2012 May 22 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/06/27/house-approves-obamas-useless-climate-change-bill/
0
0
  |   62 comments

house approves billFriday, the United States House of Representatives approved president Barack Obama’s, Rep.Waxman’s and Rep. Markey’s climate change bill. 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 page bill — formally known as the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” — will reach into almost every corner of the U.S. economy. By putting a price on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, the bill would affect the way electricity is generated, how homes and offices are designed, how foreign trade is conducted and how much Americans pay to drive cars or to heat their homes.

The House climate bill, approved by a 219-212 vote Friday evening, would mandate that 15% of the nation’s electricity come from renewable sources such as wind and solar power by 2020, potentially expanding the market and profit potential for companies in those sectors. Towards that goal, it seeks to boost nascent industries such as wind-generated electricity and solar power.

Which means that Al Gore will make even more money.

The bill is absolutely horrendous. As Heritage explains:

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
  • Think that’s bad? Fear not, there is more:

    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.

    To summarize: this is one terrible bill.

    1. Posted by Kastanj
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #97208
      Kastanj "Show me where humans caused the other ones and I’ll listen to what you have to say." http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Violence-Scientists-Tipping-Climate/dp/0807085766 Basically: Swift changes in the climate has happened before with predictability. Right now, from the historical POV and the pattern observed so far, the Earth should have been cooling. It is warming instead, and faster than it has ever done before. We didn't cause the previous swings in the climate. We are causing this one.
    2. | Quote | Trackback | Link #97209
      Jason Arvak Since the end of the "little ice age" was a geologically minuscule 400 years ago, I am fairly certain that Kastanj is completely wrong (as usual) in his factual claim that natural historical patterns would have the Earth cooling right now. It is true that no historical pattern should have led to warming at the rapid rate observed (on average) over the last half-century, but that is a different and more nuanced argument that Kastanj is, in his characteristically absolutist and vague style, presenting.
    3. Posted by Jeb
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #97213
      Jeb
      That’s not advocacy of a policy, it is a menu of possibilities.
      Perhaps so, but my primary gripe here was the characterization of the science and the characterization of costs. I have repeatedly stated that I don't have a position on the current bill and think that there needs to be a real cost benefit analysis, so I don't think that your criticism of my position is fair.
      you might be strong on the hard science, but we’re on my turf when we start talking about the sometimes grim realities of international conflict and cooperation
      Well since this is your bailiwick, assume for the time being that AGW is a real problem with potential economic and ecological damages in the trillions. Assume also that significant reductions in greenhouse emissions will mitigate these damages. What do you do?
      What do you mean?
      I mean that if we do nothing it makes it much more difficult for us to demand that China, India, and the rest do something.
      Given the level of cost and lifestyle change they are demanding, it is reasonable to insist that they provide much better details with regard to EXACTLY what they can PROVE they will achieve as benefits.
      Again, I have called for a real cost benefit analysis. Frankly you do not know any better than I what the costs of this bill or some other bill that could be effective would be nor do you know any better than I what benefits either would have.
      I am fairly certain that Kastanj is completely wrong (as usual) in his factual claim that natural historical patterns would have the Earth cooling right now.
      Based on solar irradiance we should be in a cooling period right now. From the GISS 2007 temperature report,
      The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Nino – La Nina cycle.
      I am leaving internet contact for the next couple of weeks and so will not be able to respond. Cheers. * perhaps your adjective was different but amounted to near the same thing
    4. Posted by Doomed
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #97215
      Doomed The ultimate fact that mankind is a new factor on earth and is responsible for emitting new sources of methane and Co2 can hardly be questioned. In fact yes. We human beings are emitting new and moderately large amounts of Co2 and methane into the atmosphere. The question I have for anyone who would listen, rather then argue their preconceived notions of Global warming is this: If the USA pumps into the atmosphere 17 percent of all CO2 expelled world wide what is going to be gleaned from harshly penalizing our society by reducing our emissions by 4-8 percent in the next 20 years? That will reduce our percentage of emissions from 17 percent to 16 percent. Does anyone really believe that this will change one single factor? Especially since China will eat up that 1 percent in the next 2 years and double it every 2 years from now until we can all no longer breath. Facts are it will not. China is killing our planet while the USA tries to find new and inventive ways to save her. I suggest the AGW crowd stop trying to penalize America and go after the real culprit in this. China.
    5. | Quote | Trackback | Link #97217
      Jason Arvak
      Well since this is your bailiwick, assume for the time being that AGW is a real problem with potential economic and ecological damages in the trillions. Assume also that significant reductions in greenhouse emissions will mitigate these damages. What do you do?
      The only way to get international cooperation on the scale required is to actually persuade the major economic powers (current and future) that the costs of doing nothing outweigh the costs of reform. That requires making two core arguments in a manner that is persuasive rather than coercive or abusive: 1) The actual AGW mechanism is true and not either mistaken or exaggerated 2) The ability of a given reform package to actually solve the problem Rhetorical excess, hyperbole, name-calling, threats and exclusionary tactics towards dissenters, and misrepresentation of data (like the misreporting of Russian temperature data last year) seriously undermine the first argument. This is why I focus on the rhetorical aspect of the issue -- EVEN IF the AGW theory is true, the rhetorical excesses of so many of its advocates actively undermines humanity's ability to build a true consensus in favor of an illusory pose of consensus that results in the end just in cheating like happened with Kyoto. If not actually persuaded, policymakers simply respond with empty promises that pander and then back out when the actual bills come due. This practical problem exists independently of "the other side is worse" types of responses. AGW advocates need to clean up their collective act on the political side for their OWN best interests, not just out of some vague sense of fairness. Making the second argument requires a reexamination of the environmental movement's own goals and priorities, in particular their misunderstandings about what really motivates state leaders and their approach towards low-CO2 technologies like nuclear power. Continuing to insist on purist options like deindustrialization and anti-nuclearism simply guarantees their political failure. The fact is that asking countries to actually make massive cuts in their economic growth is not practical -- they might sign some piece of paper committing to vague "goals" for massive CO2 reductions, but they won't actually fulfill those commitments if it requires huge economic pain. In this area, responding to AGW faces the same visible-costs/invisible-benefits problem that free trade advocates have struggled with and failed to overcome for decades. (These dynamics are exactly what will probably kill Waxman-Markey in the Senate.) The only way I can think of to even partially overcome the problem is to (1) massively promote the international development and deployment of new energy technologies and (2) reevaluate the environmentalists' opposition to nuclear power in favor of endorsing its use at least as a bridging technology while we wait for the maturation of other technologies. But the most important thing that AGW advocates could do in the short term is clean up their own rhetorical act. The improvement in their credibility in the political sphere that would result from their rejection of hyperbole would make their policy proposals much more influential. As it stands right now, they make the skeptics' rhetorical job pretty easy, regardless of whether or not that is "fair".
    6. Posted by Kastanj
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #97220
      Kastanj "I am fairly certain that Kastanj is completely wrong (as usual) in his factual claim that natural historical patterns would have the Earth cooling right now." More insulting knee-jerking. Be a little patient rather than assume I've missed out on a the bigger picture. It's fun how you have to step up your accusations - to the point where you have to drive a default disapproval of everything I say - when I started demanding some rigor from you following your wild statements about the scientific consensus and process. "Earth's climate undergoes 120,000 year cycles of ice ages broken by short warm periods called interglacials. The cycle is driven by Milankovitch cycles. Long term changes in the Earth's orbit trigger an initial warming which warms the oceans and melts ice sheets - this releases CO2. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere causes further warming leading to interglacials ending the ice ages. For the past 12,000 years, we've been in an interglacial. The current trend of the Milankovitch cycle is a gradual cooling down towards an ice age." In short, according to the pattern observed over a long period of time (longer than, say, four centuries) we should be cooling. We ain't. http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp.gif "But the most important thing that AGW advocates could do in the short term is clean up their own rhetorical act. The improvement in their credibility in the political sphere that would result from their rejection of hyperbole would make their policy proposals much more influential." I only see very strong rhetoric used against those who are arguably not acting in good faith but have simply decided to ignore AGW since they don't like even the smallest political or economical ramifications. People like you deserve a different approach and level of respect than obvious morons like Broun. I agree that much rhetoric is indeed off and that certain predictions have been too vaguely "catastrophic". I don't think rhetoric is needed at all, instead I think it is important to meet the politicians head on and invite them to really see how solid the science is. That is, separate them from the right-left divide and hubbub of the media and the realm of politics, and just place the facts in front of them and let their faculties sort out what kind of calculations they have to make. China has massive GDP growth and has to spend a decent chunk of that growth on dealing with ecological issues. How much money is lost when people die of heatstroke at a higher percentage, or can't work in the industry with the same productivity due to lung problems? Then there's the issue of massive migration forced by dust-bowling, glaciers no longer supplying drinking water and of course Bangladesh and the Maldives simply disappearing. Last time I checked Australia not working properly would also be a problem for world growth. Somehow we have to persuade politicians to not see themselves as beholden to short-term ideology or "pragmatic" issues like public complaints, but simply consider what would happen if everybody saw AGW as a "hoax" or thought that doing something right now is too much of a hassle. I think some people are actually holding back in order to pre-empt criticism of hysteria or inflating the threat in order to get attention (a vain act, since this criticism will always be leveled); every time a summary of all the investigation are made it turns out the last predictions were naively optimistic. It's basically Copenhagen or bust, so I'm pretty relieved the US could be taking a small but symbolical first step using ACES. It's just a shame that the ideological grousing and power of money in politics turned the auction system away from fairness and towards coddling the biggest corporations, but that's contemporary "fair and free capitalism" I guess.
    7. Posted by Jay_C
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #97249
      Jay_C EVEN IF the AGW theory is true, the rhetorical excesses of so many of its advocates actively undermines humanity’s ability to build a true consensus in favor of an illusory pose of consensus that results in the end just in cheating like happened with Kyoto. True, some say hey, look at Germany and the UK, they have reduced greenhouse emissions quite a bit actually and are now under the levels set by the Kyoto protocols. But what we don't hear are the reasons why. A closer examination suggests that this optimism is misplaced. When you take out the UK and Germany, whose emissions decreased due to factors outside of the Kyoto or EU climate and energy policies (UK emissions declined precipitously only after Margaret Thatcher broke the coal miners union in the 1980's and the UK switched over to North Sea natural gas. German emissions declined only when East German heavy industry collapsed, the remaining 13 advanced developed economies in the EU saw their emissions INCREASE by almost 12 percent between 1990 and 2005. With full implementation of existing policies, projections for 2010 are in fact marginally worse among these nations, exceeding 1990 emissions by over 12 percent.
    8. Posted by Kastanj
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #97261
      Kastanj As for your information about the problems of curtailing CO2 - Absolutely. I'm myself convinced we will see more than a 2 Celsius increase simply on our own accord, and when that happens the feedback cycles will start getting each other activated no matter what we do. I wonder how many multiples of ACES that will cost America, and how many Katrinas that will amount to across the planet (no, I'm not trying to say that Katrina can be connected to AGW). Our choices now range from "intensified duress for all of humanity" to "Well, we had a good run". Just at 2 degrees the oceans will be more acidic, taking out the plankton and everything that relies on them etc. There will be more 2003 summers, like the one that killed 30'000 people across Europe. There will be more water problems everywhere, and about a third of all species can say goodbye.
    9. Posted by Doomed
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #97263
      Doomed hum de hum. If the USA pumps into the atmosphere 17 percent of all CO2 expelled world wide what is going to be gleaned from harshly penalizing our society by reducing our emissions by 4-8 percent in the next 20 years? That will reduce our percentage of emissions from 17 percent to 16 percent. Waiting on a response to my question from AGW advocates here. See the fact of the matter is simple when I talk to my Global warming colleagues I ask them a simple question. IF AGW is indeed happening...given the current climate of economic and geopolitical factors...what can be done to prevent AGW from becoming a true crisis. Answers vary from curtailing emissions by 50 percent and getting China on board the clean air bandwagon. Essentially everyone to a man or woman suggest that the only real way to prevent global warming from becoming a crisis is to eliminate fossil fuels all together. So the question I then put to them is that if the Cap and Trade legislation passes what impact will it have. Answer....it will provide an impetus to go green. Very good but what impact will it have on Global warming and the emissions of Green House gases? Answer....it will get us in the mind set of not burning fossil fuels and giving the oil shieks profits to kill us... No thats not the question....what will be the effects on the atmosphere. Well in the beginning it will be insignificant.......but it will provide more jobs for the green industry.... You see where this is headed....It will do NOTHING to lower co2 and methane entering the air. It is simply a feel good Kyoto bill that will give democrats money to spend while raping the American economy. Summation........this bill will do not a damn thing to aid the reduction of green house gases into the air other then cutting a token amount of co2. In the mean time we have already been told that pickup trucks by 2012 will cost us in the neighborhood of 70-100k dollars each. So bubba gets to pull no 4 wheelers around. Boating dealers are going out of bidness. RV dealers are done for. Workers who have to buy pickup trucks to come to your houses to work are going to quadruple their prices. That 2500 dollar plumber will be 10k in 2012. Their is an economic crisis in America all right and its leader is Barak Obama and the Democrats who are sacking the American public while we sleep. Fear not. We will wake up in the next 18 months. Good Bye democrats. Barak Obama is getting you to sign on board with your own IRAQ. Meanwhile the complicit press is cheering on the invasion of the American pocketbook without so much as a "Uh wait a minute Mr. President...perhaps???"
    10. Posted by Doomed
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #97265
      Doomed http://casperstartribune.net/articles/2009/06/30/news/wyoming/f99980f878f4d997872575e3007681b4.txt YOu might find this interesting. I work for the oil and gas industry through out a four state area of Wyoming, Montana and South Dakota and North Dakota. While it might sound like I am opposed to Green. I really am not. My job will be around for a long time because of projects like the one in the link. Carbon sequestering is the key to the long term viability of taking co2 thats produced and sequestering it so that we can actually make it work for us and we can vastly reduce CO2 admissions this way rather then spending ungodly amounts of money on cap and trade. This process is paid for by private industry and it used to actually lower prices by extracting more oil. There are many things at play here the AGW crowd doesnt want you to know because they want cap and trade to pay for their social projects.
    11. Posted by deva raja
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #97353
      deva raja What if.... AWG is real, will anyone talk about the real cure? dropping the earths' population by at least half?
    12. Posted by Jay_C
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #97515
      Jay_C @Doomed Excellent, and notice the crickets from the AGW supporters in regards to your question. Even if we did everything cap and trade is supposed to do, and we got China on board the planet still wouldn't cut it enough to make their supposed deadline of doomsday. If we are in fact done for (which I don't think we are) why bother? I say live it up in the meantime :)