Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Lieberman-Warner: The Super Bowl for lobbyists

posted at 9:50 am on June 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

If Congress holds a pork barbecue, do they need to apply for carbon credits? Politico reports that the Lieberman-Warner bill currently under debate represents the biggest opportunity in recent memory for lobbyists to carve out pork-barrel projects and other set-asides as the government prepares to take over the energy industry. And if this Super Bowl turns out to be a bust, the next one may take place during a presidency that won’t threaten a veto:

The climate change legislation being debated now in the Senate is the Super Bowl for lobbyists, roping in everyone from Alaskan Inupiaqs to venture capitalists.

“We’re only this far because of the array of citizen groups, business, labor, environmentalists, religious communities, hunters, anglers, you could go on,” Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) told reporters on Capitol Hill. “It’s this mighty force rising out from the American public.” …

Depending on how Congress eventually deals with global warming, the outcome will inevitably hurt some companies while creating significant new markets for others.

Sponsored by Lieberman and Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), the measure would cut greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 70 percent by 2050. It mandates a trading system, known as cap and trade, that would allow companies to purchase carbon credits through an auction process. The bill also provides billions of dollars in subsidies for conservation and environmentally clean technologies.

Business is pushing for various carve-outs. Real estate groups, for example, are backing an amendment allowing a portion of the carbon credits to be given to building owners who improve the efficiency of their properties.

In other words, dinner is served!

Whenever the federal government decides to regulate an industry, it opens up myriad possibilities for pork and corruption. Seeing people run to this porkfest should surprise no one, and neither should we be shocked to see Congress open to the idea of even more regulation and rationing. It expands federal power, which expands the opportunities to build personal power for each and every member of Congress. And it does all of this without delivering anything more than what we have already accomplished on carbon emissions over the last seven years, when we outstripped the EU in the pace of improvements.

Government expansion comes in many forms and in many motivations, some of them noble. We must feed the poor! We must save the Earth from its “fever”! In the end, the only thing fed is the government bureaucracies that eat up all the resources, and the only fever is the delirium that the same government that runs the IRS and the VA could possibly do better than competitive-market solutions for the same goals.

Supporters of Lieberman-Warner want people to believe that it provides a market solution with cap-and-trade. Don’t buy it. It forces government rationing of CO2 emissions, and then creates a “market” for ration stamps. Anything government rations, it controls. And anything government controls, it creates massive bureaucracies to run, and massive regulation to enforce.

Even its supporters don’t believe this bill will make it into law this year. With gas prices soaring, the escalation of energy prices that would result from this legislation makes it politically unpalatable for too many constituencies, and George Bush still wields the veto pen. Next year, that won’t be the case.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

what is that picture on the thread topic?

lorien1973 on June 4, 2008 at 9:53 AM

Hopefully, this will provide a convenient excuse for McCain to back down.

Squid Shark on June 4, 2008 at 9:55 AM

Surely there’s a Republican somewhere that can challenge this on Constitutional grounds although I’m not sure how it violates it at the moment.

DerKrieger on June 4, 2008 at 9:59 AM

what is that picture on the thread topic?

lorien1973 on June 4, 2008 at 9:53 AM

Chamber of Commerce chart to show complexity.
Powerline also talks about it

rslancer14 on June 4, 2008 at 9:59 AM

The reason they are in such a hurry to slam this type of legislation is to get ahead of any trend towards “cooling” that they absolutely KNOW will happen at some point.

Then they’ll take the credit and say they saved us from catastrophe.

And the followers are the same people that snidely laugh at people of ancient times that mistook a leader’s prediction of an eclipse as proof that he was God and controlled the cosmos.

Saltysam on June 4, 2008 at 10:00 AM

Short List

Sanford
Pawlenty
Palin
Crist
Jindal
Lieberman
Sessions

Jaibones on June 4, 2008 at 10:00 AM

Depending on how Congress eventually deals with global warming

That this statement is thrown in so casually is what truly frightens me. Are we really so stupid that we can’t allow the free market to have the final say on this? Where does it stop? Replace “global warming” with “Christians” or “fast food” or whatever the issue and you see my point.

fourstringfuror on June 4, 2008 at 10:01 AM

Monitoring costs? Anyone?

DrSteve on June 4, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Chamber of Commerce chart to show complexity.
Powerline also talks about it

rslancer14 on June 4, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Thanks. Ed should really link to that in this post. It really explains what a montrosity this is.

lorien1973 on June 4, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Go to http://www.petitionproject.org for a different perspective than our great leaders.

volsense on June 4, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Soooooo….if we have say 6 or 8 years of seriously colder weather, do we create a new bureaucracy to increase our emissions? “More beans, Mr. Taggert?”

Patrick S on June 4, 2008 at 10:12 AM

I have never understood why Sean Hannity sucks up to Lieberman so much.

JellyToast on June 4, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Hopefully the current high energy prices will make the public take notice of this catastrophic bill. It’s truly mind-boggling how sweeping and bureaucracy-enlarging this bill is. It must absolutely be stopped.

brak on June 4, 2008 at 10:30 AM

And I don’t understand, particularly in an election year, why bills aren’t being introduced to expand drilling, production, and refining. Whatever happened to Bush’s idea to build new refineries on decommissioned military bases?

Put those bills out there, and then vet them in the court of public opinion. Get the word out, and with gas and energy costs escalating, let them vote against it and suffer the consequences. The environmental lobby is not more powerful than voters worried about high energy costs.

brak on June 4, 2008 at 10:33 AM

Senator McCain has not committed on Lieberman-Warner yet – Will he denounce?

How about that Republican re-branding effort? It appears that far too many Republicans are willing to go along with Barbara Boxer on this ill-conceived legislation.

Plaudits to Senator Inhofe, but his compatriots among Republican office-holders are far too few. A vast expansion of the federal government appears to be speeding toward us.

pilsener on June 4, 2008 at 10:37 AM

Depending on how Congress eventually deals with global warming . . .

The only way we are going to stop this government takeover of energy is to convince the American people and then the Congress that anthropogenic ‘global warming’ is a hoax, and therefore there is no ‘need’ to control ‘carbon’.

It’s going to take a massive campaign to do this. Suggestions welcome!

For a start, is there no one Sen. McCain listens to who can talk some sense into his thick head?

MrLynn on June 4, 2008 at 10:37 AM

First off, I completely reject the premise of man-made global warming. No one can come close to prooving that man and man’s activity are responsible for the climate change that the earth has and always will experience (just ask the dinosaurs).
But, for the sake of argument, even if I did jump on that idiot train for a ride, would allowing the federal government to mandate, regulate, and legislate the “problem” be a wise decision? I would argue, based on its powerful record of abysmal failure in almost everything that it does, that it would be exponentially more foolish to give this “problem” to the government to solve than it would be to do nothing. Allowing 535 nitwit, selfish, politicians the ability to control the energy industry will ruin it. Just take one small example – airline security screening. Anyone who has gone through airline security since its nationalization can attest to its idiocy and inefficiency. Strip searching an old, blue-haired lady and confiscating her nail clippers just doesn’t make sense. Recent tests have shown that security only catches about 1/4 of all bomb components/weapons/etc. that pass through security.
Allowing these disgusting politicians to pass a bill like this will only serve to further grow an already overly obtrusive federal government/nanny state and to further the incestuous corruption that permeates both parties in Congress.
That is why I cannot vote for McCain. I will vote for Barr and I urge those of you here who also are getting fed up with the ignoring of the Constitution by politicians and the nanny-state to vote for Barr as well. You many not agree with everything that Barr stands for, but you have to know that he will try to bring the country back in the direction of the Constitution and limited government.

King of the Britons on June 4, 2008 at 10:38 AM

The reticence of Republicans during the vote for cloture on this bill concerns me. Is there a legislative guru out there that could educate me on why voting on cloture is a positive step. Is it a device to get the bill on the floor for an up or down vote to get the votes registered and printed for all to see?

MNDavenotPC on June 4, 2008 at 10:39 AM

In a cap-and-trade system, what’s to prevent George Soros or Warren Buffett or Bill Gates or any other billionaire from buying lots of “carbon credits” and selling them to the highest bidder, regardless of emissions? Sounds like a great way for the fat cats to get fatter with government help, while poor people shiver, unable to heat their homes, who would welcome a warmer winter, if it ever came.

Steve Z on June 4, 2008 at 10:42 AM

The most annoying thing to me in this entire campaign season has been the way both Obama and McCain have dumped on lobbyists as the source for much of our problem in America. I have been a lobbyist, and not only are most lobbyists good people, but they would not be necessary if government had not gotten so damn big and intrusive that even the corner grocery store operators need a lobbyist. Obama wants to end the influence of lobbyists, while growing government to the point where you will lose your business if you don’t have an army of lobbyists. McCain wants this global warming freak show that has lobbyists in a feeding frenzy.

rockmom on June 4, 2008 at 10:43 AM

I spent a large portion of yesterday reviewing this nightmare. I was appalled and angry. By the time I finished making my notes, I was furious. The costs associated with establishing this “carbon allowance” infrastructure are huge. How can anyone in Congress delude themselves into thinking that these costs wouldn’t be passed on to the consumer?

I keep coming back to William Daniels as John Adams: “Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Does anyone see what I see?” What does it take to get responsible representatives — Republican and Democrat alike — who think about the repercussions of their actions?

ScaryBiscuits on June 4, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Joseph Tainter in his The Collapse of Complex Societies talks of a non-producing resource class requiring “subsidies” from the the resource producing class, tax payers, which creates new layers of bureaucracy.

Throw in a few quotes from Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire one will see the course that has been charted for this country.

Tom

marinetbryant on June 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Time for a national realignment, Conservatives to one side and Liberals to the other. Split the country and see who survives.
Maybe the Alaskans or Texans will get fed up with the Liberals on the coasts that want to control the nation’s resources and move to secede. That seems the only way to escape the eco-Marxists. I suspect even the threat of a serious secessionist movement would make the Lefties sit up and take notice.

DerKrieger on June 4, 2008 at 11:01 AM

a non-producing resource class

That is exactly what the Socialists(Dems) intend to create as a way to ensure their grip on power.

Time to enact a grand “Atlas Shrugs” plan.

If I were the CEO of a major manufacturer, oil company, car company, et al I’d tell my employees in blunt terms that their jobs are at risk if this type of legislation were tp pass. I’d tell them without hesitation I’d close down all domestic operations and leave. The Fed can’t stop it either.

DerKrieger on June 4, 2008 at 11:04 AM

And I don’t understand, particularly in an election year, why bills aren’t being introduced to expand drilling, production, and refining.—–brak

This makes sense if one assumes that congress gives a damn about what happens to America and Americans. But, since, they so consistently go the other way it might make more sense to figure that their loyalties are elsewhere. I think K Street makes the most sense. They’ve gerrymandered themselves out of competition with outsiders and written campaign finance laws that make it unbelievably difficult for anyone to run against them. My problems or your problems are of no interest to them. Their major concern seems to be getting themselves more taxpayer supported perks. I don’t even so much want them to solve my problems as much as to quit adding to them. But I’m such an easy touch as long as they have the power to tax like crazy and spend us into horrifyingly huge debt. And why should they mess with the environmental lobby, since those people will actively mobilize and make a congressman’s life difficult. Your everyday driver is just going to pay the higher gas price and limit his life to the degree necessary. It makes no sense for them to care about the ordinary person since there’s nothing in it for them.

snaggletoothie on June 4, 2008 at 11:04 AM

I’m with MrLynn on this one. Whoever is elected President this year probably wouldn’t veto a CO2 cap-and-trade system next year, if it got through the Senate. A massive campaign is needed to get the word out that carbon dioxide does not raise temperatures and that limiting CO2 emissions is hugely expensive and completely unnecessary.

There are some good blogs out there by global-warming skeptics (Steven Milloy’s junkscience.com and the Idso brothers’ co2science.com come to mind) but the mainstream press has taken Gore’s side, and censored any skeptics as equivalent to flat-earthers. Although I work in a company with lots of meteorologists, not one of whom believes in global warming!!!

Also, John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel, also said that “global warming is the greatest scam in human history”. Somehow, the scientists who have studied the issue and know the facts have to unite and present a strong case to Congress and the future President (even when ad funds might be scarce in an election year) to shoot this down once and for all.

There’s nothing wrong with conserving energy, which people will naturally do when prices are high. But we need to use the energy sources we have–American oil, gas, and coal, and nuclear power. If we don’t, the Chinese will.

Steve Z on June 4, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Here comes the biggest government power grab since FDR. Bend over and grab your ankles. Resistance is futile.

petefrt on June 4, 2008 at 11:12 AM

I have never understood why Sean Hannity sucks up to Lieberman so much. JellyToast on June 4, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Hannity likes interviewing senators, even pro-abortion socialists like Joe. Nevermind that he is helping to perpetuate the myth that Lieberman is a moderate.

Akzed on June 4, 2008 at 11:24 AM

If we divide the total man-made emission rate of CO2 (2003 figures) by the total mass of the Earth’s atmosphere, CO2 concentrations should be increasing by 3.0 ppm per year. Measurements at Mauna Loa show the CO2 concentration increasing by 1.5 ppm/yr from 1970 to 2007.

Where is the other half of the CO2 going?

Probably some to the oceans, probably a lot is absorbed by photosynthesis by plants, both on land and in the oceans. Numerous scientific studies show that plants grow faster, yield more crops, and use CO2 faster if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. If current trends continue, the Earth should become greener and more fertile as CO2 levels rise, until the CO2 consumption rate by plants catches up to the emission rate, and the CO2 concentration reaches steady state.

What’s wrong with that, and why should Congress spend trillions of dollars trying to prevent it?

By the way, global temperatures over the past 9 years are still lower than they were in 1998. But don’t confuse Congress with the facts!

Steve Z on June 4, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Lieberman-Warner = Lieberman-McCain

Why would Maverick back away from his own bill?

Ed, why do you omit no-earmark/pork-buster McCain from your analysis? How do we push him right if we don’t mention his name?

RUSH- ARE YOU READING??

JiangxiDad on June 4, 2008 at 11:35 AM

At least Bush has promised to veto this monstrosity. Also, we don’t know how the House will deal with it yet. At least, I haven’t heard any reports. I just hope that it gets the same attention as the Amnesty bill when it goes down in flames.

orlandocajun on June 4, 2008 at 11:37 AM

This must be an example of democracy destroying itself.

PattyJ on June 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Remember how Congress left the Social Security funds alone to make sure the system stayed solvent? Oops, I guess they couldn’t help dipping into the lockbox to pay for their pork projects.

Remember how the Tobacco Settlement was used to build more hospitals and care centers and educate the public about the dangers of smoking? Oops, I guess that money went up in smoke [pun intended] as state legislatures couldn’t resist dipping into the funds for their pet projects.

This bill would give Congress and enormous amount of money ($4 trillion or so) to do with what they wish. And where does the money come from? Look to your left and look to your right. We are going to pay for their pork fueled orgy. Our Founding Fathers are spinning at 100 rps right now.

Mallard T. Drake on June 4, 2008 at 1:21 PM

Short List

Sanford
Pawlenty
Palin
Crist
Jindal
Lieberman
Sessions

Fixed.

Sorry, Pawlenty is fully onboard the train of this cult. As well as Norm Coleman, who’s name I didn’t see as one of the very few nays, on the cloture vote.

MNHawk on June 4, 2008 at 3:15 PM

If I were the CEO of a major manufacturer, oil company, car company, et al I’d tell my employees in blunt terms that their jobs are at risk if this type of legislation were to pass. I’d tell them without hesitation I’d close down all domestic operations and leave. The Fed can’t stop it either.

DerKrieger on June 4, 2008 at 11:04 AM

This is actually a very good idea. Climate scientists who are not in the pocket of the government warm-mongers can’t seem to get any traction with the media. But a major public-relations campaign by business, raising the spectre of this crazy legislation doing horrible damage to the American economy, could have an effect the media can’t ignore.

What’s the slogan? “Cap-and-Trade Will Kill Your Job!” Feel free to come up with better ones.

MrLynn on June 4, 2008 at 3:48 PM

MNDavenotPC asked about cloture; I don’t know as much about the nuts and bolts of the political process as I would like; however, my understanding is that a cloture vote is a vote to determine whether the bill should be brought up for immediate vote, and debate closed on it.

Which brings me to a request…

Is there anyone with firsthand experience about how the legislative process and Congressional offices work who would be willing to answer a few questions I have? Is there a site where you can go and read about this stuff?

Specifically, I need information about committees; how is classified information handled in committees, who has access to committee meetings/minutes, how often do they convene, who can call a hearing and when, exactly how members are selected, etc. Also, how are Congressional offices arranged, how much latitude do Congressmen have with regard to organising their offices, and a few other miscellaneous things like that.

If you do know about this stuff and wouldn’t mind chatting about it, please email me: comments(at)theright-stuff.com .

linlithgow on June 4, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Second stage will be personal carbon credit cards.

OldEnglish on June 4, 2008 at 9:11 PM

It forces government rationing of CO2 emissions, and then creates a “market” for ration stamps. Anything government rations, it controls. And anything government controls, it creates massive bureaucracies to run, and massive regulation to enforce.

Not so sure about that… I haven’t seen the cap and trade system put in place to battle acid rain described in that light. However, the addition of special loopholes for every conceivable industry could really make such a system falter.

bayam on June 5, 2008 at 1:13 AM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.