Conquer Club

Posted: **Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:17 pm**

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06 ... te-change/

WASHINGTON -- The Democratic-controlled House, dealing a legislative victory to President Obama, narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.

The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs.

The House's action fulfilled Speaker Nancy Pelosi's vow to clear major energy legislation before July 4, and sent the measure to a highly uncertain fate in the Senate.

Obama lobbied recalcitrant Democrats by phone from the White House as the debate unfolded across several hours, and Al Gore posted a statement on his Web site saying the measure represents "an essential first step towards solving the climate crisis." The former vice president won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work drawing attention to the destructive potential of global warming.

On the House floor, Democrats hailed the legislation as historic, while Republicans said it would damage the economy without solving the nation's energy woes.

It is "the most important energy and environmental legislation in the history of our country," said Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts. "It sets a new course for our country, one that steers us away from foreign oil and towards a path of clean American energy."

But Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, used an extraordinary one-hour speech shortly before the final vote to warn of unintended consequences in what he said was a "defining bill." He called it a "bureaucratic nightmare" that would cost jobs, depress real estate prices and put the government into parts of the economy where it now has no role.

The legislation would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent by mid-century. That was slightly more aggressive than Obama originally wanted, 14 percent by 2020 and the same 80 percent by mid-century.

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are rising at about 1 percent a year and are predicted to continue increasing without mandatory limits.

Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants and issue allowances for polluters. Most of the allowances would be given away, but about 15 percent would be auctioned by bid and the proceeds used to defray higher energy costs for lower-income individuals and families.

"Some would like to do more. Some would like to do less," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said in advance of the final vote. "But we have reached a compromise ... and it is a compromise that can pass this House, pass that Senate, be signed by the president and become law and make progress."

One of the biggest compromises involved the near total elimination of an administration plan to sell pollution permits and raise more than $600 billion over a decade -- money to finance continuation of a middle class tax cut. About 85 percent of the permits are to be given away rather than sold in a ceoncession to energy companies and their allies in the House -- and even that is uncertain to survive in the Senate.

The final bill also contained concessions to satisfy farm-state lawmakers, ethanol producers, hydroelectric advocates, the nuclear industry and others, some of them so late that they were not made public until 3 a.m. on Friday.

Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs but disagreed vigorously on the impact on consumers. Democrats pointed to two reports -- one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency -- that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year.

Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies showing much higher costs to the economy and to individuals.

The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of "green jobs" as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles -- and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

It will "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," declared Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill's support.

Pelosi, D-Calif., took an intense personal interest in the measure, sitting through hours of meetings with members of the rank and file and nurturing fragile compromises.

At its heart, the bill was a trade-off, less than the White House initially sought though it was more than Republicans said was acceptable. Some of the dealmaking had a distinct political feel. Rep. Alan Grayson, a first-term Democrat, won a pledge of support that $50 million from the proceeds of pollution permit sales in the bill would go to a proposed new hurricane research facility in his district in Orlando, Fla.

"This is revolutionary. This is a moment in history," declared Markey, a co-sponsor of the bill.

Republicans saw it differently.

This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

Tax ass-rape aside, it's gonna be interesting to see that the vast majority of jobs this will create, won't be in the private sector. And I'd gurantee that most manufacturing will be done in China. Product development will probably done in Europe? Oh, joy.

Posted: **Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:48 am**

lol @ Republicans.

Posted: **Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:20 pm**

Those 8 Republicans who voted for the bill should be ashamed that they abandoned the principles of less-government intrusion into our lives.

Posted: **Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:38 pm**

No jobs on a dead planet

Posted: **Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:36 pm**

Now, it goes to the Senate to be watered down into ineffectiveness. God, I love our system of democracy.

@nightstrike - the Rs who voted against it are from districts that voted for Obama. Sounds like people placing what the people want over party.

Posted: **Sun Jun 28, 2009 11:55 pm**

Well its a start but it obviously doesn't go far enough.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:22 am**

joecoolfrog wrote:Well its a start but it obviously doesn't go far enough.

You're right, we have to pull out the horses and buggies and light the candles to cut our carbon dioxide output.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:25 am**

Night Strike wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:Well its a start but it obviously doesn't go far enough.
You're right, we have to pull out the horses and buggies and light the candles to cut our carbon dioxide output.

With what we've done, the horses will still give off too much CO2.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:32 am**

Night Strike wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:Well its a start but it obviously doesn't go far enough.
You're right, we have to pull out the horses and buggies and light the candles to cut our carbon dioxide output.

Yawn
Because of Bush the USA is 10 years behind Europe on cutting emissions, you have made next to no effort up to now so stop whining and exagerating the effects.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:40 am**

Strife wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:Well its a start but it obviously doesn't go far enough.
You're right, we have to pull out the horses and buggies and light the candles to cut our carbon dioxide output.
With what we've done, the horses will still give off too much CO2.

So, sandals made from leaves from last autumn then?

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:45 am**

Oh my....soon we'll be driving electric cars, using electricity made from solar, wind and nuclear power. Cleaner air and water.

Boy, this really sucks!

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:05 am**

joecoolfrog wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:Well its a start but it obviously doesn't go far enough.
You're right, we have to pull out the horses and buggies and light the candles to cut our carbon dioxide output.
Yawn
Because of Bush the USA is 10 years behind Europe on cutting emissions, you have made next to no effort up to now so stop whining and exagerating the effects.

stfu

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:42 am**

bedub1 wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:Well its a start but it obviously doesn't go far enough.
You're right, we have to pull out the horses and buggies and light the candles to cut our carbon dioxide output.
Yawn
Because of Bush the USA is 10 years behind Europe on cutting emissions, you have made next to no effort up to now so stop whining and exagerating the effects.
stfu

Damn joe got burned.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:46 am**

bedub1 wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:Well its a start but it obviously doesn't go far enough.
You're right, we have to pull out the horses and buggies and light the candles to cut our carbon dioxide output.
Yawn
Because of Bush the USA is 10 years behind Europe on cutting emissions, you have made next to no effort up to now so stop whining and exagerating the effects.
stfu

Yes thats about the strength of your argument.......and intelect !

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:48 am**

bedub1 wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:Well its a start but it obviously doesn't go far enough.
You're right, we have to pull out the horses and buggies and light the candles to cut our carbon dioxide output.
Yawn
Because of Bush the USA is 10 years behind Europe on cutting emissions, you have made next to no effort up to now so stop whining and exagerating the effects.
stfu

Aw, poor baby.

I agree, and quote.

GENERAL STONEHAM wrote:Oh my....soon we'll be driving electric cars, using electricity made from solar, wind and nuclear power. Cleaner air and water.

Boy, this really sucks!

Horrible way of living! Please, kill me now! Cleaner air and water? No way! We can't have that!

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:05 am**

joecoolfrog wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:Well its a start but it obviously doesn't go far enough.
You're right, we have to pull out the horses and buggies and light the candles to cut our carbon dioxide output.
Yawn
Because of Bush the USA is 10 years behind Europe on cutting emissions, you have made next to no effort up to now so stop whining and exagerating the effects.

Perhaps you should read the bill, or at least part of the bill, or at least articles on the bill. There is a rather big difference between "cutting emissions" and this bill.

I heard an interview with the governor of Virginia who indicated that he supports this bill because it will (to paraphrase) "Show India and China that the United States is serious about climate change, which will ensure that these countries will pass similar laws in their countries." In other words, he's making the argument that if the US does this, then China and India will too. Is that a little bit ridiculous? Do you not understand the cost of this bill to even the poorest Americans? Do you not understand that companies will move even more industry overseas?

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:25 am**

Yeah, India and China would be fools to pass a bill like this. They're going to rake in the money as more US manufacturers come over to their countries so they won't have to have draconian oversight.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:04 pm**

I think it would be a great idea to transform the way we dispose of our wastes but it will take time and it will be costly.

Personally I think it will be too little too late.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:25 pm**

Well, we all know how much these libs love their kitty-cats. Soon we'll get to see how much they enjoy eating them.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:30 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
joecoolfrog wrote:Well its a start but it obviously doesn't go far enough.
You're right, we have to pull out the horses and buggies and light the candles to cut our carbon dioxide output.
Yawn
Because of Bush the USA is 10 years behind Europe on cutting emissions, you have made next to no effort up to now so stop whining and exagerating the effects.
Perhaps you should read the bill, or at least part of the bill, or at least articles on the bill. There is a rather big difference between "cutting emissions" and this bill.

I heard an interview with the governor of Virginia who indicated that he supports this bill because it will (to paraphrase) "Show India and China that the United States is serious about climate change, which will ensure that these countries will pass similar laws in their countries." In other words, he's making the argument that if the US does this, then China and India will too. Is that a little bit ridiculous? Do you not understand the cost of this bill to even the poorest Americans? Do you not understand that companies will move even more industry overseas?

Actually, the CBO estimates that Waxman-Markey will make give our poorer around $70 a month more, as I recall (too rushed to get supporting info). It also is expected to cost our rich a whopping $240 per month.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 pm**

spurgistan wrote:Actually, the CBO estimates that Waxman-Markey will make give our poorer around $70 a month more, as I recall (too rushed to get supporting info). It also is expected to cost our rich a whopping $240 per month.

I have a couple of related questions:

(1) Can you please define "poorer?" A range of yearly income would be appreciated.
(2) Similarly, can you please define "rich?" A range of yearly income would be appreciated.
(3) I'm not certain where in the bill the "give our poorer around $70 a month" is located. Unless they've changed it since last week, I don't see it.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:12 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:(1) Can you please define "poorer?"
(2) Similarly, can you please define "rich?"

Poor = No Money

Rich = More Than That

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:26 pm**

posted this in "lets pretend global warming exist" earlier. Don't know if anyone else saw this or not. It came out late Friday.

Alan Carlin is the economist and 38 year veteran at the Environmental Protection Agency whose report was stonewalled internally and so was not considered (or so he was told) in their decision to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. I spoke with him for an hour this evening. (A background interview with an anonymous source in the EPA that corroborates what Carlin says below can be found here.)

At the end of the hour, the last question I asked him was what had motivated him to come forward with an almost 100-page report written in 4 days detailing the problems with the scientific claims for global warming as given by the IPCC (an early draft can be found at http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf). The report was not transmitted internally, and the emails released by CEI on Tuesday suggest to me that this may have been because the report did not support the previously determined conclusions desired by the new Administration.

In Carlin's personal view "The bottom line is whether or not the IPCC is wrong or right about the significance of increasing levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in increasing global temperatures--it is amazing how few people have asked that question. What's happening in Australia (where a Senator Fielding is holding a 'mini-debate' with skeptical scientists and administration advocates of an Australian cap and trade policy) is fantastic--why can't we do that here? Models, good or bad, don't prove or disprove a scientific hypothesis about the real world. I'm dreadfully concerned that we may be taking an ineffective and extremely costly action, and after six years of working on climate change I might be able to help--but I'm not allowed to."

Carlin got his first degree in physics, before he turned to economics and remembers lunching occasionally with the celebrated physicist Richard Feynman while at Caltech, who told him that if you attempt to compare observations with a hypothesis and the observations don't fit, you can either change the hypothesis or ascertain if the observations are wrong. Carlin is convinced that observations of climate do not match the hypothesis that human-generated greenhouse gases are producing significant global warming in the real world. He adds ruefully that if the NIPCC report recently released by the Heartland Institute had been available in March, when he wrote his report, it might have saved him a lot of time assuming that it covers many of the same points.

Carlin's main concern seems to be that the Endangerment Finding (an official declaration by the EPA that CO2 is a danger to public health and welfare) may actually turn out to be a time bomb that may explode in the EPA, echoing the reasoning of our anonymous source as reported earlier today. As I wrote then, the EPA does not want to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air act without legislation limiting their regulation to the largest emitters. If the proposed new cap and trade legislation (which removes EPA's ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate global warming gases) is not forthcoming, Carlin worries that it may well be very difficult for the EPA to carry out its mandate. His report was an attempt to have the EPA reconsider the science (which Carlin considers bad science), as despite the respectable trappings that cloak the IPCC and their reports, their hypotheses fail many observational tests in his view.

Carlin has been transferred off all climate-related work, but is not at all bitter. He says that from a civil service point of view, his boss 'absolutely has the right' to give him new work assignments. "I still have a phone, I can still talk to people in my office," he says.

Carlin hastens to add that he did not turn over to the Competitive Enterprise Institute the emails that were published. "But when a reporter called Tuesday and asked me to verify them it became evident that CEI had them."

Carlin also assisted in the organization of a series of seminars with notable scientists in the field of climate science, including some notable skeptics as well as ardent "warmists." They were attended by an average of maybe 30 or 40 employees--but those employees only rarely included members of the workgroup that eventually would be charged with writing the proposed endangerment document.

Later we will discuss the science that Carlin wanted to present to the EPA. For now, he's another whistleblower who actually wanted to help the organisation that shut him out and moved him off the case.

Is this really how we want to run things?

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:41 pm**

there are several studies that estimate the actual cost could run as high as $1000/year for every family.

This bill has nothing to do with cleaner energy. Nothing to do with saving the planet. Like everything else associated with global warming, this is about income redistribution. They're going to increase the energy bills of most people in the country. But then they'll send money to the poor to offset their increase.

the House passed the biggest tax in United States history.

Warren Buffett saying the bill is “a huge tax, and there's no sense calling it anything else … and it's a fairly regressive tax.”

With the bill, Obama delivers on his promise to radical leftists last year to ‘fight global warming’ by driving entire businesses into bankruptcy.

The 1,200-plus page Waxman-Markey climate change legislation is nothing more than an energy tax in disguise that by 2035 will raise:

•Gasoline prices by 58 percent
•Natural gas prices by 55 percent
•Home heating oil by 56 percent
•Worst of all, electricity prices by 90 percent

In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493.

But on second thought, cap and trade is much more than that.

It Kills Jobs: Over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill). Particularly hard-hit are sectors of the economy that are very energy-intensive: Manufacturers, farmers, construction, machinery, electrical equipment and appliances, transportation, textiles, paper products, chemicals, plastics and rubbers, and retail trade would face staggering employment losses as a result of Waxman-Markey. It’s worth noting the job losses come after accounting for the green jobs policymakers are so adamant about creating. But don’t worry, because the architects of the bill built in unemployment insurance; too bad it will only help 1.5% of those losing their jobs from the bill.

It Destroys Our Economy: Just about everything we do and produce uses energy… The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012-2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion. The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an almost unbelievable $114,915 by 2035.

It Provides Red Meat for Lobbyists: Businesses, knowing very well this would impose a severe cost on their bottom line, sent their lobbyists to Washington to protect them. And it worked. Most of the allowances (the right to emit carbon dioxide) have been promised to industry, meaning less money will be rebated back to the consumer. Free allowances do not lower the costs of Waxman-Markey; they just shift them around…

There’s one thing the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill doesn’t do: Work. All of the above-mentioned costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree Celsius in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree Celsius at the end of the century. In the name of saving the planet for future generations, Waxman-Markey does not sound like a great deal: millions of lost jobs, trillions of lost income, 50-90 percent higher energy prices, and stunning increases in the national debt, all for undetectable changes in world temperature.

Posted: **Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:56 pm**

Here's what I want to know: if all of these measures such as changing to compact fluorescent light bulbs and building cars that get high fuel efficiency, why aren't businesses already doing it? Businesses are in place to make money, why do they have to have the government tell them that to switch?

Answer: because it's not economically beneficial. CFLs cost more money to purchase than traditional lights, and they come with the added harm of containing mercury (which no one talks about). After the fight to remove lead from our gasoline, paints, and toys, why are we now forcing a more toxic metal into our homes?

2nd Answer: because even higher fuel efficiencies are not possible with the current designs and technology. No one likes to have to pay for a lot of gas, so it makes sense that the company that designs the car that gets the best fuel mileage at a low cost will sell the most cars. It's a plain and simple business model that the government doesn't need to get involved in: if consumers want high mileage cars AND it's profitable to make those cars, then the companies WILL do it. Obama says he wants to make GM a reliable company after it gets out of bankruptcy, so why is the administration trying to force unprofitable practices on the industry?

Conquer Club

House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill

Re: House Passes Milestone Energy, Climate Change Bill