Smart political observers on both sides the aisle have been expecting the day when stories like this would appear:
Republicans have blocked efforts to bring a global warming bill up for a final Senate vote after a bitter debate over its economic costs and whether it would push gasoline prices higher. Republicans have blocked efforts to bring a global warming bill up for a final Senate vote after a bitter debate over its economic costs and whether it would push gasoline prices higher.Democratic leaders Friday fell 12 votes short of getting the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure. The vote was 48-36.
Majority Leader Harry Reid now must decide whether to pull the bill and push the climate change issue to next year with a new Congress and a new president.
The bill would cap carbon dioxide coming from power plants and factories with a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century. Opponents say it amounts to a huge tax increase and would lead to higher energy prices.
If global warming - and global climatological patterns, period, for that matter - are so well understood, then why can't carbon emission zealots get even a simple majority in a Democratic Senate?
Perhaps it's because when the actual costs involved in taking the US economy back to decades-old levels of carbon emissions, when our population and economy were significantly smaller, just don't pass the political cost-benefit test.
That doesn't mean the country shouldn't move forward with revised energy policy that emphasizes prudent and incentivized reduction in reliance on fossil fuels (with the bridge of using some of our own untapped reserves to get to that point). It just means the economics of "climate change" and carbon reduction mania don't pencil out at this point, particularly with gas at $4 a gallon.
UPDATE: formatting fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 06, 2008 07:29 AM | Email ThisObama is in a tougher corner as he supports mankind fighting nature at any cost. McCain does believe in the nonsense, but isn't selling the farm for that belief.
This, unfortunately or fortunately, will be a big campaign issue. Wouldn't it be something if the Rs could get on the right side of this issue? McCain is close to the PC side, but his opinion is based upon Al Gore's scientists and not the 31,000 scientists who recently said, "whoa".
Posted by: swatter on June 6, 2008 07:33 AMA brave, minority of Senators stopped a scam from being perpetrated on American taxpayers and businesses. No rational case has been made that man is the cause of Global Warming and no rational case has been that man is capable of controlling Earth's climate. Until it can be clearly shown and demonstrated that mere mortals have the understanding, technology and means to control Earth's climate at a cost at least equal to the benefits this scam (hoax) should be shelfed. Actually I would personally prefer a warmer spring and summer in Washington.
Posted by: Snuffy on June 6, 2008 07:42 AMAt least one of the two candidates can find Hanford on the map.
Posted by: Andy on June 6, 2008 07:43 AMToo bad he isn't on the Right side of this issue.
If the cost of fuel (all types) keep going up, the US econ will crash.
We shut down many coal powered power plants and switched to natural gas. Look what is happening to the cost of that fuel too.
Hang on, this is going to hurt!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 6, 2008 08:05 AM"Democratic leaders Friday fell 12 votes short of getting the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure. The vote was 48-36."
"It's clear a majority of Congress wants to act," Boxer said at a news conference.
Sounds to me that Boxer does not approve of the Republican fillibuster on this bill.
As for where do the candidadtes sit on this bill:
Obama and McCain, as well as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who is recovering from cancer surgery, were absent, although they each sent a letter supporting the bill.
According to a memo to the park board from the staff released Thursday, "The overall policy question for the Board is whether it is good policy for Seattle Parks to continue public beach fires when the carbon ... emissions produced by thousands of beach fires per year contributes to global warming."
Yep. Hide the marshmallows...
Posted by: airfoil on June 6, 2008 08:29 AMI saw that too. What next the state parks?
Now I really have to laugh though. In the city of Mukilteo they are re-doing one their parks with get this. NEW fire pits!
This should be a gas. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 6, 2008 08:48 AMShhhh. Let's not mention the word gas. It may give them ideas. I don't want the Mayor raiding my backyard this summer and seizing my nice, shiny BBQ...
Posted by: airfoil on June 6, 2008 09:06 AMnice, shiny BBQ...
_____________________________
Nice!.
PS. the SP gang will be over for steaks this weekend. (-:
Fire that puppy up.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 6, 2008 09:47 AMWhy the double sentence? Why the double sentence?
Posted by: pbj on June 6, 2008 09:51 AMIt's a free market economy, the biggest push for new cheap energy innovation is high prices.
FC: So you're an oil man who's turning his back on oil?TBP: Foreign oil is costing us $500 billion a year. In 10 years, $5 trillion goes out of the country. It's nuts. It's the greatest transfer of wealth from one area to another in the history of the world.
"Money! First thing, it's about money. Of course, I'm also a good environmentalist. I can pass the saliva test. But I'm not going to go do a 4,000-megawatt wind farm for the environment first and money second. I'd rather go give money someplace else. You're talking about $10 billion."
I think this is a great example of how those of us on the right can make an excellent case for moving to a more sustainable, independent energy production system that is both sensible from an environmental standpoint and makes good fiscal sense.
Pickens concludes the interview by saying:
It could be that it's [climate change] happening naturally, and we've pushed it over the edge. Regardless, I'm going to take action. Opponents say it's going to cost so much money to address. And I say, well, hell, go ahead and spend it. I'd rather take a chance that I'm right than that I'm wrong. I don't want to wait around until the house burns down 'til I decide whether it's a serious fire or not.
Worth a read.
Posted by: airfoil on June 6, 2008 10:51 AMThe globe might have been getting warmer, but it has stopped now and we still produce enough levels of CO2 that the cooling we are seeing shouldn't be happening - if AWG is true. AWG is a sham and any politician wanting more power, control, and taxes is just after creating a stranglehold on the freedom and liberty of Americans. AWG laws and regulations are far more of a burden on our freedom than the Patriot Act ever would be.
Snuffy, if you add up all the AWG/carbon based laws proposed last year, I think you would see a ten year taxation rate of $260 billion or so. This would average $52 billion a biennium - a 57% increase in ten years - only for AWG/carbon, not counting any other tax increases.
ANY activity that the libs can add the phrase, "the carbon emissions produced [by activity] contributes to global warming.", will be limited or banned by government fiat.
Exhale too much CO2? Ride Metro.
Must be within 1% of the optimal body weight, otherwise "the carbon emissions produced by your excess weight contributes to global warming."
Since sugar and carbohydrates are the key factors in producing overweight, they are banned in Seattle as being unhealthy - just the next in a long line since transfats were banned.
Want to ride your bike to work? Buy a carbon offset for the extra CO2 you exhale - plant a tree, but don't plant it where it will block a view or a solar panel.
Reduce reliance on oil? Glorious and nobel cause. Use alternative sources of energy? Great. Rely only on wind or solar? Fantasy.
For as long as the enviros have been "thinking" about alternative energy sources - why do most current energy sources like Ethanol or bio-oil have to steal resources from food manufacture? Why haven't suitable sources been found that do not compete with food crops or crop lands?
In the rush to ban carbon emmissions, we have been able to see all of the negative aspects come out - dramatically higher fuel prices, home heating prices, food prices, transportation prices, cuts in travel negatively impacting airlines, governments increasing taxes to make up for the higher prices, etc.
Not the eutopia we were promised, is it?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 6, 2008 10:51 AMUntil the (D)s in Congress get serious about 4th-generation fast-neutron reactors and very-high-temp gas reactors (for direct production of hydrogen), they are (as usual) just posturing.
See www.inl.gov and related websites for lots of good info.
And WRT ''bridging'' from oil to new nuclear plants:
At the time Bill Clinton became president, something like 85 percent of Federal lands were open to energy exploration. Right now it's down to something less than 20 percent.
SUMMARY: Congress as a whole is not serious about moving toward energy independence. Not even close.
Posted by: Methow Ken on June 6, 2008 11:15 AMSure they are, but their approach seems to be more a "Freedom from Energy" program.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 6, 2008 11:25 AM+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As always Cato. Your lack of info on this is proven to all. There was no free market in changing over to natural gas. Gov driven.
You really need to get out sometimes.
Global warming from 1978 to 1998 was real and this reality is supported by nearly all scientists. Man-caused global warming is a theory that has never been proved outside of a computer model.
For the last ten years as the sun's activity has waned from the peak of the 11 (now 13) year sunspot cycle the earth has only warmed in the models and by manipulating temperature data.
The most reliable measurements of temperature from satellites and ocean temperature sensor arrays show cooling, particularly since last fall.
Many people, including a large number of scientists bought the man-made CO2 theory because they trusted the integrity of the scientists employed by the UN's IPCC. This panel however has since its inception only looked at one potential cause of the 1978-98 warming - CO2.
During the 1990's Vice President Gore purged federal agencies of senior scientists that did not support the UN backed theory. President Bush did not clean house (same as with the State Dept. and the CIA) when he came in in 2001.
The Gore appointees were chosen on the basis of the environmental credentials rather than for their scientific accomplishments or ethics. As a result we now have government scientists with multi-billion dollar budgets who produce only one-sided studies in support of the Algorian church of global warming.
The climate bill that was removed today will be back next year regardless of who wins the presidential contest. Even with a McCain win and given the current anti-republican mood of the American people, the dems may be able to pass this monstrously costly and anti American piece of pork.
Posted by: deadwood on June 6, 2008 12:26 PMUsing your logic about price increases, I could say the best way to get medical innovation would be to force the price of medical insurance beyond the reach of most people.
Posted by: thecomputerguy on June 6, 2008 01:24 PMIt's also a lot cleaner and at the time cheaper. Now Natural gas is as expensive as everything else. People seem to be clamoring for renewable energy since the non-renewable types are getting more expensive. Govt. gives them a monetary boost but the free market determines whether a product lives or dies.
I could say the best way to get medical innovation would be to force the price of medical insurance beyond the reach of most people.
No, medical innovation is dependent on people wanting to be treated and praying that the treatment will be covered on their insurance so they don't have to pay it out of their pocket. the bigger the demand the more focused the companies are in trying to tap that potential market.
However, according to a memo from the Superintendent of the Parks department - they are still committed to ending the environmental scourge of bonfires:
"In late June, Parks would use press releases, public service announcements and brochures to inform the public about the significant impact of beach-fire carbon emissions on global warming;"
So...
What do you think it will be in total carbon footprint to produce, transport, broadcast, etc. the warnings of the significant impact these bonfires will have - compared to that of the fires themselves?
Greg Nickels really has become a parody of himself.
Posted by: airfoil on June 6, 2008 04:23 PMThe reason Pickens is bullish on money from wind? The fact he'll get $23.37 per MWhr in subsidies for his plant. That's a government grant of $93,000 PER HOUR ($2.2 MILLION PER DAY).
Pickens is going be given $750 million dollars to do this. And because of additional laws, utilities MUST buy every MWhr he produces; they have to buy from him BEFORE they buy elsewhere, even if he is the most expensive source.
Wind exists solely because of the massive subsidy (about 100 times that for natural gas) per MWhr generated, and a guaranteed sales market to purchase every MWhr you can generate.
Pickens is smart, but don't kid yourself - he's picking our pockets to get his cash. And doing it completely legally.
The reason Pickens is bullish on money from wind? The fact he'll get $23.37 per MWhr in subsidies for his plant. That's a government grant of $93,000 PER HOUR ($2.2 MILLION PER DAY).
Pickens is going be given $750 million dollars per year to do this. And because of additional laws, utilities MUST buy every MWhr he produces; they have to buy from him BEFORE they buy elsewhere, even if he is the most expensive source.
Wind exists solely because of the massive subsidy (about 100 times that for natural gas) per MWhr generated, and a guaranteed sales market to purchase every MWhr you can generate.
Pickens is smart, but don't kid yourself - he's picking our pockets to get his cash. And doing it completely legally.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 6, 2008 05:11 PMHopefully, there will be outrage expressed at this by the people, much like was done for illegal immigration amnesty last year. The carbon footprint theory is purely junk science - why have over 31,000 legitimate scientists disavowed the IPCC's view on global warming - because they have seen the light. It is junk science.
Thank God it didn't pass this year, but it eventually will unless there is a public ground swell against this travesty that will cripple our economy for the foreseeable future. There is a right way and a wrong way to transition into "Green energy & technology". With the above said, there are some elements of this bill that are necessary - such as energy conservation measures, but it needs to be overhauled. Actually, I like the UN's proposal better -for one thing it is cheaper $45 Trillion vs. this piece of crap that was pulled from the Senate will cost us $60 Trillion.
Posted by: KS on June 6, 2008 07:54 PMHaven't those idiots been reading the AGW script? Its FOSSIL FUELS that are causing Al Gore Warming (AGW) - not wood from recently cut trees (oh and by the way the fresh new trees that grow back capture more CO2 than old ones that were cut).
Didn't they read the Governor's carefully worded press release on why biofuels, which also release CO2, are not bad because unlike FOSSIL FUELS, biofuels release CO2 that is only recently taken from the air, making burning them carbon neutral.
FISSIL FUELS however release CO2 that was trapped millions of years ago and its release causes a buildup of CO2 in our atmosphere, which causes the aforementioned AGW.
While AGW may be a separate crock, these loons should at least keep their stories straight.
Posted by: deadwood on June 6, 2008 08:46 PMThe cost of fuel is on everybody's minds these days especially in Congress and the Senate. They know they are as guilty as hell for withholding hundreds of billions of barrels of oil out of production in this country, not just for years but for decades, and they are sweating bullets hoping their constituents do not make this connection. In more rational times,when environmentalism did not dominate this country, the good Senators and Congressmen would admit their mistakes, open the oils fields and say "Go forth and drill!" Contrary to the fashionable bromide making the rounds these days, we can drill our way to lower prices.
But these are not so rational times. Our forever ditsy Senator, Maria Cantwell, is trying everything to deflect blame for her part in keeping ANWR closed, which would probably be coming on line just about now. First she was going to hold an inquistion on the part Big Oil is supposedly playing in the high price of oil but the oil execs have wised up and are not going to play the patsy any longer. They properly put the blame where it belongs: on the Congress and the Senate.
Now our benighted Senator is trying to blame "speculators" for the sharp rise in oil prices. But this won't wash either. This is the way capitalism works. The price rises to meet demand and those buying oil always have to look ahead to the next day, the next week, the next month and try to make an educated guess about what the supply will be. In uncertain times and with tight supplies the price will fluctuate considerably but it will ensure that there are no shortages. The cure for this is, of course, increasing the supply. This is where Cantwell and her colleagues in the Senate and the Congress come in. There is only one action that is correct. Get the hell out of the way!
Posted by: Bill K. on June 7, 2008 10:25 PM