Al Gore reads his putrid poem…HURL!

Al Gore reads his ridiculous poem about “Climate Change”. He is a moron and a pompous ass! How can anyone believe this crap!

Here is the poem in full:

One thin September soon

A floating continent disappears

In midnight sun

Vapors rise as

Fever settles on an acid sea

Neptune’s bones dissolve

Snow glides from the mountain

Ice fathers floods for a season

A hard rain comes quickly

Then dirt is parched

Kindling is placed in the forest

For the lightning’s celebration

Unknown creatures

Take their leave, unmourned

Horsemen ready their stirrups

Passion seeks heroes and friends

The bell of the city

On the hill is rung

The shepherd cries

The hour of choosing has arrived

Here are your tools

Excuse me while I go throw up. This man is an idiot with an agenda. If you are not scared you should be.

Quote by Al Gore, former vice president: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”

Restore the Republic, Reject Al Gore!

Copenhagen Update: Redistribution of Wealth and the Human Enterprise

Today’s blog is by guest blogger, Q.W. Johannes; a wise American who has witnessed 80 years of American growth, change and evolution from the Great Depression to the election of Obama. 

The  AP reports “in just 15 years , the annual conferences reviewing the 1992 U.N. climate treaty have grown into  assemblies that, perhaps more than any other, encompass the human enterprise.”  That  is  probably true but in  a  different context than what the writer intended. 

Unfortunately, the “human enterprise” at work in the U.N. has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with redistribution of wealth  and global governance!  The “human enterprise” is  being directed by  various corrupt government officials in league with unscrupulous global business  leaders , central bankers  and  billionaire manipulators like George Soros. 

The Copenhagen conference regales attendees with fear mongering videos showing  child’s nightmare  of climate change disasters or one with  polar bears falling from the sky and smashing to the pavement below.  Is this a serious presentation of scientific fact or just another pack of lies to strike fear in the hearts of the uninformed masses?  Does anyone still believe the factually flawed Al Gore ? As the  AP  and the rest  of the mainstream media studiously ignore the recent revelations concerning falsified data from the  U.N.’s  scientific advisory panel, the charlatans  press on  with their  fraudulent scam. 

Meanwhile, here at home,  the EPA conveniently announces that  CO 2 is harmful to the health of human beings, you know, the same CO 2 which is a natural by-product of breathing. The EPA announcement is made coincidently as the Copenhagen conference is about to begin. 

The EPA is making these costly regulations without the support of factual scientific data or regard for the economic consequences to America. Instead they are trying to “nudge” as Cass Sunstein likes to say, the legislative process along to force their real agenda.  We need congress to do their job and write appropriate legislation rather than allow the EPA to regulate without oversight. This administration is hijacking the legislative process so they can manipulate the law to drive their agenda.  

So, if the public doesn’t want a treaty that will end our sovereignty, and doesn’t want Cap & Trade, it’s time for action. You must start tracking the votes of your elected officials and holding them accountable for their decisions. If we can make it to November 2010 without the current congress and administration destroying the country or the economy we can vote to throw the irresponsible ones (bums) out. Of course, that would leave us with an almost empty House and Senate. However the good news is it will also provide us an opportunity to start over with legislators who want to do the job they were elected to do starting with defending the country and the constitution. It almost sounds revolutionary!

Robert Gibbs on Climate Change Science

Once again the arrogance of the White House is well represented by Robert Gibbs as he responds to a question on the “science” of global warming from Fox News’ Major Garrett. Despite over 30,000 scientists worldwide going on record as refuting the science that climate change is caused directly by humans, Mr. Gibbs dismisses the comment saying,  “there is no real scientific basis for dispute of this.” 

Also pay attention to his comments referring to Obama’s participation and his goal. Gibbs states that Obama is going to Copenhagen to try to “use this visit to get us to the point of a deal”. There is no deal that can come out of Copenhagen that will be good for the U.S. or our sovereignty. Watch the exchange below:

In light of Climategate and all the opposition to the global warming scare, you would think that it might be time to call for an open dialogue with both sides of the scientific community to determine the best course of action. Except of course, Al Gore has weighed in and also claims that the science is settled.

Lies, lies and more lies. This is a power grab that has been underway since the sixties beginning with The Club of Rome. It is the key to setting up the U.N. to provide the backbone of global governance.

Read the quotes of the leaders of this movement. See the quotes here: http://bit.ly/44Up7e  

They have a plan and they are executing. The Copenhagen Treaty conference could be the tipping point. The Climategate emails are the break the good guys need to show this scam for what it is. We must let our leaders know that we do not want them to sign us on to a treaty that will destroy our economy and our sovereignty especially when it is based on science that is in serious question. The only eminent threat is global governance and empowering the U.N. with more control of world affairs.

Wake up, America – your future is at stake. Our sovereign nation and your freedom hangs in the balance.

Restore our Republic, Reject Green Lies, Reject the Copenhagen Treaty!

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” — Patrick Henry 

Climate Change – “Hide the Decline”

Quote by Al Gore, former vice president: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”

Quote by Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC: “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

Quote by Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist: “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

As the wheels come off the biggest scam in world history, the cool kids at Minnesota Majority rock it with their video tribute to the false science of Climate Change. Take this Al Gore!

Here is an excerpt from Michael Mann’s hacked email explaining that the truth doesn’t matter: “Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to  the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t?  As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we  actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our  original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations”.

Wake up, America you are being lied to! Our sovereignty and way of life is at stake. There are revolutionaries running our government who want to “fundamentallty transform America”. The Global Warming Lie is just a means to an end for them. Don’t fall for it! Being a good steward of the planet is a responsibility of all earth’s citizens but it is not necessary to destroy our country, our economy or our sovereignty to be a good citizen of the planet.

Restore the Republic, Reject Green Lies!

BBC Report – What happened to Global Warming?

“All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster”. – Barack Obama

Not long ago, the President was busy telling us the debate about climate change was over and it was real. All while leading scientists from around the world tried unsuccessfully to get the U.N. or anyone in the media to listen to their side of the argument – that Climate Change was a cyclical event that has been happening forever. As new evidence continues to surface – will anyone listen before it is too late? We all need to face the ugly truth – Global Warming and the impending global disaster are a scam to create a power grab for the socialist forces that want to “fundamentally transform America”. This does not mean that sound environmental stewardship isn’t something we should strive for. However it does mean that we should not get suckered into sacrificing our national sovereignty, freedom, liberty, capitalism and the American way of life for the false religion of the green movement and their idea of social justice. That is why THEY are in such a rush to pass all this crap! They are afraid you will find out the truth before their plan has been launched. NO MORE CHANGE! It is time to slow down and thoughtfully debate this issue.

It is time to wake up! We need to say NO, to the Waxman Markey Climate Change Bill and any other form of Tax and Cap. This has the same disasterous consequences as Healthcare Reform.

Here is an excerpt from a new article at BBC by Paul Hudson:

For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

 

But in the last few years it (the Pacific Ocean) has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

Go read the full article and decide for yourself!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Restore the Republic, Reject the Green Agenda of the Progressive Left!

Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. — Mark Twain

Al Gore Unquestionable

On Oct. 9th, former Vice President Al Gore spoke to the Society of Environmental Journalists. He shared his optimism about the “shifting momentum” of the climate change debate with about 500 environmental journalists. 

“We’re very close to that political tipping point,” Gore said at annual conference at the Madison Concourse Hotel. “Never before in human history has a single generation been asked to make such difficult and consequential decisions”.

After his speech, Gore agreed to a rare question and answer session with the journalists in attendance.

Phelim McAleer, an Irish filmmaker and director of “Not Evil, Just Wrong,” a documentary challenging Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” dared to ask Gore to address nine errors in his film identified by a British court in 2007. Instead of answering the question Gore ignored the it and tried to turn it around on McAleer.

Since the former Vice President has assumed the mantle of Green Champion he talks out of both sides of his mouth. As a general rule, he refuses Q & A sessions. Al Gore is a fraud He jets around the globe spreading the gospel of environmentalism while leaving a giant carbon footprint as a trail. Meanwhile he is loading his bank account with a fortune he is making as the frontman for this scam.

Watch a video of the exchange below:

Al – you are an embarrassment – Shut up and go back to your Tennessee mansion.

Global warming is a scam. The temperature increases peaked in 1998 and has been declining ever since. It is cyclical and always has been.  In support of weather being cyclical here are a few blast from the past: In 1924 both the N.Y. Times and Time magazine wrote alarming articles about global cooling but by the mid 1930’s both were reporting that we were headed for a period of scary global warming. Then in the mid 70’s, during my high school years, both were back to reporting cooling trends and even a potential second ice age.

There is not conclusive evidence that all of the claims being made by the forces of Al Gore are accurate. In fact there is a large group within the scientific community that do not agree. However, media coverage of this opposing view is limited and most attempts at public debate on the issue gets no notice.

Restore the Republic, Reject the Global Warming Scam – It is a scare tactic to push us toward a world run by the U.N.

The Waxman Markey Climate Change Bill (Part 4)…… The Potential Impact

In the final installment of this series, I will pull together the factors of this bill that will ultimately impact all Americans if signed into law. A bill like this comes with a price tag that is not inconsequential. 

“The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.” – Louis Proyect, Columbia University 

So here is a list highlighting a number of things that will be impacted. 

The Economy at Large:  

Job Loss: There will be fall out in the form of lost jobs as a result of this bill being passed into law. American companies will be faced with significantly higher energy costs as a result of the cap-and-tax plan and other provisions in the bill. This will put U.S. based manufacturing facilities at a competitive disadvantage with plants in other parts of the world not forced to play on the same field of “environmental stewardship”. 

This could result in millions of American jobs going overseas. The bill also mandates conceptual, unproven technologies for coal-fired plants which could result in plant closings if they are not able to comply with the new federal regulations. This could increase dependence on natural gas causing an increase in prices. 

Proponents of the bill claim the opposite; this will result in millions of new “green” jobs. Reality check – the new industries and jobs will require significant capital investment, research and can not be launched quickly enough to offset the losses. In other words, the ramp up is longer than the ramp down. Considering the current state of our national economy the timing of such an initiative seems potentially disastrous. 

Higher Energy Costs: The proposed regulations in the bill require a new Federal Renewable Energy Standard. The standard starts at a minimum of 6% in 2012 and escalates to 25% by 2025. The Department of Energy will issue utilities “credits” for renewable energy they generate which can be sold, transferred, or exchanged.  If a utility cannot meet the RES it would be required to purchase credits to make up the difference. In effect this becomes a hidden tax and a new source of revenue for the government. To offset these costs the utility companies will pass them on to their customers, ultimately resulting in higher energy prices for everyone. The problem here is that currently renewable energy technology is neither efficient nor cost competitive which is why it is not being implemented in a wide spread manner yet. Forcing the market to adopt this technology before it is ready will cause prices to increase rapidly. This mandate in effect put the Dept. of Energy in charge of the energy market. There are also concerns that a RES would impose a uniform federal standard on States despite varying sources of renewable resources.  Southeastern states would be especially hard hit.  

There are many other requirements that also will drive up energy costs up in this bill. Here are a few examples:

Cap and Tax – This issue requires a blog of its’ own. Please see my April 25^th blog titled “Cap and Trade” or “Bait and Switch”  

Carbon capture and sequestration – This is the term used to describe a technology that captures carbon at its source and stores it before it is released into the atmosphere.  Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is designed to be a method of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere.  In general, any CCS system would have the following components: (1) capturing and separating CO2 from other byproducts; (2) compressing and transporting the captured CO2 to the sequestration site; and (3) sequestering CO2 in geological reservoirs or in the oceans. This is not only as ridiculous as it sounds but it creates yet another expense that will need to be passed on to the end user. How much do you suppose it will cost to “dispose” of carbon dioxide? We better hope they never apply this logic to methane or nobody will be able to afford hamburger! 

Smart Grid – This is a distribution system that allows information to flow from a customer’s electric meter in two directions: both inside the house to thermostats, appliances and other devices then back to the utility. The bill facilitates the deployment of a Smart Grid, including measures to use it to reduce utility peak loads and promote capabilities in new home appliances.  States and utilities would determine and publish peak demand reduction goals. The goals would specify a reduction to a lower peak demand by 2012.  The bill also directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reform the regional planning process to modernize the electric grid plus provide new transmission lines to carry electricity generated from renewable sources. 

New Transmission Lines – The bill does not adequately address the need for new transmission lines the RES will require. These transmission lines would likely be subject to not-in-my-backyard opposition that impedes permitting. How the states and utilities will work through these issues remains to be seen but it will likely be expensive and challenging. Also additional costs for renewable energy transmitted from far away resources across longer transmission lines to states without such resources could further impact prices. 

Nationalizing the Grid – Under this bill the Federal Power Act is amended to require the FERC to adopt grid planning principles to achieve national policy goals. These goals include energy efficiency, a Smart Grid, and underground transmission technologies. Although better transmission infrastructure is the key to reliability, nationalizing the development of the grid might nationalize costs and raise questions on eminent domain. Again any program that the government is in charge of planning is going to drive up costs not efficiencies. 

Industrial Energy Efficiency – Under this plan the Dept. of Energy would develop industrial energy efficiency certification standards.  It also establishes a financial award program for electric or thermal energy generation facilities, which currently use fossil or nuclear fuel. Theoretically, this would encourage additional types of thermal energy production.  The legislation authorizes “such sums” for these awards. 

Building Energy Efficiency – The bill also contains several “energy efficiency programs” for commercial and residential buildings.  The legislation sets targets for national building codes to make a 30 percent improvement in energy efficiency within three years, and a 50 percent improvement starting with building codes released in 2016 and beyond using 2004 or 2006 codes as a baseline.  The Federal government will provide funding to States to implement these requirements. 

Lighting and Appliance Energy Efficiency – There will be several new federal standards for lighting and household appliances.  The bill would create a new standard for outdoor lighting fixtures effective in 2011, with progressively tougher standards by 2015.  The legislation would place new energy standards on appliances and would even make it a federal offense to sell appliances that do not meet the new requirements. 

International Reserve Allowance Program – Border tax adjustments or border tax assessments, are import fees levied by carbon-capping countries on goods manufactured in non-carbon-capping countries. We used to call these tariffs. The bill establishes a program to set up binding agreements committing all major greenhouse gas emitting nations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global GHG emissions.  Since we can not require foreign nations to cap their own emissions, the bill establishes a border adjustment program to require foreign manufacturers and importers to purchase emission allowances to “cover” the carbon emitted in the production of products being sold in the United States. The idea is to provide U.S. manufacturers competitive relief against their foreign counterparts. Any cost to foreign producers will be passed on to U.S. consumers.  Not only will domestic products be more expensive, but so will foreign goods. This will likely have devastating effects on free trade and foreign relationships.  

We, as Americans, have a duty to be good stewards of the planet. We have a responsibility to improve the way we generate energy and manage the earth’s resources. However, living up to these responsibilities does not require us to abandon the principles of government that made our nation strong and powerful. We have a responsibility to future generations of Americans which in addition to a healthy environment includes leaving them a free, sovereign and prosperous nation like the one our parents and grandparents left us. We do not have to choose between the American Dream and a healthy planet – we can have both. We certainly do not need a bunch of politicians and left wing scientists with an agenda manufacturing a crisis to do their own experiment in social re-engineering. 

“I think if we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don’t think it’s possible under capitalism.” – Judi Barri, Earth First

General Electric (NYSE:GE) is the parent company of the major media conglomerate NBC Universal, which owns media outlets NBC, MSNBC and CNBC. At times that has led to the lines between corporate advocacy and journalism being blurred. GE C.E.O. Immelt used his platform at CNBC to make the case for a cap-and-trade program to curb emissions – something Obama has called for and one Congressional committee is debating this week. “There’s going to have to be a price for carbon,” Immelt said. “In some way, shape of form, you’re going to have to create some certainty. You have to make technology your friend in this debate. ….. I think about things like global warming. We’ve been on this for four or five years.” Immelt contended he wasn’t an environmentalist, despite criticism that his networks’ have patterns of promoting the green agenda. Immelt told “Squawk Box” the science surrounding man-caused global warming was “compelling” and that it was only a matter of time before something will be done about carbon emissions. The General Electric CEO said he favored a cap-and-trade system to regulate carbon emissions versus a carbon tax. – source: Business and Media Institute 5/20/09

More government intervention is not the answer to improving the environment. Besides, the science does not support the claims the U.N., Al Gore, the media and other fear mongers are making. We do not need to redistribute our wealth as the socialist environmentalists are demanding. We also do not need to make elite multi-national corporations any richer. GE is an example of just such a company. They have used their media empire (NBC, CNBC & MSNBC) to promote fear with heavy handed marketing of the “green” agenda and climate change issues. Meanwhile, they have heavily invested in alternative energy establishing a huge footprint in wind power, solar power as well as smart grids and those high efficiency appliances I mentioned earlier. GE also spent an estimated $20 million on lobbying efforts in support of their “green” business plan. Also just for good measure, GE recently announced the launch of a new subsidiary called Greenhouse Gas Services, which will facilitate the trading of carbon tax credits. There is your answer on why Mr. Immelt prefers carbon credits to carbon taxes! Do you suppose they have a motive that goes beyond their corporate concern for a healthy planet? 

The net result of this unfathomable bill will be higher energy prices, reduced global competitiveness, continued job loss, more government regulation, a stifling of free markets and a reduction of the standard of living for all Americans. This bill has the potential to effectively kill what remains of capitalism in our country. We must block this legislation. We can improve our environmental stewardship without killing our economic system. Write your Congressional and Senatorial representatives and tell them to vote for America by voting against this bill. Our country’s future as a sovereign world leader depends on it. 

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don’t suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them.”—Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

The Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill (Part3)……The Science?

“All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.” – President Barack Obama 

 

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken, famous columnist 

Al Gore, former vice president: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” 

These quotes are representative of a host of statements by environmental activists that all but admit, that at a minimum, there is an intentional attempt to use fear and deception as a means to advance their agenda. 

The scientific community is split into two very distinct groups on the subject of global warming/climate change – those who believe it is induced by humans and those who don’t. 

Let’s start with the hypothesis about how excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can create a greenhouse effect that results in global warming. 

The work of scientists (Fourier 1824 and Tyndall 1861) have been cited as the basis for the greenhouse effect theory. However, an analysis of these papers shows neither included the concept of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.  The earth’s atmosphere contains trace gases, some of which absorb heat. These gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide) are referred to as “greenhouse gases.” 

Below is a link to a scientific paper that destroys the basic premise of the greenhouse effect through the science of thermal dynamics and physics. The basic analysis is a comparison of the mechanics of a greenhouse and the thermal dynamics of earth’s atmosphere. It is clear and concise. It contends that the IPCC has manufactured science that supports a political agenda rather than a scientific premise. 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf 

The United States Department of Energy, confirmed in a 1985 report that the “CO2-greenhouse effect”, the theoretical atmospheric greenhouse effect (projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide) does not compare to the actual warming phenomenon in a glass house. This comprehensive pre-IPCC publication explicitly states that the terms “greenhouse gas” and “greenhouse effect” are misnomers. 

Conclusion: 

Commonly held perceptions of the climatic relevance of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases rest on a staggering failure to grasp some of the fundamentals of physics. Correct interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and sound appreciation of the necessary physical conditions for emission of radiation by gases lead to the understanding that within the troposphere no backradiation can be caused by so-called greenhouse gases. Therefore, it is not at all correct to speak of a thermal effect of these gases on the biosphere. 

The thermal conditions in our and any atmosphere are determined by its pressure and the mass of its main components. Higher concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere – at least until they reached 2% (a 60-fold increase) and thus became injurious to health – would endanger neither the climate nor mankind. To avoid further misunderstanding, the terms greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases should be avoided in describing the functioning of the atmosphere. A more correct term would be atmosphere effect. 

The operation of this effect is described in “The Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect” at http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/atmos.htm.)

It is completely incomprehensible and unjustified to imagine that mankind can or must protect the climate by attempting to control trace amounts of CO2 in the air. Source – Heinz Thieme  http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm

 Also in all of these articles allude to problems with the computer models being used to predict the impending climate disaster. However, when these models are tested against actual data from satellites and weather balloons the models appear to be wrong. See the following articles for more details: 

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm 

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15727/Global_Warming_Computer_Models_Seriously_Flawed_Studies_Show.html

So here is where we are: 

Current plans and actions to protect the climate lack an adequate basis in the proven results of scientific research. The group of scientists currently offering policy advice has so far failed to demonstrate the alleged mechanisms by which trace gases will damage weather and climate. Moreover, several potentially major influences on climate are being ignored. Enhanced scientific understanding of meteorological processes might suggest substantially different climate protection activities, if in fact these are necessary or feasible. Substantial further research is required by experts in biology, chemistry, thermodynamics and meteorology to improve knowledge of atmospheric dynamics and assess the extent to which human activities affect climate. Source – Heinz Thieme  http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/Influence.htm

In the final installment of this series the discussion will turn to the potential economic impact of this craziness. If allowed to move forward The Waxman Markey Climate Change Bill will have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy and it’s citizens. 

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”  

Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: “That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

The Waxman – Markey Climate Change Bill (Part 2) … Does “human activity” really induce global warming?

“Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.” – Ross Gelbsan, former journalist

Even though the mainstream media refuses to cover it, there is momentum building in the scientific community to challenge the current hype around global warming and the allegedly negative effects of greenhouse gases. Today’s blog is intended to point you in the direction of this information as I continue to lay the ground work for debate on why this bill is bad for America. 

Let’s start with a documentary produced in the U.K. on the subject: 

(N.Y. Post) March 17^th BRITAIN’S Channel 4 has produced a devastating documentary titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” It has apparently not been broadcast by any U.S. networks, but is available on the Web.

Distinguished scientists specializing in climate and climate-related fields talk in plain English and present readily understood graphs showing what a crock the current global-warming hysteria is.

These include scientists from MIT and top-tier universities in a number of countries. The names of some were paraded on some of the global-warming publications that are being promoted in the media – but they state plainly that they neither wrote those publications nor approved them. One threatened to sue unless his name was removed.

While the public has been led to believe that “all” leading scientists buy the global-warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats – and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were “consulted,” but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.

There is no question that the globe is warming – but it has warmed and cooled before, and is not as warm today as it was some centuries ago, before there was as much the burning of fossil fuels as today. None of the dire things predicted today happened then.

The documentary goes into some of the many factors that have caused the Earth to warm and cool for centuries, including changes in activities on the sun, 93 million miles away and wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Kyoto treaty.

According to these climate scientists, human activities have very little effect on the climate, compared to many other factors, from volcanoes to clouds.

These climate scientists likewise debunk the mathematical models used to hype warming hysteria, showing that they’re contradicted by hard evidence stretching back centuries.

Much effort has been put into silencing scientists who dare to say that the emperor has no clothes. One of the scientists interviewed in the documentary reported getting death threats.

In politics, even conservative Republicans seem to have taken the view that, if you can’t lick ’em, join ’em. So have big corporations, which have joined the stampede.

No one denies that temperatures are about a degree warmer than they were a century ago. What the climate scientists in the British documentary deny is that you can mindlessly extrapolate that, or that we are headed for a climate catastrophe if we don’t take drastic steps that could cause an economic catastrophe.

“Global warming” is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible.  

For more information on this documentary go to:

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/        It is also available on YouTube.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.” – Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth

 Next there is the infamous open letter that another group of scientists wrote to the U.N. on the subject. The letter not only disagrees openly with the reported conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but also challenges the methodology of how it was written. See below:

 Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dec. 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, N.Y. 

Dear Mr. Secretary-General, 

Re: UN climate conference is taking the World in entirely the wrong direction.

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-lineby ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see reference) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems. 

Yours faithfully,

A complete list of signers available at the bottom of this blog.

http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/open-letter-100-scientists-ban-ki-moon-0

 “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.” – Louis Proyect, Columbia University

Here are a few other sites to visit: 

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/02/japanese-scientists-dispute-man-made-warming-hypothesis/ 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086 

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=212 

Again, all of this reading is in preparation for the final 2 parts of this series. Part 3 will deal with the scientific facts in dispute. Part 4 will summarizes my opinion about the potential impact of proposed governmental policies and regulations of greenhouse gas. More to come….

I have included these signatures to make a point which is there is clearly not a consensus opinion or indisputable evidence on this subject as we are often led to believe.

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,’ Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman – Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling – virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief – Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

The Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill (Part1)……What is it?

I will apologize in advance for posting so much information that is already in the public domain but I thought if I can put it all in one place maybe you could scan it and use it as a reference with Part 2  – nobody wants to read it not even congress. 

First up we have a summary of the bill from the legislators that wrote/sponsored it. 

The U.S. House of Representatives – Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Waxman-Markey discussion draft, “The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” is comprehensive energy legislation. The legislation will create millions of new clean energy jobs, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, enhance America’s energy independence, and cut global warming pollution. 

The legislation has four titles: (1) a “clean energy” title that promotes renewable sources of energy and carbon capture and sequestration technologies, low-carbon transportation fuels, clean electric vehicles, and the smart grid and electricity transmission; (2) an “energy efficiency” title that increases energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy, including buildings, appliances, transportation, and industry; (3) a “global warming” title that places limits on the emissions of heat-trapping pollutants; and (4) a “transitioning” title that protects U.S. consumers and industry and promotes green jobs during the transition to a clean energy economy. 

To read the entire draft bill go to:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090331/acesa_discussiondraft.pdf 

So how does the bill deal with cap & tax? Below is a summary from GreenBiz.com: 

The bill aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and would give away up to 85 percent of the pollution permits in a proposed cap-and-trade program.  

Here is the breakdown of the permit allocation:

• 15 percent of the carbon permits will be auctioned off (proceeds will go toward helping low- and moderate-income families)

The rest will be given away as follows:

• 35 percent for electric utility sector, including 30 percent for distribution companies and 5 percent for privately owned coal companies
• 15 percent for carbon-intensive industries, such as steel and cement, in 2014 (reduced by 2 percent every year)
• 10 percent for states for renewable energy and efficiency investment from 2012 to 2015 (reduced to 5 percent between 2016 to 2022)
• 9 percent for local natural gas distribution companies (reduced to zero between 2026 and 2030)
• 5 percent for tropical deforestation projects
• 3 percent for automakers toward advanced technologies through 2017 (reduced to 1 percent from 2018 and 2025)
• 2 percent for domestic adaptation to climate change between 2012 and 2021 (increases to 4 percent between 2022 to 2026, to 8 percent in 2027)
• 2 percent for international adaptation and clean technology transfer from 2012 to 2021 (increases to 4 percent between 2022 to 2026, to 8 percent in 2027)
• 2 percent for carbon capture and storage technology from 2014 and 2017 (increases to 5 percent after 2018)
• 2 percent for oil refineries from 2014 to 2026
• 1.5 percent for programs helping home heating oil and propane users (reduced to zero between 2026 and 2030)
• 1 percent for Clean Energy Innovation Centers for R&D funding
• 0.5 percent for job training from 2012 to 2021 (increases to 1 percent after 2022) 

There is a combined renewable energy and energy efficiency standard of 20 percent by 2020 (15 percent for renewable energy and 5 percent in energy efficiency). If a state cannot meet the requirement, its governor may cut the renewable target to 12 percent and boost the energy efficiency goal to 8 percent.“This bill marks the dawn of the clean energy age,” said Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) in a statement. “This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to revive our economy and create millions of good-paying clean energy jobs.”

 

The bill, however, has some environmental groups expressing concern and recommending outright rejection.

“Congressmen Waxman and Markey have done an admirable job satisfying a lot of competing interests,” Liz Perera, Washington representative for Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate Program in a statement. “But now, as the bill moves forward, Congress needs to strengthen many of the bill’s provisions to ensure that we dramatically cut emissions, save consumers money, and strengthen our economy with a well-designed climate and energy policy.”Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen and TheCLEAN.org coalition are calling for politicians to dump the bill and start over. 

 

Next we have a response document from GOP.gov, The website of Republicans in Congress: 

The Waxman-Markey Climate Legislation: Higher Energy Prices, Fewer Jobs, and More Government Intrusion

STATUS

On March 31, 2009, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Waxman (D-CA) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Markey (D-MA) released their draft “American Clean Energy and Security” legislation. Both Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey plan on considering their bill in Committee over the next few weeks.

Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket … that will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers … -President Barack Obama, Meeting with the Editorial Board at the San Francisco Chronicle, January, 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Just shy of 650 pages, the Waxman-Markey bill contains four sections outlining mandates for renewable energy, mandates for energy efficiency, an incomplete cap-and-tax proposal, and a “transitioning” section focused on forestalling expected job loss. With regard to the cap-and-tax proposal in the bill, there are no specifics on how CO2 emissions allowances would be allocated to energy producers-in other words, will they be free or auctioned, and at what price. Therefore, the bill provides little for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to use to calculate its economic impact. However, in contrast to the details which are conveniently left out of the bill, there are plenty of details on how the plan increases energy prices, strains the economy, reduces jobs, and intrudes into private citizens lives.

– Higher Energy Prices: The bill imposes a national cap-and-tax regime that will tax every domestic energy producer for their carbon emissions-a tax which will inevitably be passed onto consumers. Independent researchers, CBO, and the President all agree that this cost will be passed to consumers. Furthermore, other provisions in the bill also increase the cost of energy, such as a new federal renewable electricity standard that will likely cause electricity prices to spike.

– Fewer Jobs: The bill does little to address the enormous loss of jobs that will ensue when U.S. industries absorb the cost of the cap-and-tax plan and other provisions, likely sending millions of American jobs overseas. In addition, the bill mandates undeveloped technologies for coal-fired plants, causing coal-fired plants to close when they cannot comply with federal regulation.

– More Government Intrusion: The bill creates a host of new federal mandates on everything from outdoor light bulbs and table lamps to water dispensers, commercial hot food cabinets, and Jacuzzis. The bill would also increase the demand for electricity (to fuel vehicles via new transportation mandates) at the same time as the other portions of the bill cause consumer electricity costs to spike.

To read the full response with point by point rebuttal go to:
http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/09/04/21/the-waxman-markey-climate-legislation 

This might be the most dangerous piece of legislation to come out of the House of Representatives this year from an economic impact standpoint (which considering what they have done so far that is saying something). This piece of legislation is Al Gore and environmentalists dream come true. Well almost, apparently the folks at Greenpeace and tree hugger.com can not support the bill in its’ watered down form. It is 650 pages of economic devastation and of course, nobody had time to read it. So in case the request was made for the bill to be read out loud as is often required the Democrats hired a speed reader – this is not a joke – they really hired a speed reader! 

First, let me say I do not really trust the Republicans or the Democrats in this dispute. However, common sense tells you that there are a multitude of unanswered questions in the global warming debate. This should lead one to wonder who the winners and losers in this are going to be. History shows that any time the government wants to create regulations like these somebody is going to get rich. More to come…..