Senators Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer will outline the legislation on Thursday morning. They are even going to let that wacky 350.org activist Bill McKibben speak. Sheesh.
Billed as “major” and “comprehensive” legislation, it will have a carbon tax. Here is the statement from Sanders’ office (bold mine):
Sanders, Boxer to Introduce Major Climate Change Legislation
February 12, 2013
WASHINGTON, Feb 12 – Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will hold a news conference on Thursday, Feb. 14 to announce comprehensive legislation on climate change. Boxer is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Sanders serves on the environment committee and also is a member of the Senate energy committee.
Under the legislation, a fee on carbon pollution emissions would fund historic investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. The proposal also would provide rebates to consumers to offset any efforts by oil, coal or gas companies to raise prices.
Environment and consumer leaders set to participate include Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org; Mike Brune, executive director of Sierra Club; Tara McGuiness, executive director of the Center for American Progress Action Fund; Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen’s energy director; and David Bradley, National Community Action Foundation executive director.
Who:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Bill McKibben, 350.org founder
Mike Brune, Sierra Club executive director
Tara McGuiness, CAP Action Fund executive director
Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen’s Energy Program director
David Bradley, National Community Action Foundation executive director
What: News conference on climate change legislation
When: 11 a.m., Thursday, Feb. 14
Where: SD-406, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing room
Source here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does anyone know what organisations will send representatives there?
I’d love to hear a reporter ask them “How much will the temperature change as a result of this tax?”
and “How much will it cost?”
and “Do you agree that even if the whole world stopped producing Carbon Dioxide right now it would be a thousand years before the temperature dropped?”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_flannery_admits_no_gain_from_this_carbon_tax_pain/
It might be a good idea to compare claims and actual outcomes from Australia too.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_much_will_it_cut_temperatures_by_again/
How does this work, taking a carbon tax which obviously gets passed onto consumers by the producers of the goods, and putting that money towards windmills while ALSO rebating the money to consumers? Somehow they turn $1 into $2? They really must have been promised that there would be no math.
A.D. Everard says:
February 12, 2013 at 7:35 pm
OMG – this will be chucked out, right? The Senate knows – please – that a carbon tax doesn’t work. I thought people are waking up to this foolishness, not still falling for it. Please kick it out.”
They don’t care. The government needs money. And this is a great way to get it. They don’t care about carbon nor the environment nor energy independence. They want money and lots of it. This is just a convenient method to get their hands into your pockets.
Pray the Republicans in the House stick together and block it. In addition, pray that in two years both House and Senate go Republican and they stick to their consrevative values.
A Carbon Dioxide tax failed in one of the Scandinavian countries and has been withdrawn…and it has achieved nothing in the UK except subvert our democracy, add 20% to our feul bills and make us energy deficient.
As for the USA…your emissions have reduced by 13% over the last 5 years and your weather has become more changeable.
Refer Sun Cycle 24 and look up the likely weather when Cycle 25 comes in.
Never in the history of the media have so many unprofessional journalist’s completely shafted the truth.
A disgrace one and all.
It is tantamount to treason.
While it is unlikely this legislation will ever be passed by the current congress, it is quite clear to me that the electorate here in the U.S. (at least a small majority of voters in certain states) WANTS to pay more taxes. So why not an insane carbon tax? Heck, while you’re at it, go ahead and tax junk food, big gulps, salt, tobacco, pot, the internet, cell phones, … America, this is what you voted for in 2012!
(BTW – look for our greedy climate heroes to ensure they get their slice of the carbon tax pie…).
I wonder if Richard Windsor will be there also?
A succinct but overly simplified version is here (used to educate children during Saturday morning cartoons in the mid 70’s):
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-eYBZFEzf8&w=420&h=315%5D
The gist for bills that raise taxes is that the bill must originate in the House of Representatives (commonly called “the House”) and pass that body. It then goes to the House of the Senate (commonly called “the Senate”) where it must again be passed. If passed in identical form by both houses it goes to the president for signature to become law If there are any differences in the House of Representatives and the House of the Senate versions of the bill they form a supercommittee to iron out then differences then send that consolidated bill to both houses for passage.
Perhaps someone should remind Senators Sanders and Boxer of Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution which reads:
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;”
Simply put, a tax bill originating from the Senate would have no constitutional legitimacy and therefore cannot be enforced.
Regards, Kforestcat
” justsomeguy31167 says:
February 12, 2013 at 7:56 pm
Sarah-
And what makes the tea party think we can slash our way to prosperity wherein every historical standard shows we need a defense and we need a social safety net to survive.”
slash our way to prosperity? When you have run out of money, spending more will not create more prosperity! CUTTING spending means that prosperity will eventually return.
You cannot borrow and spend your way to prosperity, just as you cannot borrow your way out of debt. You can only spend and borrow your way into unsustainable debt.
justsomeguy31167 says:
February 12, 2013 at 7:56 pm
Sarah-
And what makes the tea party think we can slash our way to prosperity…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What needs slashing is idiotic regulations on the federal, state and local level.
There is now so much red tape that a new business has to go through before they can open their doors many die from strangulation before opening and the rest, having spend so much time and money jumping through hoops cannot make it through the first two years. This is of course on purpose because the big boys do not want any competition. Unfortunately it is working.
The chairman of the House Small Business Committee states. small firms consistently create 60 to 70 percent of new jobs, year after year, and employ more than half of the entire U.S. workforce… the federal government has weighed them down with red tape, mandates, taxes and uncertainty. Don’t overlook the consequences of uncertainty. Owners of small firms have testified over and over before the House Small Business Committee that they need certainty… The Institute for Justice released a series of studies documenting government-imposed barriers to entrepreneurship ~ Small businesses losing out to red tape A rotten economic climate and uncertainy means 64%—of small-business executives surveyed said they weren’t expecting to add to their payrolls in the next year and another 12% planned to cut jobs, according to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report and 82% of Small Business Executives Think The U.S. Economy Is On The Wrong Track and 70% of Small Business Owners are Very Concerned About the Fiscal Cliff.
Agenda 21 is the modern equivalent of a feudal estate or a company town. The key moves are:
1. World Trade Organization shipping jobs overseas. Deindustrial Revolution?
2. Foreclosuregate ~ forcing people out of their homes. Background: link 1 and link 2 and link 3. and link 4 What it actually means to homeowners link 5 and Obama helps drive people into foreclosure. link 6
3. Closing of coal plants and “Cap & Trade” OBAMA under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…” This will drive even more people out of their homes as their electric bill starts to rival and then surpass their mortgage.
4. Food prices will also skyrocket as the cost of the “Food Safety Modernization Act” and equivalent laws hit. Many farmers will quit instead of trying to meet the UN/WTO’s ‘Guidelines especially as huge fines are used to make examples of “wrong-doers” The FDA has already said they will use the international guidelines link The OIE Guide to good farming practices [animal] the full PDF The Guide to good agricultural practices (GAPs) The FAO documents and do not think the small guy is left out. The FAO Training manual on good agricultural governance: A resource guide focused on smallholder crop production “… sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production, sustainable crop diversification, seed supply and plant genetic resource management…” The UN/FAO is Training our bureaucrats????
4. Tiny crowded homes and apartments await those driven out of suburbia. WSJ: California Declares War on Suburbia and “micro-unit” mini-apartment is coming to NYC and L.A. County’s Private Property War uses zoning to oust homeowners. Sustainia is an alliance of international organizations and companies working to create sustainable growth A democrat working in the California government tells How your community is implementing Agenda 21- Utube She hyighlights ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability
5. Once transportation becomes too expense you are stuck in a ‘company Town’ It will also be too expensive to ship in food. Enter the “Food Shed’ stage left that limits the number of people each location can carry: See Cornell mapping tool
This is John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar’s “Planetary Regime” He said in the 1973 book“Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.” The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in 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.”
It is happening right now as we watch: 19 Stunning Facts About the Deindustrialization of America
Welcome to the new Neo-feudal world of Agenda 21.
alex says:
February 13, 2013 at 1:40 am
“Well. Fuel in the U.S. is too cheap and – as a logical consequence – the economy is too inefficient. Tax on carbon and/or on energy would be a good first step towards modernisation.
The U.S. seem got stuck in the 20. century.”
The desire to make profit drives the U.S.economy. The economy is inefficient now because of government regulation and taxes. Over regulation and taxes drive costs up and profits down so business must cut expenses in other ways to maintain profits. That leads to fewer jobs, lower wages and reduced reduced benefits which in turn leads to less consumer spending. It really isn’t that hard to understand but you must first acknowledge the fact that our supposed leaders have a vested interest in keeping people poor and dependent upon government because that is the source of their power.
They are desperate to get these things passed before the scam completely collapses.
An incremental march towards tyranny.
alex says:
February 13, 2013 at 1:40 am
Well. Fuel in the U.S. is too cheap and – as a logical consequence – the economy is too inefficient.
Tax on carbon and/or on energy would be a good first step towards modernisation.
The U.S. seem got stuck in the 20. century.
————————————————————————–
Alex I’m not attacking you on this, but I am genuinely curious. How does cheap fuel make the economy inefficient? What do you mean by ‘economy is too inefficient’?
Mark
The excellent Christopher Booker on the soon to be introduced UK Carbon Tax
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9575598/George-Osbornes-CO2-tax-will-double-UK-electricity-bills.html
For those of you not acquainted with Booker, he is a rare voice of sanity in the UK mainstream media.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/
As is his comrade-in-arms, the openly offensive and most amusing James Delingpole, whose anti-CAGW rants are of the highest order. He really is not afraid to upset people.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100200909/wind-turbines-not-just-hateful-but-ruddy-dangerous-too/
Obama knows the legislation will fail, but will use the “failure” of Congress(with blame directed at Republicans) as justification for an Executive Order authorizing the EPA to implement rules that will eliminate coal as a source of electricity, generally make fossil fuel based electricity more expensive, and create federal “sources of funds” for wind and solar.
The only solutions are for Congress to take some power from the EPA, or hope a winning case can be made with the Supreme Court.
We no longer have 3 equal branches of government bounded by a free and unbiased press. The President can effectively legislate from the Executive Branch and ignore the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.
Nothing like proposing a bill that weakens the senators in the oil producing states – the same ones up for election 2014.
Credit where credit is due: a more efficient way of torpedoing the U.S. economy couldn’t be found than punishing “carbon”.
Patrick says:
February 13, 2013 at 1:54 am
Was there a tax on horses that “forced” people to “modernise” transport and power technologies? Was there a tax on steam engines to modernise?
=======
What isn’t taxed? If they could find a way to tax the air we breathe, they would. Oh wait, this is what they are talking about.
The notion that taxes make the economy more efficient in nonsense. The market makes the economy efficient. Over time goods and services naturally find the most economic means of production, similar to the way that nature always finds the most economical way to accomplish anything.
For example, throw a ball through the air. The path it takes is the most efficient path energy wise. Water flowing downhill does the same. The planets in orbit, the motion of a boat drifting on the water without power, all describe the minimum energy path. How nature accomplishes this remains one of the great mysteries.
Thus, everything the government does through tax policy makes the economy less efficient, because it seeks to restrain the market from finding the most efficient method (path) and replace this will a method that will advantage one group over another.
For example, the carbon tax is claimed to advantage the future over the present. We are sacrificing today to benefit someone else tomorrow. Those people promoting the legislation hope to be part of the group that benefits tomorrow, at the expense of the rest of us today.
@justsomeguy…
Your concern about “slashing” government is misplaced. There has been no slashing of anything. On reductions (minor) in the future rate of government increase. Have you never heard of baseline budgeting? Methinks you’ve been reading too much NYT.
Is there a trade coming? Ketstone pipline approval for a harmonized North American CO2 tax?
alex says:
February 13, 2013 at 1:40 am
Well. Fuel in the U.S. is too cheap and – as a logical consequence – the economy is too inefficient.
What nonsense. Our economy has thrived precisely because of relatively inexpensive fuel.
It is so feeble that it must have come from some tired old tenured university sociologists who in their prime first sponsored and then apologized for all the failures of 20th century European style and Asian style socialism.
Boxer and Sanders have provided a clear example of the essential authoritarian thinking. Implied in their thinking ‘a priori’ is a superior kind of human knowledge processed by social advocates that shall guide them in legally enforcing a ‘social safety net’ for those lessor humans without their superior special social knowledge.
The authoritarians promise a socialistically better world if you trust in their government enforced special knowledge instead of the manifold and creative knowledge of independent individual choices of free people making their own un-coerced decisions in the open marketplace of both ideas and trade.
I say ‘nuts’ to this continuous BS which is only the tired old world socialist feebleness being recycled by Obama.
John
A.D. Everard says:”OMG – this will be chucked out, right? The Senate knows – please – that a carbon tax doesn’t work.”
Gas taxes in Europe have caused most (not all) people to buy smaller cars, you should chuck…I mean, check it out. I would say a gas tax is a form of carbon tax, and it does seem to work. As a side product, it also softened the blow to the european auto industry in 2007 when the oil prices went so high, while here in Michigan, when people stopped buying our fine SUVs (what with gas twice the $$$), we had a recession before the real recession.
Gail Combs says:
February 13, 2013 at 6:15 am
…
What needs slashing is idiotic regulations on the federal, state and local level.
——————————————-
I couldn’t agree more. You know it’s bad when the WH Chief of Staff (Bill Daley, June 2011) resorts to saying ‘sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible’ at a meeting of the National Association of Manufacturers. It’s ~worse~ than tax and I didn’t realize that was possible. At least with taxes there are revenue receipts that can be put to some use. Over regulation is like destroying industry for the sake of destruction.