Free Markets, Free People

John Kerry was for off-shore drilling before he was against it

Senator’s John Kerry and Joe Lieberman introduced their 1,000 page climate change bill yesterday.  Unfortunately, “The Hill” only deals with the political aspects of the bill and doesn’t tell us much about what it contains.  Of interest was this:

The bill has the support of the Edison Electric Institute, a large trade group that represents for-profit utilities, and encouraging statements also poured in from companies including GE, although, like many, the company hedged slightly and said it “supports the process” that Kerry and Lieberman initiated.

Oil giant Shell issued a supportive statement, and Kerry also cited support from BP and ConocoPhillips. The bill’s method for addressing transportation-sector emissions is more to the liking of some refiners, who bitterly opposed the House climate change bill that passed last year.

The point, of course, is these companies are settling for the lesser of two evils.  And, of course, there’s a bit of crony capitalism thrown in for good measure.  I, on the other hand,  oppose the imposition of any carbon buying scheme (tax) until I see a lot more conclusive science saying we have a warming problem caused by CO2.

Anyway, as to the title, IBD covers that:

The bill, authored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., would let a state ban drilling within 75 miles of its coastline vs. 3 miles currently.

A state also would be able to veto neighbors’ drilling projects if a mandatory study indicated that an accident could harm the state’s economy or environment.

This is a major reversal from late ’09, when Kerry called for a bill that included “additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration.”

This is also not just something the John Kerry does.  This is the nature of the beast.  Reactive legislation done in hast and in the shadow of a current problem which usually ends up being poorly thought out and ends up actually doing more harm than good.  Unfortunately, that’s politics today.

The bill aims to cut carbon emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. It includes cap-and-trade programs for the manufacturing and power-generating sectors and a cap for the transportation sector.

The bill would affect about 70% of the economy, staffers said. They declined to estimate the total cost.

Of course they did – and we’ll all trust the CBO numbers when they come out too – or should we wait for V 2.0 before we agree to the cost?  Bottom line here is if the cap-and-trade program includes “manufacturing and power-generating sectors” the impact will be 100% unless you can point to a sector of our economy that doesn’t use power.

But again, this is the usual way this works – understate the impact, blow off the rebuttals and stick with your estimate hopefully bolstered by gaming the CBO.

Really though – the economy is the number one priority of the people and these yahoos are thinking it is a good idea to introduce a tax that will effect 100% of the economy based on dubious science?

There is some hope though:

A year ago, Reid said passing healthcare reform was simpler than moving an energy bill: “This may surprise some people, but I think healthcare reform is easier than all this global warming stuff.”

I sure as hell hope so.  It certainly would be fun to watch Democrats again ignore the priorities of the electorate (economy, jobs) and go after one of their favorite agenda items.  Fodder for Republicans in November – and frankly, I don’t think they have a chance of passing this before then, or, as a matter of fact, afterwards either.

So go for it Dems – you’ve hooked your electoral wagon to a team of wonderful horses – Kerry and Lieberman – and (tongue in cheek) you deserve everything this ends up getting you.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

3 Responses to John Kerry was for off-shore drilling before he was against it

  • Has anyone asked what we (the people) want?
    I want my global warming. Every study and poll illuminates how much healthier and cheaper a warmer planet is.
    I’m not even going to argue whether AGW is real (to what degree) or has no affect at all…
    Between longer the growing seasons and less energy needed for heating, a warming planet a win-win scenario for most everyone!
    If AlGore (Idiot-Tenn) really thought the sea was about to drastically rise, would he have bought a multi-million-dollar castle right on the oceans edge? Hmmm, that would be really stupid of him. Seems the “Inventor of the Internet” knows something we don’t.

  • The thing that frightens me – TRULY frightens me – is that these fools seem bound and determined to try to implement this scheme without a single thought to the evidence (or, more precisely, LACK of evidence) that there’s a problem in the first place, much less what the impact will be on our already struggling economy and decaying industrial base.  Raising energy costs on people who are already out of work?  Great idea!  Raising energy costs on businesses that are already barely scraping by?  What genius!

    / sarc

    Do they not care?  Are they too stupid to understand the impact of what they want to do?  Are they deliberately trying to destroy our economy?

    I’ve stopped asking “How stupid can they be?” with regard to Imeme, the Congress, and the democrats generally as there really seems to be no bottom to the depths of stupidity they are constantly plumbing.

    Constitution First… AlGore (Idiot-Tenn)…

    As a personal favor, could you please refrain from pointing out that this global con artist is from the Volunteer State? 

  • This is the equivalent of having a car accident, and then deciding to never drive again.