Showing posts with label Cap and Trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cap and Trade. Show all posts
Thursday, June 10, 2010
NASA Charged in New Climate Fakery
CANADA FREE PRESS, 6/1/2010 by John O'Sullivan - NASA Charged in New Climate Fakery: Greenhouse Gas Data Bogus. ∴ Shocking new evidence of a NASA scientist faking a fundamental greenhouse gas equation shames beleaguered space administration in new global warming fraud scandal. Read more at CFP...
Read More......
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Barone: Misusing Knowledge to Expand Government Power
A Commentary by Michael Barone, 12/10/2009 (via Rasmussen) - "Knowledge is becoming more specialized and more dispersed, while government power is becoming more concentrated," writes economist Arnold Kling in his new book,"Unchecked and Unbalanced." "This discrepancy creates the potential for government to become increasingly erratic and, as a result, less satisfying to individuals."
"Less satisfying to individuals" is a mild way to put it. In a recent Annenberg focus group, pollster Peter Hart asked Philadelphia suburbanites to write the name that came to mind when they thought of Congress. A retired auto executive and 2008 Obama voter wrote, "Satan." When asked why, he said, "Because I wasn't sure of the correct spelling of 'Beelzebub.'"
Kling's point is that such disenchantment is inevitable when government officeholders make sweeping decisions about matters on which they lack, and only a few specialists have, detailed knowledge. Which is what Congress and the Obama administration have been busy doing these past 11 months.
Consider the 2,000-plus-page health care legislation now before the Senate. There is coherent debate on abortion coverage because it's a discrete issue easily isolated from the rest of the bill that raises concerns among people with conflicting strong moral beliefs.
But any abortion provision would have less effect on real life than dozens of other provisions in the bill. The Congressional Budget Office, drawing on specialist knowledge, tells us the Senate bill would result in 10 million people losing employer-provided insurance and increased premiums for buyers of individual health insurance. And the CBO says the bill would not bend the cost curve downward.
Democratic leaders want to pass something, almost anything, for fear of political damage. They want to give government even more power over one-sixth of the economy, and over ordinary people's health care. To that end, they have been happy to game the CBO's scoring system, misusing specialized knowledge to achieve political ends.
On the issue of carbon emissions, the e-mails hacked from Britain's Climate Research Unit show even leading specialists in climate research have been busy manipulating data and suppressing alternative views in pursuit of political ends. Their goal, and that of the Democrats backing cap-and-trade legislation, is government control over energy production and distribution essential to all of the economy.
The Environmental Protection Agency's designation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant is an attempt to give EPA bureaucrats such control in the likely event that the Senate fails to pass something like the bill the House passed last June.
So politicians are acting either in ignorance of specialist knowledge or by manipulating and misusing it in the conviction that central planners can organize and control human behavior better than individuals can through markets and voluntary action operating under the rule of law.
History provides copious evidence that this conviction is mistaken. Writing in Policy Review, economists Paul Gregory and Kate Zhou compare the success of market reforms in China and their failure in Russia. They point out that reform in China was bottom-up: Peasants started producing food for private sale and, as markets thrived, Communist leader Deng Xiaoping winked at their rule-breaking and changed the rules. The economy mostly thrived.
In contrast, reform in Russia was top-down: Mikhail Gorbachev changed the rules, but that allowed apparatchiks to gobble up state industries and created new monopolies, over which Vladimir Putin's government re-established control. The economy mostly stagnated.
The Democrats' health care and cap-and-trade bills are classic top-down legislation. Many inside players have bought into the changes and are preparing to game the new systems. Far from banishing lobbyists from Washington, Barack Obama has provided them with enormous amounts of new business.
An alternative approach was taken in George W. Bush's major domestic legislation. Tax cuts, the education accountability bill and the Medicare prescription drug benefit law opened up areas where markets and incentives could operate. Costs came in lower and revenues higher than projected. An economy stalled by recession proved capable of creating new jobs without direction from central planners.
Polls have shown that in the last 11 months, as Americans have started to think hard about Democratic proposals, they have become less confident in government's ability to direct society. Underlying the angry responses in focus groups and tea parties is an appreciation that problems can best be addressed by widely dispersed people with specialized knowledge operating in a predictable framework. Not by central planners acting in ignorance of or by manipulating specialized knowledge.
Michael Barone is senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner.
COPYRIGHT 2009 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
[Emphasis added] Read More......
"Less satisfying to individuals" is a mild way to put it. In a recent Annenberg focus group, pollster Peter Hart asked Philadelphia suburbanites to write the name that came to mind when they thought of Congress. A retired auto executive and 2008 Obama voter wrote, "Satan." When asked why, he said, "Because I wasn't sure of the correct spelling of 'Beelzebub.'"
Kling's point is that such disenchantment is inevitable when government officeholders make sweeping decisions about matters on which they lack, and only a few specialists have, detailed knowledge. Which is what Congress and the Obama administration have been busy doing these past 11 months.
Consider the 2,000-plus-page health care legislation now before the Senate. There is coherent debate on abortion coverage because it's a discrete issue easily isolated from the rest of the bill that raises concerns among people with conflicting strong moral beliefs.
But any abortion provision would have less effect on real life than dozens of other provisions in the bill. The Congressional Budget Office, drawing on specialist knowledge, tells us the Senate bill would result in 10 million people losing employer-provided insurance and increased premiums for buyers of individual health insurance. And the CBO says the bill would not bend the cost curve downward.
Democratic leaders want to pass something, almost anything, for fear of political damage. They want to give government even more power over one-sixth of the economy, and over ordinary people's health care. To that end, they have been happy to game the CBO's scoring system, misusing specialized knowledge to achieve political ends.
On the issue of carbon emissions, the e-mails hacked from Britain's Climate Research Unit show even leading specialists in climate research have been busy manipulating data and suppressing alternative views in pursuit of political ends. Their goal, and that of the Democrats backing cap-and-trade legislation, is government control over energy production and distribution essential to all of the economy.
The Environmental Protection Agency's designation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant is an attempt to give EPA bureaucrats such control in the likely event that the Senate fails to pass something like the bill the House passed last June.
So politicians are acting either in ignorance of specialist knowledge or by manipulating and misusing it in the conviction that central planners can organize and control human behavior better than individuals can through markets and voluntary action operating under the rule of law.
History provides copious evidence that this conviction is mistaken. Writing in Policy Review, economists Paul Gregory and Kate Zhou compare the success of market reforms in China and their failure in Russia. They point out that reform in China was bottom-up: Peasants started producing food for private sale and, as markets thrived, Communist leader Deng Xiaoping winked at their rule-breaking and changed the rules. The economy mostly thrived.
In contrast, reform in Russia was top-down: Mikhail Gorbachev changed the rules, but that allowed apparatchiks to gobble up state industries and created new monopolies, over which Vladimir Putin's government re-established control. The economy mostly stagnated.
The Democrats' health care and cap-and-trade bills are classic top-down legislation. Many inside players have bought into the changes and are preparing to game the new systems. Far from banishing lobbyists from Washington, Barack Obama has provided them with enormous amounts of new business.
An alternative approach was taken in George W. Bush's major domestic legislation. Tax cuts, the education accountability bill and the Medicare prescription drug benefit law opened up areas where markets and incentives could operate. Costs came in lower and revenues higher than projected. An economy stalled by recession proved capable of creating new jobs without direction from central planners.
Polls have shown that in the last 11 months, as Americans have started to think hard about Democratic proposals, they have become less confident in government's ability to direct society. Underlying the angry responses in focus groups and tea parties is an appreciation that problems can best be addressed by widely dispersed people with specialized knowledge operating in a predictable framework. Not by central planners acting in ignorance of or by manipulating specialized knowledge.
Michael Barone is senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner.
COPYRIGHT 2009 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
[Emphasis added] Read More......
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Cap and Trade on deck in DC again this fall
Let's not forget about Cap and Trade (the Waxman-Markey Bill)! Read this article at Atlas Shrugs: Obama's Energy Plan: Mandated Scarcity in the Richest Country in the World. Pamela Geller commented,
- Even Ayn Rand would not have gone this far in depicting the evil workings of the moochers, looters and destroyers. It would have been too unbelievable. Obama is manufacturing crises from one day to the next.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Palin Op Ed: The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End
WASHINGTON POST, 7/14/2009 by Sarah Palin - There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented. Read more at the Washington Post...
Hat tip: John Detweiler
John writes, "Sarah has got it right. But we won't realize that until after Cap and Trade/Tax is in place." Read More......
Hat tip: John Detweiler
John writes, "Sarah has got it right. But we won't realize that until after Cap and Trade/Tax is in place." Read More......
Saturday, June 27, 2009
US House passes Waxman-Markey (Cap and Trade)
Friday (6/26), the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (known as Cap and Trade or Cap and Tax) by a slim margin. The final vote was 219-212. Crossing party lines, eight Republicans voted for the bill and 44 Democrats voted against it including Rep. Peter DeFazio. The vote of the entire House is listed by party at Americans for Prosperity (AFP) Blog.
Oregon Representatives voted thus: Peter DeFazio (D-Dist 4) No, Greg Walden (R-Dist 2) No, Earl Blumenauer (D-Dist 3) Yes, Kurt Schrader (D-Dist 5) Yes, and David Wu (D-Dist 1) Yes.
The eight Republicans who voted "FOR" H.R. 2454 are: Mary Bono [Mack] (R-CA), Michael N. Castle (R-DE), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), John M. McHugh (R-NY), David G. Reichert (R-WA), and Chris Smith (R-NJ).
Next step: The U.S. Senate
Let your Oregon Senators know how you feel.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D), DC (202) 224-3753, Fax (202) 228-3997, Salem (503) 362-8102
Sen. Roy Wyden (D), DC (202) 224-5244, Fax (202) 228-2717, Salem (503) 589-4555.
ADDITION: Did they read the bill? See related article at Sweetness & Light... Read More......
Oregon Representatives voted thus: Peter DeFazio (D-Dist 4) No, Greg Walden (R-Dist 2) No, Earl Blumenauer (D-Dist 3) Yes, Kurt Schrader (D-Dist 5) Yes, and David Wu (D-Dist 1) Yes.
The eight Republicans who voted "FOR" H.R. 2454 are: Mary Bono [Mack] (R-CA), Michael N. Castle (R-DE), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Leonard Lance (R-NJ), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), John M. McHugh (R-NY), David G. Reichert (R-WA), and Chris Smith (R-NJ).
Next step: The U.S. Senate
Let your Oregon Senators know how you feel.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D), DC (202) 224-3753, Fax (202) 228-3997, Salem (503) 362-8102
Sen. Roy Wyden (D), DC (202) 224-5244, Fax (202) 228-2717, Salem (503) 589-4555.
ADDITION: Did they read the bill? See related article at Sweetness & Light... Read More......
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Stop Cap and Trade (Cap and Tax)
[Congress voting Friday]
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Office of House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) today launched a new video news release entitled, "Number One Priority.” The video highlights Speaker Pelosi’s top priority, “cap and trade” legislation that will impose a national energy tax of up to $3,100 on all Americans and slam small businesses with higher energy bills, causing the loss of millions of jobs. ∴ In a year that has seen the loss of 2.9 million jobs in America, Republicans remain focused on creating jobs, cutting spending to reduce the deficit, and keeping taxes low.
Read More......
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Office of House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) today launched a new video news release entitled, "Number One Priority.” The video highlights Speaker Pelosi’s top priority, “cap and trade” legislation that will impose a national energy tax of up to $3,100 on all Americans and slam small businesses with higher energy bills, causing the loss of millions of jobs. ∴ In a year that has seen the loss of 2.9 million jobs in America, Republicans remain focused on creating jobs, cutting spending to reduce the deficit, and keeping taxes low.
Read More......
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Glenn Beck: The Letter
GLENN BECK: 'THE LETTER', June 17, 2009 by Janet Contreras - GLENN: I got a letter from a woman in Arizona. She writes an open letter to our nation's leadership: I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?
Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation: Read the 12 points of this letter at Glenn Beck's...
This article was referred by Linda Weimer, Corvallis Americans for Prosperity (AFP) Coordinator, who is organizing the second Corvallis TEA Party to be held on July 4, 2009 from 4-6pm in front of the Benton County Courthouse, 120 NW 4th Street.
This letter has gone viral!
Sign the petition: An open letter to our nation's leadership The petition site has experienced difficulties with the large amounts of traffic this issue has generated. Keep trying. Read More......
Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation: Read the 12 points of this letter at Glenn Beck's...
This article was referred by Linda Weimer, Corvallis Americans for Prosperity (AFP) Coordinator, who is organizing the second Corvallis TEA Party to be held on July 4, 2009 from 4-6pm in front of the Benton County Courthouse, 120 NW 4th Street.
This letter has gone viral!
Sign the petition: An open letter to our nation's leadership The petition site has experienced difficulties with the large amounts of traffic this issue has generated. Keep trying. Read More......
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Letter: Take a close, critical look at any cap-and-trade bill (April 16)
CORVALLIS GAZETTE TIMES, 3/16/2009 Letter to the editor by Jean Nelson - Senate Bill 80, touted as the bill that will reduce Oregon greenhouse gas, is being discussed by the Oregon Legislature.
Recently Gov. Ted Kulongoski sent lawmakers his amendments to SB 80.
Section 3 (b) (i) states, “no investor owned utility, as defined in ORS 757.812 may import, sell, deliver or distribute carbon based electricity for use in this state;” (II) no person may import, sell, deliver or distribute carbon-based fuel for use in this state; and (iii) no person may generate carbon-based electricity in-state, unless the person or investor-owned utility obtains greenhouse gas offsets equivalent to at least 60 percent of the carbon-dioxide equivalent load…” These offsets can be granted by the state at a price.
How can the governor and those who control the Legislature move forward on this plan without being sure through numerous scientific and economic studies that cap and trade is right for Oregon?
I asked legislators in both House and Senate if they had read any studies about how Oregon will be affected by carbon control schemes. They reported that they’d seen only one draft and one completed study (by Pozdena and Fruits of QuantEcon).
This work predicts cap-and-trade will result in drastic reductions in jobs, state and local revenues and personal income; increased energy costs and state-imposed limitations on available energy sources to meet the state’s goals of reducing emissions. This study wasn’t ordered by the governor.
Talk is cheap. Oregonians deserve to know what we’re getting before it’s legislated.
Jean Nelson, Corvallis Read More......
Recently Gov. Ted Kulongoski sent lawmakers his amendments to SB 80.
Section 3 (b) (i) states, “no investor owned utility, as defined in ORS 757.812 may import, sell, deliver or distribute carbon based electricity for use in this state;” (II) no person may import, sell, deliver or distribute carbon-based fuel for use in this state; and (iii) no person may generate carbon-based electricity in-state, unless the person or investor-owned utility obtains greenhouse gas offsets equivalent to at least 60 percent of the carbon-dioxide equivalent load…” These offsets can be granted by the state at a price.
How can the governor and those who control the Legislature move forward on this plan without being sure through numerous scientific and economic studies that cap and trade is right for Oregon?
I asked legislators in both House and Senate if they had read any studies about how Oregon will be affected by carbon control schemes. They reported that they’d seen only one draft and one completed study (by Pozdena and Fruits of QuantEcon).
This work predicts cap-and-trade will result in drastic reductions in jobs, state and local revenues and personal income; increased energy costs and state-imposed limitations on available energy sources to meet the state’s goals of reducing emissions. This study wasn’t ordered by the governor.
Talk is cheap. Oregonians deserve to know what we’re getting before it’s legislated.
Jean Nelson, Corvallis Read More......
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
LETTER: Plan to slow greenhouse gases targets wealth
CORVALLIS GAZETTE-TIMES/LETTERS, 3/25/2009 by Jean Nelson - It’s a political question, not a matter of climate science, says Oregon’s new chief climate scientist, Philip W. Mote, about Oregon’s SB 80, a proposed bill that claims it will slow emissions of greenhouse gases. ∴ But will it? Perhaps a teeny, tiny bit, but at a terrible cost to Oregon. Described in current testimony before our state legislature as “drastic” and “extreme,” the proposed cap-and-trade scheme has finally been subjected to scientific auditing.
QuantEcon Inc. scientists Randall J. Pozdena, Ph.D., and Eric Fruits, PhD., made their findings public in September 2008. They predict for 2020 if cap and trade is implemented:
Oregon’s economic growth to 2020 will be cut approximately in half. The result: 90,000 fewer Oregon jobs than normal growth would produce; state and local revenues will be $4.4 billion lower, making it even more difficult to fund social programs; personal income will decrease and energy costs for you and me will skyrocket.
A study based on a global analysis by well-known climate scientist T.M.L. Wigley assessed the possible “climate stabilization” effect of a complete cessation of state and nationwide emissions (no fossil fuel power plants, not even a single internal combustion engine). That’s a reduction of emissions to zero immediately and continuing into the future. The results by the year 2100 would be hard to measure accurately: merely an 0.021 degree Celsius change. Oregon’s contribution would be miniscule.
Oregon’s proposed cap-and-trade looks like a scheme to redistribute wealth without climate improvement.
Jean Nelson, Corvallis
See LETTER and COMMENTS at the GT...
Added 3/28: See Tracy Rupp's response (published in the Friday paper) and ONLINE COMMENTS: [GT] Letter: Conservatives are frightened that socialism may be on the rise (March 27). Then see here. Read More......
QuantEcon Inc. scientists Randall J. Pozdena, Ph.D., and Eric Fruits, PhD., made their findings public in September 2008. They predict for 2020 if cap and trade is implemented:
Oregon’s economic growth to 2020 will be cut approximately in half. The result: 90,000 fewer Oregon jobs than normal growth would produce; state and local revenues will be $4.4 billion lower, making it even more difficult to fund social programs; personal income will decrease and energy costs for you and me will skyrocket.
A study based on a global analysis by well-known climate scientist T.M.L. Wigley assessed the possible “climate stabilization” effect of a complete cessation of state and nationwide emissions (no fossil fuel power plants, not even a single internal combustion engine). That’s a reduction of emissions to zero immediately and continuing into the future. The results by the year 2100 would be hard to measure accurately: merely an 0.021 degree Celsius change. Oregon’s contribution would be miniscule.
Oregon’s proposed cap-and-trade looks like a scheme to redistribute wealth without climate improvement.
Jean Nelson, Corvallis
See LETTER and COMMENTS at the GT...
Added 3/28: See Tracy Rupp's response (published in the Friday paper) and ONLINE COMMENTS: [GT] Letter: Conservatives are frightened that socialism may be on the rise (March 27). Then see here. Read More......
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
WSJ: Who Pays for Cap and Trade?
Hint: They were promised a tax cut during the Obama campaign. 3/9/2009 - Cap and trade is the tax that dare not speak its name, and Democrats are hoping in particular that no one notices who would pay for their climate ambitions. With President Obama depending on vast new carbon revenues in his budget and Congress promising a bill by May, perhaps Americans would like to know the deeply unequal ways that climate costs would be distributed across regions and income groups. Read more at the Wall Street Journal...
Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
