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.
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
- How Does the CLEAR Act Work?
- Goals, Framework and Advantages of the CLEAR Act
- Extended Overview Memo
- Clear Act PowerPoint
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Detailed CLEAR Act Q&As
- CLEAR Act side by side with Waxman-Markey, H.R. 2454
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?
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.
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?
I’m not putting the USPS down but this is a “clear” example of government logic.
USPS decreased energy costs by over $700M since 2007 [ http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2010/pr10_050.htm ] and postal rates at the same time with the next increase due in 2011 [http://www.akdart.com/postrate.html].
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?
To remember, what Kate says:
For many households, their only recent income has been UN payments for burying carcasses
Don’t forget it!
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”.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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!
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Politicians will be smarting up the day donkeys fly…
wait a minute… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/picturesoftheday/7900025/Pictures-of-the-day-20-July-2010.html