Dem Senator: Get rid of cap-and-trade
posted at 12:15 pm on August 14, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The measure of the impact of health-care protests can now be seen on another major item on the Barack Obama agenda. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) has called on the Senate to jettison the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill for this year, calling it “too big” after the political turmoil of the eruption of anger on ObamaCare. Three other Democrats have publicly supported the idea of focusing only on promotion of renewable energy:
The U.S. Senate should abandon efforts to pass legislation curbing greenhouse-gas emissions this year and concentrate on a narrower bill to require use of renewable energy, four Democratic lawmakers say.
“The problem of doing both of them together is that it becomes too big of a lift,” Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said in an interview last week. “I see the cap-and-trade being a real problem.” …
Ben Nelson of Nebraska and North Dakota Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan joined Lincoln in suggesting that the climate measure be put off.
“We should separate the energy bill from the climate bill,” Conrad told reporters this month. ‘It needs to be done as soon as we can get it done,” he said, referring to the energy legislation.
Climate legislation would require 60 votes in the Senate. Most Republicans have said they oppose the cap-and-trade measure, and at least 15 of the Senate’s 60-member Democratic majority have said the House-passed version would hurt the economy and needs to be revamped to win their support.
The cap-and-trade bill actually has more problems politically than ObamaCare. Waxman-Markey will split the Democratic caucus in the Senate along both ideological and regional lines. Senators like Lincoln and Nelson object because they represent red states that dislike government interference in private industries, especially when the intervention has the explicit goal of making everything a lot more expensive, thanks to penalties on energy production. But even normally center-left and liberal Senators will resist the idea of killing the coal industry, especially in places like Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and other Rust Belt states.
Instead, the fifteen Democrats want to skip the entire greenhouse-gas debate and focus instead strictly on encouraging development of green energy production. That can get done with a lot less expense while eliminating a government takeover of the energy sector. If the goal of the climate-control crowd was really a boost for green energy as a means to eliminate coal as a factor through natural obsolescence, this approach should not offend them.
However, that’s never really been the goal. The goal has been to have government seize control of the means of production in industry, and energy is the core industry to control in that regard. That’s why this move among these Democratic Senators will be as welcome as a tax audit to Waxman-Markey supporters. Unfortunately for them, the radical nature of ObamaCare has exposed the radical approach of this administration and Congressional leadership, which means that they’re unlikely to win any of the Democrats back from that position — and now can’t count on any Republican support at all.
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: « Previous 1 2 3
Interesting theory and based a bit on fact. When Lake Toba erupted 70-75 thousand years ago, it spawned an Ice Age because of sulfur aerosols reflecting sunlight out of the atmosphere. Particulates in the atmosphere can cool the globe.
Furthermore, the sun’s irradiance is increasing and in time it will be so bright that there will be no liquid water on earth (all evaporated), I forget the time line but I think it is a few billion years. This is before the Sun’s enters the end phase of its life.
Holger on August 14, 2009 at 3:55 PM
I respect your opinion, and your cogent comments on this subject…
But, for goodness sake…you’ve just opened a whole new can of worms.
The enviro-crowd is now going to be organizing, and the Left will jump in with the enviro-whackos….
“The Sun is Going Out!!”
“We’ve got to stop it!!”
New government program will hit Congress in short order…about $1000 trillion committed to prevent the Sun from dying.
After all, the death of the Sun is right around the corner.
/s
coldwarrior on August 14, 2009 at 4:07 PM
right, the sun is going out, but before it goes out, it will enlarge into a supernova and engulf the earth. but before then, it will only melt the earth’s crust. that’s about 4 billion years from now. the time to act is in 3.9 billion years!
but seriously, my point earlier was a little sooner in the grand scheme of things. that being:
if global warming isn’t man-made but a naturally occurring phenomenon, and, the amount of particulates in the earth’s atmosphere is a natural temperature regulating device, and, we, through global warming crusades introduce legislation like cap ‘n’ tax that reduces greenhouse gases AND particulate matter, won’t we THAN be directly contributing to global warming by dramatically be reducing the particulate matter that does regulate the earth’s temperature by reflecting sunlight from reaching the earth?
photoboy74 on August 14, 2009 at 4:21 PM
I’ve found this site to be quite helpful.
The one part of global warming/climate change/man-made climate change/climate justice that is most often ignored.
As to upper atmosphere particulates, for the most part it depends on the particulate, but more of anything in the upper in the atmosphere most often results in cooler global temperatures. The great Krakatoa event provided the first observable measurable example of solar energy/particulates/temperature. Mount Pinatubu in our times, less spectacular, but did provide observable data. Mt. St. Helens likewise.
You’ll find no argument with me.
coldwarrior on August 14, 2009 at 4:32 PM
I am not so sure about that though. Greenhouse gases are responsible for the Earth being warm.
Althouth, at one time the earth was a snowball until volcanic activity built up enough CO2 to cause global warming. At another time the concentration was some 20 times higher than current concentration but global temperatures are theorized to be about the same.
Holger on August 14, 2009 at 4:36 PM
When I call my Congress folks, I ask them when, in world history, has forcing people away from abundant cheap energy to scarce expensive energy ever been good for a country, a state or the politicians forcing people into that policy.
Jimmy Carter comes to mind as one who handled a drummed up energy shortage poorly. While Jimmy had many faults, most of us first remember the gasoline lines and Jimmy telling us to wear a sweater and turn down the thermostat instead of solving the problem.
RJL on August 14, 2009 at 4:41 PM
I said this about a year ago, when the ethanol scam first broke.
Any nation that burns food for fuel is in decline. Or words to that effect.
Completely stopping the extraction and use of fossil fuels, and then suggesting some sort of dream extra special “clean” fuel source (we’ll leave nuclear out for now) is just plain stupid.
Transition to “clean” energy on a wholesale level is going to take time, perhaps decades, if not longer, and mistakes will be made, and a few of those totally clean energy sources will be proven to not be up to the task or too expensive to impliment…and we will find ourselves shutting down whole segments of the economy whilst the “experts” stumble their way toward an efficient, clean, readily available clean fuel matrix. Trial and error is most often the best method to take on a new technology.
In essence, this Administration and the Dems have put the cart way way before the horse and we can see how well that cart is moving forward.
coldwarrior on August 14, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Yet she still refuses to hold a town hall with us during this recess. Speaks VOLUMES about where she stands on the issue.
She won’t roll over for cap and tax, but not because her constituents are opposed to it; she’s too beholden to the farmer’s lobby here to do anything but. And of course, there’s always Wal-Mart and Tyson and alllll the trucking companies. She’s getting squeezed from both sides on this one. But she voted yes on the TARPs, she voted yes on Porkulus. There are now three people who have announced they’re running against her (still waiting for Der Krieger to toss his hat in the ring ;o)). She’s pretty unpopular here right now, at least in the western part of the state, and among Arkansans who are paying attention. I think she’s going down in 2010.
NoLeftTurn on August 14, 2009 at 4:56 PM
what about these “clean” energy sources? solar, tidal, wind, etc., etc.,
based upon the carnot engine, these “clean” sources of energy lack the energy potential of fossil burning sources. you need more clean energy sources to produce the same amount for a smaller amount of, say, coal. not to mention that “when the sun don’t shine,” you’re not producing much energy. same goes for when the wind isn’t blowing.
can anyone guess that the environmentalist won’t complain about solar and wind farms in our pristine natural wonders? already, clean, renewable sources of energy were proposed for in some upscale vacation places of the ruling elite on the east coast (martha’s vineyard?) and it was shot down, for being an eye-sore. the same “we need more prisons, just not in my backyard” argument. this means, it will be the poor who will have this in their backyard.
some voices are more equal than others.
photoboy74 on August 14, 2009 at 5:00 PM
What assumes about the pseudo-religious fanatics of global warming is that the vast majority are astoundingly ignorant of basic mathematics and science:
Ask any one of them in a debate what % of the Earth’s atmosphere are greenhouse gases? They won’t know (3% BTW).
Ask any one of them in a debate what % of the Earth’s atmosphere is carbon dioxide? They won’t know (0.035% BTW).
Ask them why solar activity and heating/cooling of the Earth, Mars and one of Jupiter’s moons track quite well but carbon dioxide does not and in fact twice in the past century has increased while the temperature was decreasing.
(now and it was around the 50′s if I recollect right).
Hell ask them to explain the thermosphere (a layer of Earth’s atomsphere that increase’s in temperature due to the heating of the sun )
Only someone so fanatical about the issue they will never change their mind aka “the gov’t did 9/11 morons” can still cling to this utterly discredited psuedo-religious cultish “idea”
odooley8939 on August 14, 2009 at 5:03 PM
It’ll be a disaster if we go with ethanol or with electric cars.
Food prices will skyrocket if not become scarce or home electricity and manufacturing costs will rise. And with Ethanol food shipments from the US to other countries will get tight. And we might have to implement population controls, in other words gotta ask permission before bring life into this world.
We need to make Obama’s Administration and the Democrats a shovel-ready job.
Holger on August 14, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Hopefully these Democrat Senators, with the help of the Republicans, will kill this monstrosity of a bill before it kills our country, because unfortunately, Harry Reid and other influential Senators are out there lying and bribing their way to pass it.
I am a registered Interior Designer in Texas, and Harry has already nosed his way into our profession through the American Society of Int. Designers (ASID) via the American Institute of Architects (AIA), by bribing gullible, liberal, green Architects into believing Cap & Trade will create jobs and projects for us.
It is so laughable because creating Gov. work would not create projects for more then two or three very large firms, as the Gov. lumps projects together so that only the largest companies have the capacity to handle them. Once they are designed, (and I guarantee all interiors, landscaping, and engineering will be done “in-house” within these large firms), the bonding requirements will be so enormous, that only two to three contractors in the country will have the bonding capacity to do the jobs. That leaves the rest of us to fight over the few projects in the mess left behind that is our economy.
Here is the link of how Cap & Trade would be so helpful to our Building and Design Industries.
http://www.builderonline.com/green-building/aia-climate-change-bill-would-create-green-building-jobs.aspx
Susanboo on August 14, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Builders and designers, unfortunately, are either not properly unionized, possess the wrong levels of melanin, or earn too much to be worthy of liberal compassion.
jodetoad on August 14, 2009 at 5:42 PM
susanboo,
kind of like how SOM (i like to call them S&M architects) as an architectural firm took off from all of their wwII contracts?
i thought i was one of the few creative professionals who leaned to the right. should anyone be really surprised that the aia or asid is liberal bent? heard of the ama? seiu?
photoboy74 on August 14, 2009 at 5:44 PM
You’ll need to seperate the particulate emissions and the gas emissions from coal-fired plants other large combustion sources. If only particulates (ash) was released from the stacks, the theory would play out because they would block “light” from reaching the portion of the atmosphere below the ash and earths’ surface, in effect, shading the planet. This is temporary (call it fallout).
But, gasses are also released from those stacks with the ash. CO2 stays aloft much longer than ash (it doesn’t preciptate), having a longer lasting effect.
Carl Sagan, who I admire for turning me onto science with his “COSMOS” series, predicted dire consequences with climate in the event of a nukalar war, which would produce vast amounts of ash and, of course, greenhouse gasses as the structures and other combustibles burned. A big mess.
These scenarios offer the same sort of injections into the atmosphere, but with opposite component quantities.
Something to think about when pondering the makeup of Earths atmosphere:
There was a time when there was not a single free molecule of oxygen on the planet (an exaggeration, no doubt); there was copious amounts of CO and CO2. Somehow, the earth performed the Gore Miracle of removing CO2 from the atmosphere, produced free oxygen molecules, and allowed life to begin. All without a single tax dollar being spent.
Me and the Goracle have equivalent climate science backgrounds, so whatever I say has as much credibility as what he says, and I say the perfect day from which the earth has strayed occurred about 3 billion years ago, when the atmosphere was mostly methane, the temperature was way hotter than Miami in July, and there wasn’t a single ear of corn that could be used for fuel. So you can only imagine how much damage to the earth has ocurred since then. It’s disgusting and criminal.
Al, put that in your corn-cob pipe and smoke it.
BobMbx on August 14, 2009 at 6:26 PM
Too late. Food riots happened in Pakistan because the Goracle required more ethanol for his appeasment. Also, as far as exporting food from the US, for the first time since ~1780 (that’s 230 years ago), the US imported grain. We didn’t feed the world in 2008. In fact, we bought stuff they would have used for food and used it to replace gasoline to save the environment.
Unfortunately, ethanol produces more “bad” gasses than the equivalent amount of gasoline.
People starved, people were killed in food riots, the air was polluted even more. Brought to you by The Goracle.
BobMbx on August 14, 2009 at 6:33 PM
As AlGore would say, “Damn those inconvenient truths!”
coldwarrior on August 14, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Well, I sure as hell don’t earn too much! Most Architects and Int. Designers struggle to make anywhere near what doctors and lawyers make. We get no respect, as is premised by the comments you just made. (unless you were being sarcastic).
I have a five year degree from a professionally accredited University (bachelors of art), and do not live in an Union state (thank God for that), and yeah, I am white. As for Builders, bonding capacity is based on company size and amount of money in the bank. I believe this is all beside the point in this circumstance, perhaps I am being naive.
Susanboo on August 14, 2009 at 6:45 PM
susanboo,
Yeah, I feel your pain. I really believe that in most places they are liberal, here where I live there are so many libs that I don’t even ask because I don’t want to get into a heated discussion with people I have to work with, it’s hard enough to get work!
I work in a family architectural business, so we are all conservatives except my husband, who is still on the fence, but at least doesn’t like Obama, or what is going on in our country. He has not voted for a lib since we got married 18 years ago, at least that is what he tells me, I guess so I won’t divorce him! LOL!
I’ve got a brother in California, lives north of San Fran, also an architect and a big lib. Gads, you’d think I’d know better then to marry an architect with all these guys already in my family!
I received the link that I posted above, in an ASID prof. publication, and was amazed at the reader response below the article. All the responses I read were negative, but most of the large Design firms are located in CA, NY, Chicago, Dallas, Houston. Of those areas, only Texas is anywhere near a red state. I think that is where most of the lib designers are, and as they are more populous places, there are more of the left leaners residing there. :(
Susanboo on August 14, 2009 at 7:07 PM
BobMbx, that is a very interesting graph. But your contention that atmospheric CO2 concentration does not affect atmospheric temperature does not follow. Increases in atmospheric CO2 will almost certainly tend to increase atmospheric temperature – regardless of “who started it” – due to CO2′s absorption of infrared radiation.
Note that variations in Earth temperature have other causes than just CO2 concentration. The long term temperature variations shown in the graph are most likely caused by variations in solar radiation received at Earth – not due to any variation in the Sun but rather variations in Earth’s orbital parameters. This so-called Milankovitch theory is widely accepted, and explains the ice-age/interglacial cycles very well (it is not without its problems though – see the Wikipedia article). Note also that when Earth’s temperature increases (e.g. due to orbital variation), a subsequent rise in CO2 is also expected, due to decreased solubility of CO2 in the ocean. But regardless of the cause of the CO2 increase, that increase will tend to amplify atmospheric the temperature increase, since CO2 absorbs thermal infrared radiation – how can the physics allow anything else?
westernflyer on August 14, 2009 at 8:42 PM
As I said, there is no feedback loop between temp and CO2. The mythical science purports a causality, but the ice core samples disprove that. The ice sample history show that temp and CO2 follow similar paths over time, but CO2 increase lags temp increase by ~1000 years, and the same is true as they decline. If CO2 had a positive feedback on temp, meaning the CO2 caused the temp to continue to increase, and the continued increase in temp caused more CO2 to be added to the atmosphere, why does the temp fall while CO2 levels are still elevated? If CO2 caused temps to increase, CO2 would have to decrease before the temp started down.
The record (ice cores) does not indicate that. Again, if there was causality where CO2 amplified the rise in temp, how are temp decreases explained with elevated CO2 levels?
The rise and fall of temp and CO2 in close proximity, together with the 1000 year lag, indicate a third factor, which causes both temp and CO2 to fluctuate, without relating to each other.
BTW, you do realize that the percent contribution of CO2 to the population of green house gases is a whopping 0.0003%, while water vapor contributes ~95% of the greenhouse gasses. Water vapor changes its contribution from the upper 90% to around 85% over a matter of months, with no wild swing in temps over that period. Please explain how doubling CO2 from 0.0003% to 0.0006% can even be calculated in the predicted temp rise for the future. Third grade math class graduates can see the change in CO2 effect would never be detectable within the large moves by water vapor. It’s a rounding error.
In other words, Al Gore and the IPCC simply full of shit.
BobMbx on August 14, 2009 at 9:35 PM
The science is essential, but when government acts too quickly on reported studies, it becomes a real danger to society
Ed Laskie on August 14, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Gore should be made to eat his own vomit words on Vietnam and Global Warming calamity.
Ed Laskie on August 14, 2009 at 10:10 PM
When decrying others’ math skills it would be nice if you used percentages correctly. The amount of CO2 in atmosophere is approx0.03% or without the percent sign is 0.0003. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and would have a positive feedback effect on temperature, but your right in that the effect would be rather negligible compared to other causes of warming such as water vapor and the variation of the solor irradiance hitting the earth.
JML46 on August 15, 2009 at 4:48 AM
first test post
cowgirlway on August 15, 2009 at 11:12 AM
The Laws of Physics do not really allow CO2 to be the driver of climate as some people state.
CO2 can only absorb IR Radiation in three narrow bands, 2.7, 4.3 and 15 Micrometers. One can generously estimate 8 percent of absorption of all IR energy as it passes through CO2, but that means 92 percent passes right on through without absorption!
CO2 is a trace gas. One can assume even more energy will not be absorbed because it will not hit a CO2 molecule.
Oxygen and Nitrogen, the key ingredients in the atmosphere, are not green house gases and the other GHGs are in even less concentrations than CO2.
Here is a question, what is the Absorption spectra for Water Vapor? Now, here is something most people do not know. Gore says mankind produces 70 million tones of CO2 every year but mother nature produces 24,000 times that amount in Water Vapor every day and removes about the same.
Another question. Southern New Mexico and Lousianna is on the same lattitude. But why is it that night time temps in Louisianna are higher than night time temps in New Mexico?
Clouds and water vapor are a bigger driver of climate. And Cloud formation seems to be governed to a large degree by Sunspot activity, which coincidentally has dropped off the map.
Holger on August 15, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3