Editorial by Marc Morano, Climate Depot
The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed global warming bill (219-212 vote) will no doubt be hailed by many as “historic” or “landmark” or “The Bill of the Century.” This passage of this bill does not signify any great “green revolution” or “growing” climate “awareness” on the part of Congress. Instead, the methods and manner that the Pelosi led House achieved final passage, represents nothing more than unrestrained exercise of raw political power, arm-twisting, intimidation and special interest handouts.
The House of Representatives passed a bill it did not read, did not understand. A bill that is based on crumbling scientific claims and a bill that will have no detectable climate impact (assuming climate fear promoters are correct on the science and the bill is fully implemented - both implausible assumptions).
Proponents of the bill made spectacular claims in their efforts to impress the urgency of the bill on their colleagues. Democratic Congressman G.K. Butterfield reported claim that the bill “‘will literally save the planet” reveals just how out of touch scientifically, politically and economically many of the bill’s supporters have become. To illustrate just how delusional some of the supporters of the bill have became, imagine if in 1909 the U.S. Congress passed a bill attempting to predict climate, temperature and the energy mix powering our national economy in the year 2000. (not to mention sanctimonious claims about “saving the Earth.") Any such attempt would have been ridiculed, but somehow in 2009, attempting to control the economy and climate of the year 2100 is seen as reasonable by many.
If we actually faced the man-made “climate crisis” proponents claim, we would all be doomed if we had to rely on this bill save us. A May 2009 scientific analysis of the bill revealed its temperature impact to be ”scientifically meaningless.” Sorry Congressman Butterfield, far from “saving the planet”, this bill will instead be nothing more than all economic pain for no climate gain. Many environmental groups opposed the bill because it failed to actually reduce emissions. (See: Obama’s global warming plan would result in U.S. burning MORE coal in 2020 & Greenpeace Opposes Waxman-Markey...’bill chooses politics over science’ )
President Obama attempted to call the bill a job creator and proponents cited a Congressional Budget Office report to downplay the cost to Americans. But these arguments failed to hold up under the close light of scrutiny. (See: Rebuttal: Obama Tries to Sell Cap-And-Tax as a Jobs Bill ) Even fellow Democrats failed to parrot these mythical claims. Democrat Congressman John Dingell of Michigan was blunt, calling Cap and trade a “great big” tax in April.
Even Obama advisor Warren Buffett failed to tow the rhetorical line on the climate bill. Buffet came out strongly opposed to cap and trade, saying it would be “a huge, regressive tax.”
The climate bill now moves to the Senate where it faces a much tougher road ahead. The best news of the climate bill’s passage is that the American public, which has wholeheartedly rejected man-made global warming fears, will now be awakened to what their representatives in Washington are up to.
Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted against the bill, realized Americans were not concered about global warming, saying: ”There is no public outcry to pass this legislation. It’s an institutional push.”
Democrat Congressman Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania reported his constituent calls were “running 9-1 against” the climate bill. Current polling data reveals that the American people “get it” when it comes to man-made global warming fears. Given the wealth of recent polling data showing Americans are growing increasingly skeptical, Congressmen and Senators are simply not hearing any clamor from voters to “act” to “solve” global warming.
In fact, the opposite is true, voters are rebelling against the unfounded climate fears and the so-called “solutions” in growing numbers. Below is a small sampling of recent polling data on global warming.
1) Gallup survey found global warming ranked dead last in the U.S. among ENVIRONMENTAL issues - March 2009
2) Gallup Poll Editor: Gore has ‘Failed’—‘The public is just not that concerned’ about global warming - May 2009
3) Zobgy Poll: Only 30% of Americans support cap-and-trade—57% oppose - April 2009
4) “Gallup Poll: Record-High 41% of Americans Now Say Global Warming is Exaggerated” - March 11, 2009
5) Rasmussen Poll found Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming - ‘Lowest finding yet’—‘reversal from a year ago!’
Now that the bill has cleared the house and heads to the Senate (where they will be preparing their own version of a cap-and-trade bill) the American people will awake to the reality that this purely climate symbolic bill with real economic and lifestyle impacts may actually become law. An American public that is aware of a “non-solution” global warming bill has the potential to literally shut down Washington with phone calls, emails and faxes. Thus far, global warming bills have been a distant possibility somewhere in the future. With the passage of this bill, it is now game on.
Despite the American people’s rejection of warming fears and climate taxes, Congress may persist in pushing them for other non-scientific reasons. Hint, hint. See: Dem. Senator calls cap-and-trade ‘the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time.‘
Beyond just economics, lifestyles changes will be in order under the new climate regime. As a June 7, 2009 Washington Post editorial stated: “Why does Congress, and not the market, need to dictate these changes?” The Post noted the climate bill “contains regulations on everything from light bulb standards to specs on hot tubs; it will reshape America’s economy.” Also see: 19th Century Living: Under climate plan ‘Americans allowed to emit same carbon volumes as citizens did in 1867’)
In May, House speaker Nancy Pelosi declared “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory” in order to battle global warming and reduce our carbon footprints.
In addition, even the two strongest proponents of man-made global warming fears - NASA’s James Hansen and UK’s James Lovelock—are now ridiculing the Congressional cap-and-trade approach as “ineffectual” and “verging on a gigantic scam.” Adding to that, Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader has also voiced opposition to cap-and-trade. Remember, these are the words of scientists and activists who believe in a looming human caused climate “crisis.”
Americans are becoming aware that the debate is not “over” as more than 700 prominent international scientists publicly dissenting, including many who are reversing their views on climate fears and declaring themselves skeptical. Americans are becoming aware that there has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years. As Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal noted in a June 26, 2009 article, the “Democrats are attempting to “quickly jam the climate bill through Congress because global warming tide is shifting.” The article noted that the “Scientific debate roaring back to life” as the “number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.”
As the Senate considers global warming cap-and-trade legislation that will raise energy prices during a massive economic downturn, curious voters will soon be asking their Senators the following basic questions:
1) What impact will this bill have on temperatures? (Answer: “Meaningless")
2) What will the bill cost? (Answer: Trillions)
3) Why are you voting for a bill that will have huge economic impacts and harm the poor and seniors on fixed incomes the most—but will not have a measurable climate impact?
4) Why are more and more scientists publicly rejecting man-made climate fears and why has the Earth failed to warm as predicted?
The answers to the above questions will likely cause massive angst with many Democrats, particularly in rust belt states. These questions will have to be answered as all eyes turn to the U.S. Senate. But, never underestimate the ability of Congress to offer non-solutions to problems that don’t even exist.
Stay tuned… See full post here.
After its passage, Minority leader Boehner correctly called the Climate bill a ‘pile of s--t’ .
By Brian Wingfield, Forbes
Key business groups are fighting multiple battles on climate change.
They’ve lost an early battle, but some influential members of the business community are still waging a two-front war to prevent the government from limiting carbon dioxide emissions.
By a vote of 219-212 Friday evening, the House of Representatives passed a landmark bill that would establish a so-called “cap-and-trade” system limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Until the last minute, influential industry groups like the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were lobbying fervently to defeat the bill.
“It allows Congress to select winners and losers,” wrote NAM’s top lobbyist, Jay Timmons, in a letter to every member of the House on the eve of the vote. The Chamber’s lobbying chief, Bruce Josten, says it “would impose 397 new regulations and 1,060 new mandates on the American public.”
NAM and the Chamber will now have to take up their fight with the Senate, where the legislation has a much slimmer chance of survival. If it fails there, business groups may still be faced with a potentially more expensive threat: regulation of carbon dioxide and several other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Opponents of such a move claim it would exacerbate unemployment in the U.S. and would subject businesses to billions of dollars in compliance costs.
That said, business groups don’t seem to be too scared of the regulatory threat. One reason: Both President Obama and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson prefer that Congress--not the administration--deal with the issue of greenhouse gas emissions.
In April, the EPA concluded that high concentrations of CO2 and other gases endanger the public health. A public comment period on this “endangerment finding” just ended, and regulations could be forthcoming. However, the EPA is likely to wait and see what action lawmakers take. That’s good news for opponents of carbon constraints. See report here.
Icecap Note: We will be listing on the Icecap blog, some of the comments filed with the EPA by Icecap and some noted scientists.
CEI
UPDATE: Cap-and-Tax
Friends – Last night, at 3:00 a.m., the House Democrats released a 300-page amendment to their 1,200-page national energy tax legislation. No one - not one single Member of Congress - has read the bill that the Democratic Leadership is bringing up for a vote today. Remember, Speaker Pelosi promised the American people at least 24 hours to read a bill before a vote in her “New Direction for America” document distributed in 2006 that remains on her website today. Another broken promise from Washington Democrats.
So at the conclusion of his floor statement this afternoon, Republican Leader John Boehner will read the 300-page amendment on the House floor to America and the assembled Members of the House. By House tradition, three Members have the right to deliver unlimited floor remarks - the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader. This is the House equivalent of the filibuster in the Senate. We expect it may take a while, but Members of Congress, and - more importantly - the American people have a right know what the House is voting on.
You can view the floor proceedings on CSPAN or at http://www.c-span.org/.
Democratic Leaders Rush to Buy Off Special Interests
Washington, D.C., June 26, 2009 - The Competitive Enterprise Institute urges Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to vote later today against the Waxman-Markey energy rationing bill, H. R. 2454. The 1500-page plan would amount to the biggest tax increase in history and impose a huge range of government controls over energy use.
The stakes are high, explains CEI’s Director Energy and Global Warming policy, Myron Ebell. “The Waxman-Markey bill would be the biggest tax increase in world history,” said Ebell. “Enacting Waxman-Markey would almost certainly make America a second-rate economic power. Those Members of the House who vote for it are voting for long-term economic decline.
“The process for railroading this 1500-page monstrosity through the House has been outrageous,” Ebell added. “Members will be voting first and finding out what they have voted on later.” The new, 1200-page version of the bill was released late Monday night. But then late last night, Chairman Henry Waxman released an additional 309 pages, for a total of 1500. Now, Democratic leaders are allowing a total of three hours of debate before a vote and allowing only one amendment to be offered.
Ebell pointed to some of the falsehoods associated with the bill.
“Supporters of Waxman-Markey are now claiming it will create jobs, which is ludicrous,” said Ebell. “If that were true, why did Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee defeat Republican amendments to suspend Waxman-Markey if gasoline reached five dollars a gallon or electric rates doubled or unemployment topped fifteen percent? The Democratic leadership will not allow those amendments to be offered on the floor.”
Meanwhile, Democratic leaders in the House are rushing to buy off hold-outs with “free” carbon credits. “Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) has given away 85% of the ration coupons to various powerful special interests in order to gain support for the bill,” said Ebell. “Some people are going to become very wealthy from cap-and-trade, but it isn’t going to be consumers.”
We urge that voters contact their Representative immediately by calling the House switchboard at (202) 225-3121. Tell your Representative to vote No on H. R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Voters may also send their Member an e-mail by going to www.cei.org/1984 and clicking on the link to the action page.
Also courtesy of Paul Chesser this analysis from the Beacon Hill Institute:
The Economic Effects of Proposed Cap-and-Trade Legislation
President Obama and several members of Congress have proposed legislation to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States. The Waxman-Markey Bill currently before Congress would bring GHG emissions, and hence carbon emissions, below 2005 levels in steps - 3% below those levels by 2012, 20% by 2020, 42% by 2030, and 83% by 2050.
Waxman-Markey would create a “cap-and-trade” system, under which U.S. producers would receive tradable permits to emit greenhouse gasses. Producers buying the permits would, in effect, pay a tax for the privilege of emitting greenhouse gasses currently emitted without charge. The resulting “carbon tax” would have an effect on production and employment similar to an explicit excise tax on production.
In this report, the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) uses two computer modeling capabilities to estimate the economic effects of this tax on the Louisiana economy.
(Go to Web link for table of findings)
Cutting CO2 emissions by 83% over four decades - as proposed in the Waxman-Markey Discussion draft - might appear to be an easy goal, but the results indicate otherwise. The first point to note is that such cutbacks, whether done by the U.S. alone or in concert with others, would all be more expensive than doing nothing at all.
If the United States were to cut emissions alone, with no cutbacks (relative to trend) by other countries, it would bear the full cost of abatement (PV = $3.85 trillion) while reaping only about $0.27 trillion in benefits. This represents a net cost, relative to doing nothing, of $3.42 trillion. It would cost the United States $154 billion by 2020 and $1.318 trillion by 2050.
By 2045, the tax on carbon would need to rise to $714 per metric ton of carbon (equivalent to $195 per metric ton of CO2) to induce consumers to make the necessary cutbacks; from Table 1 we see that this would add $1.73/gallon to the cost of gasoline (in 2005 dollars) and 6.7 to 14.9 cents to a kWh of electricity - essential doubling the retail price of electricity.
The benefits are modest because by 2050 the U.S. would account for less than a sixth of world emissions of CO2; reducing U.S. emissions by 83% (relative to the 2005 level) by then would cut global emissions by just 11%, which would have a modest effect on climate, moderating the increase in global temperature by 2100 from 3.30C (the baseline no-controls case) to 3.12.
The Beacon Hill Institute used its STAMP (State Tax Analysis Modeling Program) model to estimate the resulting effects on the economy of selection of states.(2)
(1) William Nordhaus, 2008, A Question of Balance, Yale University Press.
(2) For a description about the model visit STAMP .