Jolie Rouge

Al Gore is traveling to Washington today to whip House Democrats on tomorrow’s cap-and-tax bill.

No word on the amount of bogus carbon offsets Al Gore's trip to the Hill will cost: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...rats-thursday/


Excelsior! http://www.tv.com/South+Park/ManBear...38/recap.html/


:

***

Back in the real world, the WSJ looks at the cap and trade fiction: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html




***

Update: Via Roll Call … http://www.rollcall.com/news/36283-1.html

:


China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the world’s largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet. China is building new coal fired plants at the rate of 1 per month.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/25...r-cap-and-tax/


From Australia, a shift against their own “tax and cap” policy:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...are_97148.html

One of the most remarkable changes occurred on April 13, when leading global warming hysteric Paul Sheehan—who writes for the main Sydney newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, which has done as much to hype the threat of global warming as any Australian newspaper—reviewed Plimer’s book and admitted he was taken aback. He describes Plimer, correctly, as “one of Australia’s foremost Earth scientists,” and praised the book as “brilliantly argued” and “the product of 40 years’ research and breadth of scholarship.”

What does Plimer’s book say? Here is Sheehan’s summary:

In response, this is Sheehan’s conclusion:

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

nightrider127

Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And this, right here, tells the real story. They KNOW it's going to cost the average American plenty. Even obama said that electric rates would skyrocket.

And, if by a long shot someone from Sherrod Browns office is reading this, please pass this along to the great chicken chit that sitting on the other side of this monitor is someone who is going to spread the word about him to anyone who will listen.

Dam chicken chit sent me an email that you couldn't reply to because his mind is made up. He is totally with the spread the wealth gang that has invaded Washington DC.

__________________
Missing Mommy and Daddy.
Missing my Lady,Dingo, Mitzi and Spud.
Missing my Aunt Ann.

littlebuggy

I just can't understand how they think this is the right time to be doing this. People already can barely afford energy bills. It's been over 90 and humid almost all month, but I have two kids so I can't not use the air....but all I can think about is how much is this going to cost me at the end of the month. Most of us regular people can't handle an increse, especially not now.

__________________
Boogity, Boogity, Boggity!!!

Let's go racin, boys!!!!

Jolie Rouge

:

That really deserved an encore !

: : :

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Cap and Trade to Limp Across Finish Line?
June 25, 2009 Posted by John at 7:58 PM
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../06/023896.php

It looks that way, in the House, anyway. With a vote scheduled to take place tomorrow, Nancy Pelosi thinks she has barely enough votes to pass one of the great follies in legislative history, the carbon tax. It will be close, though: Pelosi actually told Al Gore to stay in Tennessee rather than participate in a last-minutes lobbying blitz. Most likely Pelosi didn't want to remind Congressmen needlessly that the whole point of this exercise is supposed to be fighting global warming, a theory that has fallen into scientific disrepute and on which Americans divide evenly, at best.

What seems to have tipped the balance is a deal Pelosi struck with Minnesota's Collin Peterson, Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, providing for special treatment for ethanol under the act. That was enough, apparently, to get Peterson and a number of other farm-state Democrats on board. The extent to which farm-state politics have been driven by ethanol in recent years is a story--a scandal, really--that has not yet been properly told.

Republicans point out that the Waxman-Markey bill would create a convoluted federal bureaucracy that would control key sectors of the economy and of our lives. Minority Leader John Boehner created this graphic, showing how the bill is intended to work;


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...cnightmare.php


The Democrats, not having read the bill, were unable to comment.


I'm sure there must be a historical precedent for the folly that Waxman-Markey represents--ordering the weather to change!--but I can't think of one offhand.

Of course, tomorrow's vote in the House won't actually decide anything.

The Senate is likely to pass a bill (if it passes one at all) that is even more loaded with special interest favors than the House version. If a "climate change" bill eventually does become law, it will probably consist of little but a gift bag for favored Democratic Party constituencies, funded by what may be the biggest tax increase in American history. Still, that's better than the alternative--the all-out attack on American industry that was originally envisioned by environmentalists.

Waxman-Markey is a reminder that what is now happening in Washington isn't politics as usual.

It's worse.




:crickets:

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

stresseater

People think we are nuts for not having a/c in Oklahoma however when these new rules get instituted we will be able to survive the heat where as a lot of Okies who rely on a.c will be lost.

__________________
**** The views and opinions stated by kids=stress are simply that. Views and opinions. They are not meant to slam anyone else or their views.To anyone whom I may have offended by this expression of my humble opinion, I hereby recognized and appologized to you publically.

Jolie Rouge

Tilting at Green Windmills
by George Will

WASHINGTON - The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1 percent -- more than double the European Union average -- partly because of spending on such jobs? Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report which, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.


Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.

The president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the report's contention that the political diversion of capital into green jobs has cost Spain jobs. The White House transcript contained this exchange:

Actually, what is weird is this idea: A sobering report about Spain's experience must be false because otherwise the behavior of some American importers, seeking to cash in on the U.S. government's promotion of wind power, might be participating in an economically unproductive project.

It is true that Calzada has come to conclusions that he, as a libertarian, finds ideologically congenial. And his study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech). Still, it is notable that, rather than try to refute his report, many Spanish critics have impugned his patriotism for faulting something for which Spain has been praised by Obama and others.

Judge for yourself: Calzada's report can be read here. And here you can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Green Jobs and the New Economy.

What matters most, however, is not that reports such as Calzada's and the Republicans' are right in every particular. It is, however, hardly counterintuitive that politically driven investments are economically counter-productive. Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.

Still, one can be agnostic about both reports while being dismayed by the frequency with which such findings are ignored simply because they question policies that are so invested with righteousness that methodical economic reasoning about their costs and benefits seems unimportant. When the president speaks of "new green energy economies" creating "countless well-paying jobs," perhaps they really are countless, meaning incapable of being counted.

For fervent believers in governments' abilities to control the climate and in the urgent need for them to do so, believing is seeing: They see, through their ideological lenses, governments' green spending as always paying for itself. This is a free-lunch faith comparable to that of those few conservatives who believe that tax cuts always completely pay for themselves by stimulating compensating revenues from economic growth.

Windmills are iconic in the land of Don Quixote, whose tilting at them became emblematic of comic futility. Spain's new windmills are neither amusing nor emblematic of policies America should emulate. The cheerful and evidently unshakable confidence in such magical solutions to postulated problems is yet another manifestation -- Republicans are not immune: No Child Left Behind decrees that by 2014 all American students will be proficient in math and reading -- of what the late Sen. Pat Moynihan called "the leakage of reality from American life."

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

House Democrats win key test vote on climate bill
H. Josef Hebert And Dina Cappiello, AP Writers
10 mins ago

WASHINGTON – House Democrats narrowly won a key test vote Friday and pushed for passage of sweeping legislation designed to combat global warming and usher in a new era of cleaner energy. Republicans said the bill included the largest tax increase in American history.

The vote was 217-205 to advance the White House-backed legislation toward a final roll call expected within hours. Thirty Democrats defected, a reflection of the controversy the bill sparked.

The legislation would impose first-ever limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution from power plants, factories and refineries. It also would force a shift from coal and other fossil fuels to renewable and more efficient forms of energy. Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs, but disagreed widely on how much more consumers would pay.

President Barack Obama has made the measure a top priority of his first year in office, and aides lobbied for passage as debate unfolded on the House floor. At a White House meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Obama said some European nations have moved faster than the United States to combat global warming, adding he'd like to see America play a great leadership role.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said the bill was the "most important environmental and energy legislation to ever have been considered in this nation's history," and said it would create large numbers of new jobs.

Other supporters said if Congress didn't act to curb global warming, the Environmental Protection Agency would. "Something to shudder about," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.

But Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said the legislation "promises to destroy our standard of living and quality of life with higher energy costs, higher food prices, and lost jobs. This bill is the single, largest economic threat to our farmers and ranchers in decades," he added.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has pledged to get the legislation passed before lawmakers leave on their July 4 vacation.

The Senate has yet to act on the measure, and a major struggle is expected.

In the House, the bill's fate depended on the decisions of a few dozen fence-sitting Democrats. Some are veterans from coal-producing states, but most are conservatives and moderates from contested districts who feared the political ramifications of siding with the White House and their leadership on the measure.

A last-minute list of provisions accepted by Democratic leaders included several aimed at securing votes. Among them was a promise of additional money for farmers to reduce greenhouse gases on private agricultural land.

Democrats left little or nothing to chance. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., confirmed by the Senate on Thursday to an administration post, put off her resignation from Congress until after the final vote on the climate change bill.

"The bill contains provisions to protect consumers, keep costs low, help sensitive industries transition to a clean energy economy and promote domestic emission reduction efforts," the White House in a statement of support for the legislation.

Republicans saw it differently.

This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

While the bill would impose a "cap-and-trade" system that would force higher energy costs, Republicans for weeks have branded it an energy tax on every American.

But Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said there was a "moral imperative to be good stewards of the earth."

The legislation, totaling about 1,200 pages, would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and about 80 percent by the next century.

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are rising at about 1 percent a year and are predicted to continue increasing without mandatory caps.

Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants. It would distribute pollution allowances that could be bought and sold, depending on whether a facility exceeds the cap or makes greater pollution cuts than are required.

Obama on Thursday called it "a vote of historic proportions ... that will open the door to a clean energy economy" and green jobs.

"It will create millions of new jobs," Pelosi insisted.

Both Obama and Pelosi preferred to focus on the economic issues rather than on what environmentalists view as the urgency of reducing carbon emissions blamed for global warming.

The Rust Belt coal-state Democrats who have been sitting on the fence worry about how to explain their vote for higher energy prices to people back home — and how the vote might play out in elections next year.

There was widespread agreement that under this cap-and-trade system, the cost of energy would almost certainly increase. But Democrats argued that much of the impact on taxpayers would be offset by other provisions in the bill. Low-income consumers would qualify for credits and rebates to cushion the impact on their energy bills.

Two reports issued this week — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — seemed to support that argument.

The CBO analysis estimated that the bill would cost an average household $175 a year; the EPA put it at between $80 and $110 a year.

Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies showing much higher cost to the economy and to individuals.

___

On the Net:

American Clean Energy and Security Act: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/...***.com/ph52vs



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/...s_climate_bill

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Twisted priorities

Members of Congress don’t have enough time to read through the 1,200-page cap-and-trade (truth in advertising: cap-and-TAX) monstrosity that will radically alter the economy in the name of the environment…

…but they have time to pause for a moment of silence to mark the death of Hollyweirdo Michael Jackson.

Can we have a moment of silence to mark the death of sanity?


:



MM's syndicated column below slams the EPA for suppressing inconvenient truths about Obama’s politicized global warming agenda. As I blogged early Wednesday afternoon, the Competitive Enterprise Institute released e-mails detailing how eco-bureaucrats stifled a senior researcher who challenged the agency’s reliance on outdated data to support its greenhouse gas “public endangerment” finding.

Breaking late tonight, CEI has released the draft version of the censored study that the EPA doesn’t want you to see.

You can read the entire 98-page document here. http://cei.org/news-release/2009/06/...y-censored-epa

Here is the preface, which begins, No wonder they tried to shut up senior researcher Alan Carlin :




***

EPA’s game of global warming hide-and-seek
by Michelle Malkin
June 26, 2009

The Obama administration doesn’t want to hear inconvenient truths about global warming. And they don’t want you to hear them, either. As Democrats rush on Friday to pass a $4 trillion-dollar, thousand-page “cap and trade” bill that no one has read, environmental bureaucrats are stifling voices that threaten their political agenda.

The free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington (where I served as a journalism fellow in 1995) obtained a set of internal e-mails exposing Team Obama’s willful and reckless disregard for data that undermine the illusion of “consensus.” In March, Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, asked agency officials to distribute his analysis on the health effects of greenhouse gases. EPA has proposed a public health “endangerment finding” covering CO2 and five other gases that would trigger costly, extensive new regulations of motor vehicles. The open comment period on the ruling ended this week. But Carlin’s study didn’t fit the blame-human-activity narrative, so it didn’t make the cut.

On March 12, Carlin’s director, Al McGartland, forbade him from having “any direct communication” with anyone outside his office about his study. “There should be no meetings, emails, written statements, phone calls, etc.” On March 16, Carlin urged his superiors to forward his work to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which runs the agency’s climate change program. A day later, McGartland dismissed Carlin and showed his true, politicized colors:

“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

Contrary comments, in other words, would interfere with the “process” of ramming the EPA’s endangerment finding through. Truth-in-science took a backseat to protecting eco-bureaucrats from “a very negative impact.”

In another follow-up e-mail, McGartland warned Carlin to drop the subject altogether: “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.”

But, of course, the e-mails show that EPA had already predetermined what it was going to do – “move forward on endangerment.” Which underscores the fact that the open public comment period was all for show. In her message to the public about the radical greenhouse gas rules, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson requested “comment on the data on which the proposed findings are based, the methodology used in obtaining and analyzing the data, and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed findings.” Ms. Jackson, meet Mr. Carlin.

The EPA now justifies the suppression of the study because economist Carlin (a 35-year veteran of the agency who also holds a B.S. in physics) “is an individual who is not a scientist.” Neither is Al Gore. Nor is environmental czar Carol Browner. Nor is cap-and-trade shepherd Nancy Pelosi. Carlin’s analysis incorporated peer-reviewed studies and, as he informed his colleagues, “significant new research” related to the proposed endangerment finding. According to those who have seen his study, it spotlights EPA’s reliance on out-of-date research, uncritical recycling of United Nations data, and omission of new developments, including a continued decline in global temperatures and a new consensus that future hurricane behavior won’t be different than in the past.

But the message from his superiors was clear: La-la-la, we can’t hear you.

In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” Another day, another broken promise. Will Carlin meet the same fate as inspectors general who have been fired or “retired” by the Obama administration for blowing the whistle and defying political orthodoxy? Or will he, too, be yet another casualty of the Hope and Change steamroller? The bodies are piling up.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/26...port-revealed/


:crickets:

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

galeane29

What the hell is wrong with these people? Nobody in their right minds signs a contract or in this case a bill without reading the entire thing and understanding it. Yet they are in such a hurry to pass this thing. Nobody has learned their lessons with the other crap Obama and Palosi has pushed through already?

__________________

whatever

Geez Galeane haven't you heard...... When BHO wants something bad enough and they want to keep their jobs they do whatever he wants or so it would seem!
NO one I can imagine is ready to pay more money for their utilities than you are paying now? Ours already went us 15% just the past two months. It went up 7% the year before. How much more can this go.......?
Pretty soon people will have to work two jobs EACH or three to pay just the bills to keep a roof over their head. And some people can't even find one job in todays economy!!!!!!!

__________________
My "adopted" brother. Gone but not forgotten. 8/23/09