The first hundred days of any presidency rarely go off as planned, but, for now, Barack Obama seems to know what's at the top of his to-do list. In late October, he told Time's Joe Klein that "a new energy economy" would "be my number-one priority when I get into office." But then, as if to cut off a lurking objection, Obama quickly tacked on a qualifier: "assuming, obviously, that we have done enough to just stabilize the immediate economic situation." The caveat seemed to nod at a nascent conventional wisdom: Now that the United States is staring down the barrel of a nasty recession, many Washington types wonder if Obama will have to tear up that to-do list and rein in his ambitious climate and energy proposals.
True, not all of Obama's green ideas are controversial: You can't pick up a newspaper op-ed page these days without seeing yet another economist argue that government spending on clean energy and eco-friendly infrastructure could provide the Keynesian boost necessary to haul the economy out of its mire. But the linchpin of Obama's energy platform wasn't new spending; it was an economy- wide cap on carbon-dioxide emissions, in which a decreasing number of tradeable pollution permits would be auctioned off each year, so as to ratchet down greenhouse gases and help avert drastic global warming. Energy experts tend to agree that it's not enough for the government to fund alternative-energy sources; the only way to usher in the "new energy economy" Obama envisions is to make it costlier to burn fossil fuels. But that's the catch: Since Obama's cap-and-trade proposal would essentially act as a tax and increase the price of oil, gas, and coal, he downplayed this aspect of his plan on the trail--and it's the one idea that now looks most vulnerable. As House energy and commerce chair John Dingell recently told The Wall Street Journal, "In times of economic downturns, members [of Congress] are extremely reluctant to add burdens to the economy, and we're going to confront that problem."
The queasiness is understandable. On the surface, it really doesn't sound like a hot idea to impose broad new regulations on a struggling economy. In this case, though, the fear is misguided. Global warming is urgent enough that the next administration will need to go all-out on the issue, passing not just a green stimulus package but especially a cap on carbon. And, not only is the recession a poor excuse to hold back, it may even be all the more reason to act.
If there's any upside to a recession (and it's hardly much consolation), it's that the accompanying decline in energy use gives us some breathing room to meet long-term emissions targets. (The rough consensus among climate scientists is that the world should aim to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a goal that sounded increasingly preposterous in recent years as countries were belching up carbon dioxide at a pace exceeding even the direst forecasts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.) The downside, however, is that the fall of oil and gas prices is forcing investors to shelve alternative-energy projects: The WilderHill index of clean-tech stocks has tumbled more than 50 percent since September, and even T. Boone Pickens is putting aside his beloved wind farms for now. The main reason the solar and wind industries aren't facing total collapse is government policy: Some 30 states have laws requiring utilities to get a fixed percentage of their electricity from renewable sources by a certain date.
More problematic still, a recession makes it trickier for politicians to contemplate new environmental rules. Conservatives like Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe have been thundering that an emissions cap--or any policy that raises the price of carbon--will be the death blow for an already atrophying economy. Now, climate-change skeptics are always saying that carbon caps will put us in the poorhouse, recession or no. (Last year, when the economy was still chugging along, the Chamber of Commerce aired an anti-cap-and-trade ad showing a family forced to cook breakfast by candlelight and huddle together in bed for warmth.) The question is whether Obama should pay these naysayers more heed during a slump, or whether he should follow the example of European leaders like Nicolas Sarkozy, who, despite the financial crisis, are working to tighten the EU's emissions-trading regime.
As it turns out, a recession isn't a bad time to get started on climate legislation. Even if Congress raced to pass a cap-and-trade bill in 2009, it would take some time--likely a few years--just to set up a complex new regulatory regime. Moreover, as David Wheeler, a climate-policy expert at the Center for Global Development, points out, an economic slump actually offers a prime opportunity to start trading: If Congress sets the initial economy-wide cap at pre-recession levels, then pollution permits will be exceedingly cheap as long as the economy--and hence energy use--is still shrinking. (Indeed, the downturn in Europe has caused the price of carbon to hit rock-bottom levels.) This would give companies time to learn the system and plan for the future without being assailed right away by high prices.
Congress could then use the interim years to go full speed ahead on a green stimulus package. Both Obama and Al Gore have stressed the need for a new electric grid that could link up to faraway wind and solar farms and better manage electricity demand. It's a good idea: According to a new report by the North American Electric Reliability Council, any attempt to make major emissions cuts could put unbearable strain on the grid unless it's revamped. Other programs to boost the energy efficiency of the economy--retrofitting buildings, say, or capturing and using waste heat from factories--are also needed. All these measures would help utilities and businesses make reductions more cheaply once the cap does start clamping down.
Granted, no cap on greenhouse gases will be totally cost-free. But it's important to be clear about what those costs really are. One recent survey of five respected economic models from academic and government groups found that cap-and-trade policies like the Lieberman-Warner bill considered by Congress this summer would shave off about three-hundredths of a percentage point of the country's annual GDP growth. (The size of the U.S. economy, in other words, would reach $26 trillion in April rather than January of 2030.) Jay Apt, a professor at Carnegie Mellon's Electric Industry Center, explains that the bulk of cuts under a cap-and-trade regime would likely come from the country's electric utilities--and he estimates that the electric-power sector could avoid or capture 80 percent of its emissions for about $65-$90 billion per year, on average. That, he notes, is comparable to the cost of compliance at the peak of the original Clean Air Act, which, contrary to doomsday predictions from industry lobbyists, didn't put any noticeable dents in the economy. (The law did, however, help midwife new businesses that sold scrubbers, particulate matter filters, and flue gas desulfurization technologies to the rest of the world.)
Of course, it's one thing to suggest that emissions restrictions won't be half as crippling as opponents claim, but is it possible that cap-and-trade could actually bolster the economy? Perhaps. If, for instance, the revenues raised by auctioning off pollution permits were rebated to consumers, most families could see their incomes rise, according to one University of Massachusetts study. What's more, the certainty that clear rules on carbon are finally on the way could help get private investment flowing again. As Chuck Gray, the executive director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, explained, "climate-change legislation is essential no matter what the economic situation," because "it will remove many of the uncertainties that are preventing state regulators, utilities, and others from planning and financing new electricity investments." Venture capitalists have lately been dipping their toes in the clean-tech pool--investing $2.2 billion in more than 200 deals in 2007--but many financiers, as a recent New York Times Magazine story made clear, are still waiting for a more supportive policy framework to emerge. Sounds like cap-and-trade should be at the top of someone's to-do list after all.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (34)
The push for energy independence and reduced carbon emissions can, if handled properly, provide the new administration with an excellent way to fix the economy. A stimulus based on creating jobs is much more effective than one that encourages additional consumption. Overconsumption got us into this mess in the first place. Roosevelt issued "War bonds" to help finance World War 2. Why not issue "Energy bonds" to finance clean energy and energy independence? This would discourage overconsumption and create a supply of capital to kick off this ambitious project in a big way.
I am against auctioning off carbon credits. This favors the big guys to drive the price so high that it forces the little ... view full comment
The push for energy independence and reduced carbon emissions can, if handled properly, provide the new administration with an excellent way to fix the economy. A stimulus based on creating jobs is much more effective than one that encourages additional consumption. Overconsumption got us into this mess in the first place. Roosevelt issued "War bonds" to help finance World War 2. Why not issue "Energy bonds" to finance clean energy and energy independence? This would discourage overconsumption and create a supply of capital to kick off this ambitious project in a big way.
I am against auctioning off carbon credits. This favors the big guys to drive the price so high that it forces the little guys out of business, leaving too much power to control prices in their hands. I would prefer mandated carbon reductions, allowing the most innovative, not the largest companies, to have the economic advantage.
Another problem with auctioning credits is that it may lead to energy shortages in the short run that would cripple an already ailing economy. I have no faith in government or private projection of GNP reduction. They tend to be steady state maodels based on debatable assumptions, si I would go slow with new regulations at first. But, I would go as fast as possible to begin the mammoth task of providing funding to reputable firms, with at least 20% equity in the projects they propose, with government backed loans for the remaining 80%, using stimulus money, preferably funded with "energy bonds". Offshore drilling, and clean coal (with sequestration) should not be selectively eliminated. Nor should these industries be taxed to fund their destruction.
I notice at first the concern was Global Warming. But I don't see that anymore, now it's "Climate Change"--and I thought change was good.
Should we really destroy what's left of the world's economy over this?
I notice at first the concern was Global Warming. But I don't see that anymore, now it's "Climate Change"--and I thought change was good.
Should we really destroy what's left of the world's economy over this?
How is "cap-and-trade" working in Europe? Shouldn't we evaluate this prior to implementing a similar policy in America?
Perhaps we should ask all of the ousted members of the Labour Party how cap and trade impacted their political careers?
How is "cap-and-trade" working in Europe? Shouldn't we evaluate this prior to implementing a similar policy in America?
Perhaps we should ask all of the ousted members of the Labour Party how cap and trade impacted their political careers?
This is exactly why our country is collapsing -- worrying about carbon dioxide. How can you not see how insane you sound?
Last year was the coldest winter globally in 100 years. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in recorded history. Did your "science" predict it? No, global warming wouldn't. So now it's climate change, where anything can happen. No predictions whatsoever.
That is not science. Science is reproducable experiments and predictions that come true.
Last winter was 100% predicted by looking at the low solar activity. Sunspots as a prediction of temperature has been established science for 300+ years.
We are at a 100 year low this year for sunspot activity. This winter wi ... view full comment
This is exactly why our country is collapsing -- worrying about carbon dioxide. How can you not see how insane you sound?
Last year was the coldest winter globally in 100 years. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in recorded history. Did your "science" predict it? No, global warming wouldn't. So now it's climate change, where anything can happen. No predictions whatsoever.
That is not science. Science is reproducable experiments and predictions that come true.
Last winter was 100% predicted by looking at the low solar activity. Sunspots as a prediction of temperature has been established science for 300+ years.
We are at a 100 year low this year for sunspot activity. This winter will another cold winter. This is what astrophysicists predict. So far this winter they are on the money.
Climate change *is not science*. We are facing the New Millenium Depression and global Islamic terrorism. You worry about carbon dioxide.
Get real.
I wonder what the excuse will be when years from now "global warming" is shown to be a massive delusion at best.
Will Obama admit to making a massive, costly mistake or will it be justified along the lines of "we were just trying to protect the uh ...."???
Ignoring the rhetoric about abortion, greed, hate, and so on, the real difference between fiscal liberals such as Obama and fiscal conservatives is that the conservatives want to keep their money but the liberals want to take it from them.
I wonder what the excuse will be when years from now "global warming" is shown to be a massive delusion at best.
Will Obama admit to making a massive, costly mistake or will it be justified along the lines of "we were just trying to protect the uh ...."???
Ignoring the rhetoric about abortion, greed, hate, and so on, the real difference between fiscal liberals such as Obama and fiscal conservatives is that the conservatives want to keep their money but the liberals want to take it from them.
This article points out that our economy could very likely fare better under a Cap & Trade regime than otherwise, and it makes sense, because the new green job growth would more than offset the decline in GNP from increased energy costs, especially if introduced in the current low-energy cost environment brought on by the recession.
But there is also another, more significant impact, which is that by addressing the global warming issue we prevent even more serious damage to our economy from the do-nothing approach. The economic damage from raging fires in California, floods in the midwest, hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, beetle-infested forests being decimated, and in the long run, se ... view full comment
This article points out that our economy could very likely fare better under a Cap & Trade regime than otherwise, and it makes sense, because the new green job growth would more than offset the decline in GNP from increased energy costs, especially if introduced in the current low-energy cost environment brought on by the recession.
But there is also another, more significant impact, which is that by addressing the global warming issue we prevent even more serious damage to our economy from the do-nothing approach. The economic damage from raging fires in California, floods in the midwest, hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, beetle-infested forests being decimated, and in the long run, sea level rises which could put Florida, DC, and NYC under water by the end of this century, should not be under-estimated.
The fact that these bozos are even considering implementing a policy that proved to be an absolute disaster in Europe is frightening. While we have plenty of empirical evidence that idiocy like 'cap and trade' will destroy the economy we have no evidence of any kind that carbon emissions cause Global Warming. In fact they've changed the name of this elusive climatary phenomenon to 'Climate Change' because global temperatures have been declining for ten years. I think Obama's so-called 'turn to the right of Pyongyang' will be balanced out by the leftist fanatics in congress going full speed ahead on every jot and tiddle of the total government agenda. This is what we all voted for-- SuperChan ... view full comment
The fact that these bozos are even considering implementing a policy that proved to be an absolute disaster in Europe is frightening. While we have plenty of empirical evidence that idiocy like 'cap and trade' will destroy the economy we have no evidence of any kind that carbon emissions cause Global Warming. In fact they've changed the name of this elusive climatary phenomenon to 'Climate Change' because global temperatures have been declining for ten years. I think Obama's so-called 'turn to the right of Pyongyang' will be balanced out by the leftist fanatics in congress going full speed ahead on every jot and tiddle of the total government agenda. This is what we all voted for-- SuperChange!
This article is the height of enviro-insanity. There is no LESS pressing problem facing the new president than addressing "global warming", something that is not taking place and will not take place regardless of what humans do. You people are nuts, and you are leading this planet to economic armageddon.
This article is the height of enviro-insanity. There is no LESS pressing problem facing the new president than addressing "global warming", something that is not taking place and will not take place regardless of what humans do. You people are nuts, and you are leading this planet to economic armageddon.
Global warming is a total scam, invented by liberal fascist as one means of controlling the population.
Global warming is a total scam, invented by liberal fascist as one means of controlling the population.
This article is fundamentally flawed. This writer, like many other Global Warming alarmists, predicates his article on the premise that MANMADE Global Warming is FACT. I challenge him, along with every other individual who shares his beliefs, to show me science that supports this theory. Global Warming is taking place, but it is not because of mankind. We can't predict the path of most hurricanes that actually show up on radar -- what makes us think that we can predict how our massive atmosphere absorbs and otherwise processes greenhouse gas emmissions? I'm all for research that is unbiased and truth seeking. However, I am not for knee jerk reactions that cause more harm to the economy ... view full comment
This article is fundamentally flawed. This writer, like many other Global Warming alarmists, predicates his article on the premise that MANMADE Global Warming is FACT. I challenge him, along with every other individual who shares his beliefs, to show me science that supports this theory. Global Warming is taking place, but it is not because of mankind. We can't predict the path of most hurricanes that actually show up on radar -- what makes us think that we can predict how our massive atmosphere absorbs and otherwise processes greenhouse gas emmissions? I'm all for research that is unbiased and truth seeking. However, I am not for knee jerk reactions that cause more harm to the economy and planet (see how the ethanol craze has contributed to massive rainforest slashing, higher food prices and world hunger). This writer and those in the media base their opinions on a theory, not facts. It's just bad journalism based on a "belief" or faith that it's real. Every weather model, starting with Al Gore's famed Hockey Stick diagram, as been debunked. Yet, political agendas persist to find new research and new weather models to forward their own agendas. Here's a bit of critical thought to consider: How many scientists who are being paid solely to PROVE that manmade global warming exists are going to look for any "truth" but that? Well, they're human and they don't want to be job hunting, so you make that call. Conversely, how many scientists out there receive federal funds to prove the opposite?
I do respect this writer's opinions. However, I sincerely challenge this guy and others like him to actually research how inherently flawed existing weather models are. This is a SCIENCE issue -- so why not look at the actual SCIENCE. The underpinnings of this article are predicated on a THEORY! I'm all for energy independence, but that's for reasons wholly unrelated to the manmade Global Warming histeria that prevails through today's undereducated media on down to its trusting and unwitting readers.
Global warming, now climate change is a hoax. Al Gore is an idiot, and anyone that buys this bunch of crap is also an idiot. The earth has been warming and cooling naturally for millions of years. It is called a cycle. Why would we now have the power to change this one way or another. In the 70's we needed to take quick action to prevent global cooling. Now it's global warming. Let's make our energy policies based on what is best for the economy, not junk science.
Global warming, now climate change is a hoax. Al Gore is an idiot, and anyone that buys this bunch of crap is also an idiot. The earth has been warming and cooling naturally for millions of years. It is called a cycle. Why would we now have the power to change this one way or another. In the 70's we needed to take quick action to prevent global cooling. Now it's global warming. Let's make our energy policies based on what is best for the economy, not junk science.
I see mention of urgency about Global Warming. Evidently the author hasn't noticed that the period of Global Warming ended 10 soon to be 11 years ago. Just as there was a global cooling trend that began in 1945 ending in 1972 so too was there a warming trend that began in 1991 and ended in 1998 and 1998 wasn't even the warmest year in modern times, it was 1934. The global avg temp 1990-1999 was slighly cooler than the 10 years of 1930-1939. The Arctic sea ice loss in 2007 was due to the reversal of the Humboldt Current and Trade Winds as sometimes occurs with a strong La Nina as we had. Arctic Ice this year recovered 134%, it is now at the same levels as 2002 and growing.
The forecasts b ... view full comment
I see mention of urgency about Global Warming. Evidently the author hasn't noticed that the period of Global Warming ended 10 soon to be 11 years ago. Just as there was a global cooling trend that began in 1945 ending in 1972 so too was there a warming trend that began in 1991 and ended in 1998 and 1998 wasn't even the warmest year in modern times, it was 1934. The global avg temp 1990-1999 was slighly cooler than the 10 years of 1930-1939. The Arctic sea ice loss in 2007 was due to the reversal of the Humboldt Current and Trade Winds as sometimes occurs with a strong La Nina as we had. Arctic Ice this year recovered 134%, it is now at the same levels as 2002 and growing.
The forecasts by various US and International climate centers are that we have entered a period of global cooling that is expected to persist for another 23-25 years.
Using the catch phrase of Global Warming or Climate Change is specious at best and certainly no justification for placing $Billions costs on US industry which will very likely seek lower operations costs in other countries such as China and India.
Nor are the oceans warming, ocean temps are lower than any time in modern history. Sea levels are not rising, in fact in the southern hemisphere they are declining due to the greater build up of ice in the Antarctic.
Having spend forty years in energy engineering, a score of nuclear power plants, two score fossil power plants, I rate this analysis as the dumbest I have ever read, or at least it makes the semi-finals. I know nothing about global warming, but know if experts design and build a power plant that generates electricity for one penny, it is sheer stupidity to claim that hiring millions of workers to build other types that will cost a dime, makes any sense. It is obvious that none of the quoted experts ever engineered anything. I personally know the engineers who invented power plant pollution systems, made them work. One runs a dude ranch in the south west. Virtually all of them left engin ... view full comment
Having spend forty years in energy engineering, a score of nuclear power plants, two score fossil power plants, I rate this analysis as the dumbest I have ever read, or at least it makes the semi-finals. I know nothing about global warming, but know if experts design and build a power plant that generates electricity for one penny, it is sheer stupidity to claim that hiring millions of workers to build other types that will cost a dime, makes any sense. It is obvious that none of the quoted experts ever engineered anything. I personally know the engineers who invented power plant pollution systems, made them work. One runs a dude ranch in the south west. Virtually all of them left engineering. I read a speech by the CEO of Bethlehem Steel in the early 1990s. He said that in the prior decade, his company spent 90% + of their capital expenditures on pollution abatement, very little on making better or cheaper steel. He did not regret the expenditures; he regretted the fraction. In 2003, Bethlehem Steel ceased to exist. By 1991, when I left college relations, I learned that 69 major engineering schools had dropped course work vital to power plant technologies. Their graduates could not find work. The statement,the "original Clean Air Act, which, contrary to doomsday predictions from industry lobbyists, didn't put any noticeable dents in the economy" is a lie. It drove our smoke stack industries over seas, or out of existence. It is the prime reason for chronic unemployment, and the coming vital shortage of skills, particularly engineering, in repowering this nation. If the US moves to green energy, we will need a new grid. No one knows, but your light bill will skyrocket; you will pay perhaps ten times what you pay today. That is the cost of the carbon tax, or bill. Americans can not pay this cost, so their standard of living will plummet. This is the uncertainty, ignored by the experts. It will be a different nation, perhaps conquered, as its basic industry will be incredibly weak.
The US can lose the industrial revolution, founded on carbon combustion. This is the certain risk of the carbon pogrom. Trivializing the risk, as in this article, boggles the educated mind. People who invest their own money, obviously have not flocked to these highly questionable green technologies. They are not killer apps. They are the Edsels of tomorrow.
Nutmegg,
- "Climate change" was the term invented by those who wanted to downplay the impact of global warming.
- Change is good if it's a change for the better. This is not going to be, because life on Earth is adapted to the way things are, and adapts to change over a long timescale - which generally means thousands and millions of years, not 150 years.
- How do you think the economy would respond to a breakdown of the environment? Actually, the most serious impact of global warming is likely to be the acceleration of wipe-out of biodiversity, leading to reduction of production of new medicines (just to pick the most commercially urgent implications), since these are mostly developed from ob ... view full comment
Nutmegg,
- "Climate change" was the term invented by those who wanted to downplay the impact of global warming.
- Change is good if it's a change for the better. This is not going to be, because life on Earth is adapted to the way things are, and adapts to change over a long timescale - which generally means thousands and millions of years, not 150 years.
- How do you think the economy would respond to a breakdown of the environment? Actually, the most serious impact of global warming is likely to be the acceleration of wipe-out of biodiversity, leading to reduction of production of new medicines (just to pick the most commercially urgent implications), since these are mostly developed from observing the strange biological properties of odd flora and fauna. Do you want to forego cures for diseases to get cheaper transportation?
I suppose what bugs me about CO2 as a greenhouse gas, is that it's a phonon-pumped lasing medium. By rights, when not in a lasing cavity, it should be converting kinetic energy (heat) into random direction IR photons on a frequency that the atmosphere has very little resistance in.
Geometrically, it should be a heatsink, not a heat trap, so how is it acting as a greenhouse gas? What's the mechanism?
I suppose what bugs me about CO2 as a greenhouse gas, is that it's a phonon-pumped lasing medium. By rights, when not in a lasing cavity, it should be converting kinetic energy (heat) into random direction IR photons on a frequency that the atmosphere has very little resistance in.
Geometrically, it should be a heatsink, not a heat trap, so how is it acting as a greenhouse gas? What's the mechanism?
The article overlooks the actual conditions that will occur should the proposed green (mandatory % of power produced from renewable sources) legislation be passed or further pursued by individual states.
I am and many of my neighbors in rural MD, are under a constant barage by wind turbine developers to place wind turbines on every available spot in the area. The turbines proposed are giant structures. These turbines have very little output (3 MW 30% of the timefor their size ,475 feet high)and compare very unfavorably by a ratio of 5 to 10 to 1 in cost to a gas turbine natural gas fueled power plant which would take up to 1/100 th or less of the space and not have to be located on a ridge. ... view full comment
The article overlooks the actual conditions that will occur should the proposed green (mandatory % of power produced from renewable sources) legislation be passed or further pursued by individual states.
I am and many of my neighbors in rural MD, are under a constant barage by wind turbine developers to place wind turbines on every available spot in the area. The turbines proposed are giant structures. These turbines have very little output (3 MW 30% of the timefor their size ,475 feet high)and compare very unfavorably by a ratio of 5 to 10 to 1 in cost to a gas turbine natural gas fueled power plant which would take up to 1/100 th or less of the space and not have to be located on a ridge. According to an editorial in Power magazine, for the US to get 20% of its power from wind, wind turbines would cover an area the size of the entire state of West Virginia. Since the entire state of West Virginia is not suited to wind turbines, they would have to place in land areas around the country. I don't think most people realize the incredible negative impact this would have on areas with wind turbines. Most have not ever seen one or lived near one.
The recession poses an oppurtunity perhaps to do things that would not be considered or would not be possible during better economic times.
To conclude this is the time to push for more "green Power" which would be primarily provided by wind turbines since no other renewable energy source currently can produce significant quanties of energy, is not a desirable or necessary conclusion. The cost 30-40% which is subidised by federal or state funds. Governments are currently stretched to the limit, and should not consider funding something that has such a clear economic disadvantage. T. Boone Pickens has clearly come to the conclusion the wind turbines do not pay for him. Why should our tax dollars be used for what Mr. Pickens deems is a bad investment.
My conclusion is: use the recession to build more natural gas fired gas turbine plants (combined or simple cycle) at the same time reducing the growth of electrical power usage by mandating a rate structure for electrical power consumption that poses a cost penalty for excessive use. This has considerable chance of providing a reasonable amout of power to the country, at the least cost, and considering the effect on the invironment.
Richard DeCorso
Oakland, MD
A cap-and-trade is an alternative currency system because dollars-and-cents has can't be controled by the regulatory class. Its a new money, a new currency, created and issued an economic necessary input. Not enough to save the world, if you listen to the doomsters, but then the plan was always to have some scream loud enough that a new regulatory system becomes the acceptable compromise.
A cap-and-trade is an alternative currency system because dollars-and-cents has can't be controled by the regulatory class. Its a new money, a new currency, created and issued an economic necessary input. Not enough to save the world, if you listen to the doomsters, but then the plan was always to have some scream loud enough that a new regulatory system becomes the acceptable compromise.
Legislation proponents should predict publicly, exact temperature,sea level and/or ice depth changes to prove that the computer models actually work.
All I see are ominous threats about the end of civilization not dates and facts showing the models work. The Vostok ice core data initially had a large erroneous assumption that needed correction. If it will take a few years to impliment legislation there is plenty of time to show predictions work.
Legislation proponents should predict publicly, exact temperature,sea level and/or ice depth changes to prove that the computer models actually work.
All I see are ominous threats about the end of civilization not dates and facts showing the models work. The Vostok ice core data initially had a large erroneous assumption that needed correction. If it will take a few years to impliment legislation there is plenty of time to show predictions work.
Ignorance on climate science, ignorance on how much spending ones way out of recession and ignorance of the how taxing the productive economy makes it ignorance cubed. That's like zero cubed. Still the same - zero.
There is no climate crisis caused by humans.
There is not enough government money in the universe to "jump start" an economy without even worse economic consequences
There is no way to continually increase taxes without creating a vast depression.
Those on the Left that can still buy food after cap-and-trade and all the other misguided initiatives will remember the Bush years as "the good ole times."
Ignorance on climate science, ignorance on how much spending ones way out of recession and ignorance of the how taxing the productive economy makes it ignorance cubed. That's like zero cubed. Still the same - zero.
There is no climate crisis caused by humans.
There is not enough government money in the universe to "jump start" an economy without even worse economic consequences
There is no way to continually increase taxes without creating a vast depression.
Those on the Left that can still buy food after cap-and-trade and all the other misguided initiatives will remember the Bush years as "the good ole times."
Carbon Tax is just another scam by those 539 criminals in Washington along with their lap dogs in the media.
Carbon Tax is just another scam by those 539 criminals in Washington along with their lap dogs in the media.
When are we going to stop this nonsense? AGW is junk science at best. At it's worse it is a massive fraud predicated on global redistribution ow wealth.
Let's keep it scientific then: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let's see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even s ... view full comment
When are we going to stop this nonsense? AGW is junk science at best. At it's worse it is a massive fraud predicated on global redistribution ow wealth.
Let's keep it scientific then: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let's see what data points we now have:
1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)
3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures
4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)
5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than "normal" (whatever that is)
6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)
7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather "sublimation"
8) The Antarctic is not "melting", it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows
9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below "normal" (again, whatever that is)
10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below "normal" temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)
11) Al Gores film was just deemed "propaganda" in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists
12) It was also just reveled that some of the footage in Al’s film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” (ABC)
13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)
14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.
15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)
16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.
17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured
18) Several publications, including those that are “warmist” have recently written that the “natural” cycles of the earth may “mask” AGW. Give me a break.
19) 31,000 scientist have signed a petition against AGW!
Over the last ten years the world, along with China (1 new coal fired plant coming on line each week) and India spewing millions of additional tons of CO2 in to the atmosphere these results should be impossible.
Now, please be so kind to give me one piece of observable evidence that man is causing "global warming".
And, when will Al Gore humbly give his “Noble Prize” back as he is a complete fraud?
And apparently we are to assume that Keynesian economics has not been utterly discredited by the current crises...
And apparently we are to assume that Keynesian economics has not been utterly discredited by the current crises...
It would be irresponsible for the government to build any new energy or environmental policy around climate change theory.
At best it is unproven and highly disputed in the scientific community, and challenge after challenge has shown that questionable methods and scientific invalid temperature measurements have been employed to demonstrate its existence.
The more empirical scientific studies of climate change all show that the sun is the more likely culprit in causing temperature change, which si only logical.
It would be irresponsible for the government to build any new energy or environmental policy around climate change theory.
At best it is unproven and highly disputed in the scientific community, and challenge after challenge has shown that questionable methods and scientific invalid temperature measurements have been employed to demonstrate its existence.
The more empirical scientific studies of climate change all show that the sun is the more likely culprit in causing temperature change, which si only logical.
Gore's hockey stick graph was wrong. The "researchers" cooked the books to get results they were told to prove. CO2 does not cause global warming. The polar bears are fine, Gore's picture was a fraud. The Maldives aren't sinking.
Alternative energy sources need to be developed because oil isn't going to last forever. However, it is neither necessary nor desirable that government achieve that goal by supporting and promulgating lies. Imposing cap & trade rules will bankrupt the coal industry and the proposed EPA regulations on CO2 emissions from BUILDINGS, will further cripple our industry.
Gore's hockey stick graph was wrong. The "researchers" cooked the books to get results they were told to prove. CO2 does not cause global warming. The polar bears are fine, Gore's picture was a fraud. The Maldives aren't sinking.
Alternative energy sources need to be developed because oil isn't going to last forever. However, it is neither necessary nor desirable that government achieve that goal by supporting and promulgating lies. Imposing cap & trade rules will bankrupt the coal industry and the proposed EPA regulations on CO2 emissions from BUILDINGS, will further cripple our industry.
Since even most scientists now admit that we will have 20 years plus of cooling before man-made warming starts again, why add the burden to the taxpayer (who sill pay the tax, not the company). There are also thousands of scientists that say GW is not cuased by man at all, just solar activity and pacific decadal currents. So we won't be saving anything anyway. But if we are going to have a carbon tax I hope it includes the paper producing and printing industry too. Once the cost of a newpaper reaches $2 and magazines $10 a copy, it will put most of them out of business, and we will get our info from the internet. Any actually curious 'jounalist' can find credible reason to question the cap & ... view full comment
Since even most scientists now admit that we will have 20 years plus of cooling before man-made warming starts again, why add the burden to the taxpayer (who sill pay the tax, not the company). There are also thousands of scientists that say GW is not cuased by man at all, just solar activity and pacific decadal currents. So we won't be saving anything anyway. But if we are going to have a carbon tax I hope it includes the paper producing and printing industry too. Once the cost of a newpaper reaches $2 and magazines $10 a copy, it will put most of them out of business, and we will get our info from the internet. Any actually curious 'jounalist' can find credible reason to question the cap & trade system and the weak link if any of CO2 to warming, but since you are so lazy or just an ideologue pretending to be a professional journalist it goes unreported. Hurry and get the government in charge of everything we can. Go stand in line at your local DMV and pretend you are bleeding to death. Just a taste of your new healthcare. Making milions of 'green' jobs. Yeah all those displaced workers at GM and the service sector are trained and ready to work in this new industry. As soon as we actually make the other alternatives work on a large scale. Thats OK though because now all the whiners that hated Bush's 1 Trillion dollar deficit are now in love with the idea of somewhere in the 6 Trillion dollar plus range. If the former was 'mortgaging our kids future' then the latter is foreclosing on it.
Don't know 'bout you but it has been unusually cold in Kansas. It wasn't even very hot in August like it always is. I am thinking now that we might be going into some kind of global cooling which dosen't seem like too much fun. I don't think we little humans can control the climate. Seems to have a mind of its own..............And all I need is to have to pay more for gas, propane, electricity or whatever else they can conjure up to steal my money for............
Don't know 'bout you but it has been unusually cold in Kansas. It wasn't even very hot in August like it always is. I am thinking now that we might be going into some kind of global cooling which dosen't seem like too much fun. I don't think we little humans can control the climate. Seems to have a mind of its own..............And all I need is to have to pay more for gas, propane, electricity or whatever else they can conjure up to steal my money for............
Are we still that sure that "global warming" is human caused? How many times has the earth warmed and cooled over the ages, with or without human involvement. Greenland was named Greenland for a reason. And it was not that long ago that Greenland was green. I don't think more government will alter the global warming and cooling cycles.
Are we still that sure that "global warming" is human caused? How many times has the earth warmed and cooled over the ages, with or without human involvement. Greenland was named Greenland for a reason. And it was not that long ago that Greenland was green. I don't think more government will alter the global warming and cooling cycles.
a. Global warming is a hoax. Stop drinking the kool aid.
b. New taxes will push us from a recession into a depression.
Taxes and govt spending are not the answer for everything and generally hurt more than they help.
a. Global warming is a hoax. Stop drinking the kool aid.
b. New taxes will push us from a recession into a depression.
Taxes and govt spending are not the answer for everything and generally hurt more than they help.
Not all of the world's economy will be destroyed because of this myth. Neither China or India have fallen for it so they will end up as the major economic powers if we head down this path to self destruction. Mark my words, within 20 years the believers in global warming will be regarded like those who thought we were headed for an ice age.
Not all of the world's economy will be destroyed because of this myth. Neither China or India have fallen for it so they will end up as the major economic powers if we head down this path to self destruction. Mark my words, within 20 years the believers in global warming will be regarded like those who thought we were headed for an ice age.
100% correct, these people are insane, evil or both.
MMGW is a cult like theory and the anti-freedom solutions override reason.
100% correct, these people are insane, evil or both.
MMGW is a cult like theory and the anti-freedom solutions override reason.
That's a good point, worse is the doublethink of the crisis being caused by "too much" consumption while complaining about "savings rates" on the one hand then the official policy suggestion is "bottom up stimulus". We now live in a world where the leadership can't complete a paragraph in a logical way. It's Orwellian.
That's a good point, worse is the doublethink of the crisis being caused by "too much" consumption while complaining about "savings rates" on the one hand then the official policy suggestion is "bottom up stimulus". We now live in a world where the leadership can't complete a paragraph in a logical way. It's Orwellian.
10,000 years ago, the ice sheet covered the northern 1/3 of the United States. It was not man made changes that melted it, but natural cyclic conditions. The next ice age is on it's way, and global warming by man will not delay or change it arrival.
10,000 years ago, the ice sheet covered the northern 1/3 of the United States. It was not man made changes that melted it, but natural cyclic conditions. The next ice age is on it's way, and global warming by man will not delay or change it arrival.
I don't want to argue with anyone, as I'm too tired. But I do have two things to offer, first I want to say this to Mike: the atmosphere is not massive. If you think about the earth as a croquet ball with a little dew on it, you'd be right. The distance between the top of the atmosphere and the bottom of the Marianas trench, is about eight miles. All life on this earth must live in this zone. Take the earth's volume in cubic miles, 4*(pi)*(3960 miles radius)^3 (radius cubed) all divided by 3, whatever that is, and subtract this from a sphere with a radius four or five miles larger (3964-5) and you'll find out that the volume of the atmosphere and the oceans just seems massive 'cause we' ... view full comment
I don't want to argue with anyone, as I'm too tired. But I do have two things to offer, first I want to say this to Mike: the atmosphere is not massive. If you think about the earth as a croquet ball with a little dew on it, you'd be right. The distance between the top of the atmosphere and the bottom of the Marianas trench, is about eight miles. All life on this earth must live in this zone. Take the earth's volume in cubic miles, 4*(pi)*(3960 miles radius)^3 (radius cubed) all divided by 3, whatever that is, and subtract this from a sphere with a radius four or five miles larger (3964-5) and you'll find out that the volume of the atmosphere and the oceans just seems massive 'cause we're so small, and under it. mind you, I INCLUDED THE OCEANS in this very generous estimate. The atmosphere and the seas put together resemble the morning dew left on a croquet ball. Thinner than tissue paper, and much less voluminous than people think. Put a drop of dye on that croquet ball and see how far and fast it spreads. Now try to extract that dye, leaving all the other moisture, while living there. Such an exercise might make you more environmentally cautious.
OK the second thing I have to offer. The name change from "Global Warming" to "Global climate change" was made to be more accurate. Some places will be wetter, some (lots) drier. Some (lots) warmer, some colder. No big conspiracy required. Global climate change is just more accurate. "Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy, but a poll of NSF scientists showed 95% believe that the preponderance of evidence is that man made global climate change is real, and increasing.
Fred from citrus ... Greenland WAS named Greenland for a reason, a propagandist one. Viking chiefs named it "Greenland" (or whatever the heck that is in viking tongue) to get more vikings to settle there and expand the viking empire, though it was a frozen, forbidding place then, too. Like our modern "Clean Skies Initiative", or "Your call is very important to us"...it was a deliberate lie for effect.
Fred from citrus ... Greenland WAS named Greenland for a reason, a propagandist one. Viking chiefs named it "Greenland" (or whatever the heck that is in viking tongue) to get more vikings to settle there and expand the viking empire, though it was a frozen, forbidding place then, too. Like our modern "Clean Skies Initiative", or "Your call is very important to us"...it was a deliberate lie for effect.