Thread: BHO's Cap and Trade Tax

The aide said the Senate's drive for a bill got a boost last week with President Barack Obama's announcement of an $8.3 billion government loan guarantee to help start expanding the nuclear power industry, a top Republican priority. "The administration is really putting their money where their mouth is," the aide said.

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama purported to reach across the aisle by endorsing a “new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants” …before pushing cap and trade.

The nearly $4 trillion budget he released today exposes his nuclear lie.

It zeroes out funds for the besieged Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility in Nevada — one of the few, prominent Obama campaign pledges that he looks like he’s actually fulfilling: http://content.usatoday.com/communit...gers-outrage/1

President Barack Obama will propose eliminating funding for the Yucca Mountain project in a new budget he will submit to Congress on Monday, according to Nevada lawmakers who were notified over the weekend.

The White House also said it will take steps “in the near future” to withdraw a pending license application to build the long-planned nuclear waste repository, which could be a decisive move in ending the government’s 23-year focus on developing the Nevada site for radioactive waste storage and disposal.

Coupled with the formation Friday of a blue ribbon commission to study nuclear waste management, officials said the budget will underscore Obama’s “commitment to pursuing a responsible, long-term strategy” for handling waste generated by nuclear utilities and government defense agencies.

The plan also would fulfill an Obama campaign promise to end the Yucca Mountain program, which has been unpopular with many Nevadans and the state’s top leaders.

“This is great news,” said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has consulted with Obama on an exit strategy for Yucca Mountain.

“President Obama is keeping his word to Nevada and I thank him for working with me as we try to find a safer solution for dealing with the nation’s nuclear waste,” Reid said in a statement.

“This budget is a bulldozer that will help Nevada flatten Yucca Mountain into a permanent pile of rubble,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu and eco-czar Carol Browner are also dancing on Yucca’s grave — and will oversee a toothless new panel to come up with something better. Paralysis by analysis. As Brian Sussman points out, we already had an alternative: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...clear_lie.html

Following the State of the Union, in a conference call with reporters on the same day the nuclear financing plan was unveiled, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the creation of a special panel to find a solution for storing nuclear waste.

Problem is, we had a solution — Yucca Mountain. But it’s on the president’s no-fund list.

The Obama Fail blog draws parallels to the Gitmo debacle: http://www.obamafailblog.net/2010/01...clear-lie.html

In his first week in office, President Obama signed an executive order promising to close Guantanamo Bay within one year. It hasn’t happened and there is no indication it will happen anytime soon. Here’s how it breaks down:

1. Make a bold announcement

2. Do nothing

3. Blame someone else when #1 fails to happen

This is exactly what is happening with nuclear energy. Americans are supposed to feel some sort of pride that “we can do better”…Furthermore, we will figure out exactly where to store spent nuclear material, even though there are no options presently on the table. But we are Americans so you just have to believe that it will be sorted out.

And when it is all finally sorted out, then President Obama can get around to building all those new power plants.

Ain’t.

Gonna.

Happen.

The budget includes loan guarantees of more than $54 billion for nuclear energy firms — but the feds haven’t approved a new application for a reactor in more than two decades.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...es-for-revival


False hope, chump change. http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/01...s-nuclear-lie/

Obama's greenhouse gas rules survive Senate vote
Jim Abrams, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 9 mins ago

WASHINGTON – In a boost for the president on global warming, the Senate on Thursday rejected a challenge to Obama administration rules aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other big polluters.

The defeated resolution would have denied the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to move ahead with the rules, crafted under the federal Clean Air Act. With President Barack Obama's broader clean energy legislation struggling to gain a foothold in the Senate, the vote took on greater significance as a signal of where lawmakers stand on dealing with climate change.

"If ever there was a vote to find out whose side you are on, this is it," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

The vote was 53-47 to stop the Senate from moving forward on the Republican-led effort to restrain the EPA.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., predicted the vote would "increase momentum to adopt comprehensive energy and climate legislation this year."

But Obama still needs 60 votes to advance his energy agenda, and Democrats don't have them yet. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said the vote made clear that a majority in the Senate back either a delay or an outright ban on "the Obama EPA's job-killing, global warming agenda."

Republicans, and the six Democrats who voted with them to advance the resolution, said Congress, not bureaucrats, should be in charge of writing climate change policy. They said the EPA rules would drive up energy costs and kill jobs.

But Democrats, referring frequently to the Gulf oil spill, said it made no sense to undermine efforts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions and reduce dependence on oil and other fossil fuels.

The effort to block the rules "is an attempt to bury our heads in the sand and ignore reality," said Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M.

Obama said the vote was another reminder of the need to pass legislation to reduce the country's reliance on oil. The White House had issued a veto threat this week, saying the resolution would block efforts to cut pollution that could harm people's health and well-being.

"Today the Senate chose to move America forward, towards that clean energy economy — not backward to the same failed policies that have left our nation increasingly dependent on foreign oil," he said.

The EPA crafted standards on greenhouse gas emissions by big polluters after the Supreme Court ruled that those emissions could be considered a danger to human health and thus could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The rules are to go into effect next January.

The poor chances of the anti-EPA measure overcoming a veto and becoming law did not deter fierce debate.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called the new regulations a "blatant power grab by the administration and the EPA." With a broad energy bill unlikely to pass this year, "the administration has shifted course and is now trying to get done through the back door what they haven't been able to get done through the front door," he said.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called the blocking measure, "a great big gift to big oil" that would "increase pollution, increase our dependence on foreign oil and stall our efforts to create jobs" in clean energy.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that he anticipated the Senate taking up a broader energy bill in the next several weeks "and hopefully we can get something done before Congress adjourns this year."

The sponsor of Thursday's resolution, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of oil-rich Alaska, said her intent was to protect the authority of Congress, not the interests of the oil industry. "It should be up to us to set the policy of this country, not unelected bureaucrats within an agency," she said.

Her Democratic allies used similar arguments. "The regulatory approach is the wrong way to promote renewable energy and clean energy jobs in Arkansas and the rest of the country," said Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, who faces a difficult re-election campaign this summer.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., who opposed the resolution, agreed that Congress should not cede its authority to the executive branch but expressed concern the measure would reverse progress made in such areas as vehicle emissions. He said he supported a bill that would suspend EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources for two years.

Murkowski, too, said Congress should be working harder to come up with an energy bill. The issue was whether a consensus was possible this year.

"Here's the real rub," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has worked with Democrats on possible energy legislation. "If we stop them (the rules), are we going to do anything?"

"This is going to be the great hypocrisy test," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., cosponsor of a major clean energy proposal. He asked whether those demanding that Congress act first would actually vote for change.

There were other disputes about the consequences of the Murkowski resolution. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and the White House said the resolution would force the EPA to rescind the standards for emissions from future-model cars and light trucks it came up with earlier this year with the Transportation Department. The result, she said, would be a need for the country to consume an extra 455 million barrels of oil.

Murkowski and others countered that Transportation has long been able to set fuel efficiency standards without the help of the EPA.

Jackson also denied the argument of critics that the EPA rules would impose devastating costs on small businesses and farmers, resulting in major job losses. The EPA added a provision that exempts small sources of pollution from the regulations for six years.

___

The bill is S.J. Res. 26.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100611/...FtYXNncmVlbmg-

comments

Looking through these comments, I'm amazed that so many have bought into the foolishness that humans have this enormous impact on the warming of the planet. @#$% those dinosaurs and their Hummers! They started this! I know! Let's just tax their only living relatives! Birds! Give me a break. This is about separating money from the little guy as usual. Anybody who buys this also believes what Bernanke said about the Magical Jobless Recovery. And folks, it ain't socialism. It's fascism. And this is a prime example. Now watch somebody hee haw about how I watch Fox News or something. I don't even watch TV and don't trust Glen Beck so try again. I do study history, which has a nasty habit of repeating itself or having nasty useless parts of itself resurrect to finish off a dirty job.

--

Can someone help me out with a little math. Trying to find the approximate odds of having a big coal mining accident in West Virginia, the largest ecological disaster of an oil spill in the Gulf, leaky radioactive water from a nuclear plant and a gas line explosion in Texas, all within a few month span, at the precise time Obama is pushing a new green energy agenda, which consequently comes very shortly after the healthcare debacle is done. From KY and usually only see horse racing at 99 to 1 at best. Think these odds must be at least a little higher. Any guesses?

---

Where are all the concerned liberals and PETA fighting to save the animals in the Gulf??? Afraid to come out against the man they put in office?

--

All of these hilarious arguments against global warming remind me of the time I was watching fox news and Laura Ingrahm was questioning why we had so many more forest fires at the turn of the century than we do now. This argument was aimed at debunking the recent spate of forest fires last year attributed to global warming causing drought and very dry forests and brush. The guest reminded her that we didn't have much going for us to fight fires at the turn of the century, no roads, helicoptors, communication etc. And the reason we were so susceptible now is that we became so good at fighting fires that forestation became much more lush because the usual annual fire hadn't cleared out swaths of forest and brush, and thus when we had a drought year the fire risk became rampant.

Laura didn't have an answer for that one either.

---

I am sure that when the choice is between liberty and tyranny, we Americans would do the right thing and choose liberty. What worries me the most are the things that can take place during the choices we make. 2008-2010 are a great example of what can happen in between choices. I am afraid the uninformed are placing all of our freedoms and liberties at risk. They are like sheep headed to the slaughter house only to be aware of the dangers 1 second after the machine reaches them. Well we don't have one second to waste because each second another regulation is created governing our liberties and freedoms. Taking both away in the middle of the night by a government that ignores the Constitution yet are sworn to uphold it. People this country is in trouble and it's going to take the average person like you and I to bring it back from the brink. I have served in Europe during the USSR and USA Cold War era. Those countries that are now freed from Communism would never want to go back but we are headed where they dare not to go again. Yes you still are able to go to your job and enjoy your backdoor bar-b-ques on the weekends. They also enjoyed those features in East Germany under USSR Control as well. Give me the strong family and I'll show what it meant to be free from government intervention and the politicians actually were afraid of them. But a weakened family poses no threat today, that's why we have Obama-Care, Cap and Trade, Dependency on foreign oil, High Taxes, Debt in the trillions not billions, foreign countries holding the note to our future, and yet most of us still don't get it. My suggestion to all who are concerned about our country's future is to grab a cup of coffee, your constitution and hit the door, we have a country to save.

---

We truly are a self-centered people that think we can affect the climate enough to make any kind of difference. Pull your heads out of yourself and take a look around.

---

Anyone who supports carbon taxes and/or EPA limits on CO2 emissions is intentionally trying to destroy the U.S. economy. In my book, that makes them guilty of treason.

Don't be fooled people by the AGW con artists; CO2 is a harmless trace gas, and increasing it by another 100 parts per million will still have no effect on global temperatures. The only thing it might do is cause an increase in plant growth rates, and I think we can all agree that that's a good thing.

We certainly need to find alternative energy sources to replace petro and coal, but scamming the general public with bogus science- and crippling our economy with carbon taxes- is NOT the way to do it!

"Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

---

Barbara Boxer was an energy's trader and made millions before she became senator (excuse me, Madam Senator) and knows exactly what she is doing to continue her fortune building on the backs of others (we the taxpayer). Climate change/global warming is a farce and you all know it (yes, you libtards) and it is going to do absolutely nothing to change the environment and everything to kill jobs and the taxpayer's wallet. I am so sick of liberals destroying what use to be a great country.

---

Ready for the increase in your power bill?

Gulf spill could swing Obama's power play on energy policy
Thu Jun 17, 9:54 pm ET By John Carey, environmental writer
Will the Gulf oil spill finally lead to a more aggressive energy policy to wean America from oil — or to more far-reaching measures to reduce the risks of climate change?

A bill that would do both has been stalled before Congress for months, as Republicans and even some Democrats claim it would raise energy costs and lead to lost jobs. But outrage over the black tendrils of oil spewing from BP’s broken well in the Gulf is creating new opportunities for the once moribund legislation.

A new poll from the Pew Research Center shows widespread public support for more renewable energy, tougher energy efficiency standards, and climate policies that would limit the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that are the source of global warming — even if such action would raise the price of energy. Surprisingly, a majority of Republicans in the poll supported taking steps to reduce climate change and protect the environment.

That’s the kind of support that Congress may find hard to ignore — and that President Obama is hoping to exploit.

In his June 15 Oval Office speech, the president made an impassioned plea to finally end America’s addiction to fossil fuel. “The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now,” he said. The next day Obama followed up, calling key senators such as John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) to begin a push for legislation to reduce America’s dependence on oil. The president also summoned Scott Brown (R-Mass.) to the White House in a bid for bipartisan support.

There’s plenty of reason for skepticism — presidents have been making such promises for decades. So much so, in fact, that Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart did a skit Wednesday mocking the fact that every president since Richard Nixon has proclaimed the need for energy independence — in virtually identical terms.

Watch the Jon Stewart skit : http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Yet the shifting mood could finally create momentum for Washington to act. “The oil spill is a classic example of the way that policy windows open up when there is an event that really captures the attention and concern of the American,” says Steve Corneli, senior vice president for market and climate policy at NRG Energy, a major utility based in Princeton, New Jersey. “Because people care, politicians can respond in ways they couldn’t before.”

After months of frustration, some environmentalists are cautiously hopeful that progress is possible. “The oil spill has really made it absolutely certain that there will be an energy bill brought to the Senate floor,” says Steve Cochran, director of Environmental Defense Fund's National Climate Campaign.

What the legislation would actually entail, however, remains murky. The president is inviting a bipartisan group of senators to the White House next week in hopes of kick-starting negotiations, with the aim of beginning to work on a bill in the Senate following the Fourth of July break. Broad support exists for boosting investment in nuclear energy, renewable power and energy efficiency — measures that exist in bills already introduced by Senators Lugar and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). But going further will be a fight.

Much will depend on how strong the public call for action really is. Republicans opposed to climate change are counting on Americans not being willing to pay higher prices to drive their cars or heat their homes. Obama himself was clearly testing the political waters in his June 15 speech. He praised the Waxman-Markey climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives last summer, which puts firm limits on the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from power plants, cars, and other sources. By making it more expensive to emit carbon, and thus to burn fossil fuels, the House bill “finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses,” Obama said.

But to the dismay of environmentalists, Obama failed to push for a similar Senate bill, proposed by John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), that would also put a cap on emissions. Instead, he said: “I’m happy to look at other ideas and approaches — as long as they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels.” Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) darkly warned that Obama is trying to exploit the oil spill to push a radical agenda.

The tangled politics means that, even though the window for legislation has cracked open, the odds are still long. Environmentalists say it’s currently hard to imagine finding 60 votes in the Senate for a measure that puts a limit on carbon emissions. “But without a cap, then progressives will not swallow more nuclear and drilling,” says former Energy Dept. official Joseph Romm.

A cap would also enable the government to sell permits to utilities and other manufacturers for the right to emit carbon; without one, Uncle Sam won’t have any revenue to pay for energy provisions like increased wind and solar power. One possibility, Romm believes, would be an energy bill that includes a cap on emissions for just one sector — power plants. That’s relatively easy because the utility industry already supports emissions limits.

There’s still hope, supporters of a bill say. “It is easy to imagine some constructive legislation passing, whether it just supports clean technology investments or is a bigger bill that addresses the elephant in the room — climate change,” says NRG’s Corneli. The latter prospect — which would mean putting a price on carbon emissions — “is the fastest way to jump-start the key technologies and industries we need to reduce dependence on oil,” he says.

Whether Congress agrees or not will show just how much impact the oil spill will ultimately have in Washington.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_...ZzcGlsbGNvdQ--

.
California governor signs cap-and-trade revenue bills
Reuters – 4 hrs ago.

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 2 (Reuters Point Carbon) - California Governor Jerry Brown has signed two bills related to the use of revenue raised through the sale of carbon allowances, although details of how the money will be spent won't be determined until next year.

The bills are the first to address the estimated $660 million and $3 billion in revenue that will be generated during the first year of California's carbon cap-and-trade scheme, which begins in January.

The first bill creates a new account for the revenue to be deposited into, and directs the Department of Finance and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop an investment plan for the funds.

That plan, expected to be released in the spring of 2013, will be submitted for approval to the legislature as part of the governor's budget and will be reviewed and updated on an annual basis.

Under California state law, the money raised through the sale of carbon allowances must be spent on programs that help reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions.

"There's a broad array of possible things to spend the funds on," Mary Nichols, chair of the ARB told reporters last week, citing energy efficiency, forest protection and high-speed rail as possible recipients.

The second bill signed by Brown over the weekend requires that 25 percent of all the auction revenue go toward economically disadvantaged communities, which tend to suffer from worse air quality than wealthier neighborhoods.

The bill tasks the California Environmental Protection Agency with determining what communities qualify for the money.

The state will select community recipients next year.

The first carbon allowance auction will be held on November 14, where the state will sell 61.3 million allowances.

http://news.yahoo.com/california-gov...075224192.html

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed two bills related to the use of revenue raised through the sale of carbon allowances, although details of how the money will be spent won't be determined until next year.

Does that bother anyone else ?? Reminds me of Wimpy "I'll gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hambuger today"

...

Socialism at it's finest. California's fiscal irresponsibility is criminal. They are broke. Now they will sell the smoke and mirrors scheme .........clean air. This is the first state to become a little Europe. Folks when the FED goes broke, which it is, there are no more bailouts. Business will leave California in droves.

..

This legislature and this governor are destroying California. We will be driving a whole lot more businesses out of the state with these two laws -- and of course those vested interests who give generously to Jerry Brown and the democrats are sure to win the lottery to get the funds from this government program. Ironically, our state is drowning in red ink and will be even more so despite the cap and trade revenue -- it will not be enough to make up for all the businesses that will flee California. I have raised my family here and hope to retire here but it may not be possible if this government destroys the economy.

..

Just wonderful! New taxes and they have not even informed the people where it will be spent. This is the leaders that Californians elected and they think they are leading the Nation????

[/i]

EPA Plans to Roll Out Devastating New Environmental Regs… After the Election
Kyle Becker October 27, 2012 9:02 am

Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia and Director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project S. Fred Singer has published an article in American Thinker giving potential voters a glimpse of their energy-scarce future. Far from environmentalism being a do-gooder crusade, the weight of evidence suggests the movement is big business for crony corporations and their Democrat supporters.

As Dr. Singer put it: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/..._for_2013.html

Obama has already promised to make climate change the centerpiece of his concern — with all that implies: “Green” energy policy, linked to loss of jobs (Keystone pipeline disapproval), rising gas prices (ethanol mandates), and crony capitalism (Solyndra).

The following is a preview of the economically devastating regulations the EPA would implement in an Obama second term, according to Dr. Singer:

OZONE — “President Obama punted on tightening the ozone standard until after the election, admitting that the ‘regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty’ would harm jobs and the economy — but he still pointed to the fact that it will be reconsidered in 2013. EPA itself estimated that its ozone standard would cost $90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs.” The president would impose these regulations on companies and consumers after the election.

FRACKING – The Bureau of Land Management is finalizing new regulations to curtail hydraulic fracturing on public lands, which would have serious impacts on domestic energy production. Estimated costs per fracking installation run at least $233,000, leading to billions in projected costs for natural gas companies and hydraulic fracking contractors. The fracking regulations would be implemented after the election.

WATER CONTROL — “EPA’s proposed new guidance document for waters covered by the [Clean Water Act], proposed in April 2011, reinterprets recent Supreme Court decisions to allow EPA to expand federal control over virtually every body of water in the United States, no matter how small. EPA’s own analysis of the document estimated that up to 17% of current non-jurisdictional determinations would be considered jurisdictional using the new guidance.” The expansion of EPA domain over water would take place after the election.

GASOLINE REGS – “EPA is preparing to propose a rulemaking called Tier III, which reduces the content of sulfur in gasoline from 30 ppm to 10 ppm. The cost of this rule could be up to $10 billion initially and $2.4 billion annually, and it could add up to 9 cents per gallon in manufacturing costs; these costs would inevitably be passed on to consumers at the pump.” The new regulation would be installed after the election.

BOILER REGS — “EPA’s Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards are so strict that not even the best-performing sources can meet them, so many companies will have no choice but to shut their doors and ship manufacturing jobs overseas. The rule has been projected to reduce US GDP by as much as 1.2 billion dollars and will destroy nearly 800,000 jobs.” The White House has indicated it will reconsider these regulations (you guessed it)… after the election.

CEMENT — “EPA’s Cement MACT rule could cause 18 plants to shut down, throwing up to 80,000 people out of work. As more and more cement has to be imported from China, concrete costs for the construction of roads, bridges, and buildings that use cement could increase 22% to 36%.” Determination on such rules for “roads and bridges” is slated for after the election.

COOLING TOWERS — “EPA is planning to require the use of strict protections for fish in cooling reservoirs for power plants under the Clean Water Act. EPA’s own estimates put the draft rule costs between $384 million and $460 million per year and have benefits of just $17 million – a cost benefit gap of more than 22 to 1.” The fish protection rules would go into effect after the election.

COAL — “EPA’s proposed coal ash rule could cost $79 to $110 billion over 20 years, destroying 183,900 to 316,000 jobs; this will have disastrous impacts in states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Missouri.” Of course, the EPA would “finish the job” in its war on coal after the election.

FARM DUST — “EPA has been regulating farm dust for decades and may tighten the standards as part its review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for coarse particulate matter (PM10). [...] If the standard is tightened, the only option for farmers to comply will be to curb every-day farm activities, which could mean cutting down on numbers of livestock or the tilling of fields, or they may have to shrink or even end their businesses altogether.” These farms would therefore go out of business after the election.

SPILL PREVENTION — “EPA’s Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule would require farmers and ranchers to develop and implement costly oil and gasoline spill prevention plans, placing a tremendous burden on the agricultural community. The original deadline was set for November 2011, but the rule was delayed due to pressure from Congress. EPA set a new SPCC deadline” for after the election.

Limiting standard energy supply drives up costs for producers and prices for consumers and makes the production of inefficient “green energy” providers price-competitive. The federal government is subsidizing the inefficient “green energy” producers and is restricting or attempting to restrict the production of standard energy on federal lands.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/10/2042...ma-re-elected/

Barbara Boxer blames global warming for Oklahoma tornado, calls for carbon tax
May 21, 2013 By: Joe Newby

On Tuesday, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., blamed global warming for the tornado that struck Oklahoma, and called for a carbon tax in a speech on the Senate floor, The Daily Caller reported.

This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather: Not just hot weather, but extreme weather. When I had my hearings, when I had the gavel years ago — it’s been a while — the scientists all agreed that what we’d start to see was extreme weather,” she said, despite reports that global warming stopped in 1998.

“Carbon could cost us the planet,” she added. “The least we could do is put a little charge on it so people move to clean energy.”

“You’re going to have tornadoes and all the rest. We need to protect our people,” Boxer said, without explaining how an additional tax would end severe weather.

“That’s our No. 1 obligation and we have to deal with this threat that is upon us and that is gonna get worse and worse through the years," she added.

Boxer is not the only Democrat to blame the tornado on global warming.

On Monday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., railed against Republicans in a 15-minute speech blaming so-called "global warming deniers" and "polluters" for the giant twister.

But how would a tax on carbon mitigate weather patterns?

Michael Batacsh said that a bill introduced by Boxer and co-sponsored by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders would "put a gradually rising fee on carbon dioxide emissions to fund green-energy projects such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass."

The bill was introduced after Obama "threatened to use his executive authority to address global warming if Congress failed to act," Batasch added.

But given the government's track record with alternative energy, it is highly doubtful the tax would work, and there is little to no evidence to suggest such a tax would stop tornadoes.

“The dismal record of the U.S. government in implementing efficient climate change policies is hardly evidence in favor of a massive new carbon tax (or cap-and-trade program),” said Robert Murphy, a senior economist for the Institute for Energy Research.

“[S]uch a new program will be abused in the political process, and will not be tailored to the recommendations of climate scientists and environmental economists," he added.

His analysis also found that unilateral action by the government "cannot significantly slow global carbon dioxide emissions."

http://www.examiner.com/article/barb...for-carbon-tax

Obama takes aim at changing climate
President Barack Obama is proposing sweeping steps to limit heat-trapping pollution from coal-fired power plants and to boost renewable energy production on federal property.
8 hr ago |By Josh Lederman of Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama declared the debate over climate change and its causes obsolete Tuesday as he announced a wide-ranging plan to tackle pollution and prepare communities for global warming.

In a major speech at Georgetown University, Obama warned Americans of the deep and disastrous effects of climate change, urging them to take action before it's too late. "As a president, as a father and as an American, I'm here to say we need to act," Obama said.

Obama directs EPA to end dumping of carbon from power plants 7 hr ago Duration: 0:59 Views: 184 Obama announced he was directing his administration to launch the first-ever federal regulations on heat-trapping gases emitted by new and existing power plants — "to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution."

Other facets of the plan will boost renewable energy production on federal lands, increase efficiency standards and prepare communities to deal with higher temperatures. Even before Obama unveiled his plan Tuesday, Republican critics in Congress were lambasting it as a job killer that would threaten the economic recovery. Obama dismissed those critics, noting the same arguments have been used in the past when the United States has taken other steps to protect the environment. "That's what they said every time," Obama said. "And every time, they've been wrong."

He touted the United States' strengths — research, technology and innovation — as factors that make the United States uniquely poised to take on the challenges of global warming.

Obama also offered a rare insight into his administration's deliberations on Keystone XL, an oil pipeline the potential approval of which has sparked an intense fight between environmental activists and energy producers.

The White House has insisted the State Department is making the decision independently, but Obama said Tuesday that he is instructing the department to approve it only if the project won't increase overall, net emissions of greenhouse gases. "Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interests," Obama said. "Our national interest would be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution."

http://news.msn.com/us/obama-takes-a...ocid=ansnews11

President Barack Obama declared the debate over climate change and its causes obsolete ....

Climate change ‘squirrel’? Desperate admin pushes job-killing War on Coal
Posted at 10:15 am on June 25, 2013 by Twitchy Staff
http://twitchy.com/2013/06/25/climat...g-war-on-coal/


...

Audience at president’s climate change speech so motivated,
forgets to pick up litter
Posted at 9:12 pm on June 25, 2013 by Twitchy Staff


Proof that even a crowd of environmentalists can leave behind a bit of trash.
The remains of Obama's speech: pic.twitter.com/P8fEfVlL0O



President Obama took his message of environmental stewardship to Georgetown University today in order to enlist the younger generation’s help in saving the planet. He began his appeal by recalling the Apollo 8 mission of 1968, when humans for the very first time captured a photograph of the earth as a whole. “It was an image of Earth,” the president told the audience, “beautiful; breathtaking; a glowing marble of blue oceans, and green forests, and brown mountains brushed with white clouds, rising over the surface of the moon.”

“And that image in the photograph, that bright blue ball rising over the moon’s surface, containing everything we hold dear — the laughter of children, a quiet sunset, all the hopes and dreams of posterity — that’s what’s at stake. That’s what we’re fighting for,” he concluded, much, much later. “And if we remember that, I’m absolutely sure we’ll succeed.”

Heady stuff indeed. The National Journal’s Amy Harder covers energy and environmental issues, and she was there today to capture her own image of the planet, or at least the tiny part of it just minutes before packed with college students who would scurry off to make the planet a better place for their children and grandchildren.

http://twitchy.com/2013/06/25/audien...ick-up-litter/