosphere warmed up first.
    In particular they should regulate human emissions of H2O as well as CO2, since all burning of fossil and other fuels and human respiration results in the emission of more H2O than CO2 (coal MIGHT be an exception).
    The AGW crowd cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim as Stephen Schneider recently did; that H2O is a weak GHG compared to CO2; and at the same time claim that H2O acts as a feedback enhancer of CO2 induced warming. Both are permanent constituents of earth’s atmosphere and have been so since at least as long as anything that is any sort of Primate has been on earth; and moreover; there is nowhere in earth’s atmosphere where weather/climate occur (like say clouds); where CO2 abundance in our well mixed atmosphere has ever exceeded the corresponding H2O abundance.
    The atmospheric warming induced by CO2 or H2O vapor can eventually result in warming of the ocean surfaces; and that in turn will add to atmospheric H2O vapor via evaporation and also to increased atmospheric CO2 due to Henry’s Law outgassing adjustment. So arguably either one is a feedback enhancer of the other and of itself.
    So any distinction between CO2 and H2O based on primary atmospheric heating or feedback enhancement; is purely arbitrary; and has no scientific justification at all (for the distinction).
    So let’s sue the EPA to regulate H2O Too.

  89. Footnote to my posts:
    The byproduct of hydrogen fuel cells, beyond all the energy they make, is CO2 and water. So add a greenhouse to Professor Nocera’s design (see Faces of the Recovery Act video) for the fuel cell exhaust and you can grow some veggies year round as well.
    Starting to understand why we should not regulate CO2 with a carbon tax? Actually, make the technology available immediately with homeowner loans and I’d be happy to pay off mine with my monthly power bill ; )

  90. There is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect. It is a physical impossibility. The earth is cooled through a process of conduction, convection, vaporization and condensation. The absorption and emission of longwave radiation by CO2 molecules merely slows the process of cooling. It doesn’t warm anything. It is background noise.
    * * *
    So what is your Physical Explanation for why the planet is not at -30 deg C or whatever it is that the equilibrium Black body Temperature is calculated to be at the position of earth’s orbit around the sun.
    If there isn’t any “greenhouse” effect; in the climate sense; not the agricultural sense; Other than it is impossible; then why is earth so hot ?
    Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner address all of the above-mentioned issues and more in their ground-breaking paper, “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.”
    Here are a few of their salient conclusions:
    It is not the “trapped” infrared radiation, which explains the warming phenomenon in a real greenhouse, but it is the suppression of air cooling.
    There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gases” are deliberate misnomers.
    There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet
    – with or without an atmosphere,
    – with or without rotation,
    – with or without infrared light absorbing gases.
    The frequently mentioned difference of 33C for the fictitious greenhouse effect of the
    atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.
    Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work.
    The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the “average” fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justification anyway, was given up.
    Read the full paper here:
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

  91. John from CA: Why are you denying what you said? Here is a full paragraph from your post of July 21, 2010, at 2:35 P.M.:
    “The scientific case for action to mitigate climate change grows stronger every day. In its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the most extensive analysis to date of climate change science, including historical data and projections of future changes. The IPCC’s analysis concluded with greater than 95 percent certainty that human consumption of fossil fuels and land use practices are contributing directly to observed changes in climate.”
    If ever there was a clumsier propaganda statement about a non-existent climate change I don’t know about it.

Comments are closed.