Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Hold on to your wallets ... here it comes
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, January 20, 2007

Whenever I see a story like this which involves Democrats (not the Republicans have been much better lately, but Dems make no bones about spending), that is the first thought which enters my mind:

The pitch:
Democratic leaders in Congress vowed today to push forward with legislative efforts to combat global warming and promote energy independence, issues that they said have not been adequately addressed by President Bush because his administration has been "overwhelmed" by the war in Iraq.
Don't forget that the first step to "energy independence" by the House was to revoke tax breaks for big oil. And with no viable energy alternative presently on the horizon, such a move is more likely to make us more dependent on foreign oil. But, of course as you'll see, they kinda just gloss right over that.
"It is important to our children's health and their global competitiveness to rid this nation of our dependence on foreign oil and Big Oil interests," Pelosi told the news conference today. "Taking bold measures today to achieve energy independence within 10 years must be the highest priority for this Congress."
My goodness, "for the children", "foreign oil" and "big oil" all in one sentence. I'll bet Ms. Pelosi felt absolutely giddy after uttering that one. And of course the "10 year" independence pitch we've been hearing for what, 40 years?

The lie:
Democrats want to work with Bush on this issue in a bipartisan way, "but we cannot afford to wait," she said. She pledged passage of "groundbreaking legislation that addresses global warming and energy independence."
Bi-partisan as it has always been defined in recent history means "do it my way or you're the partisan one".

Of course this "ground breaking legislation" is going to have to go through their new PAYGO system (aka "Tax Increase Justification System"), which, of course means "we're going to have to take things from you for the common good" as a recently announced Democratic presidential candidate once said. And I can promise you it will indeed entail "new spending".

Sen. Harry Reid, speaking of President Bush said:
He has acknowledged many mistakes in Iraq. And there are rumblings from the White House that in the speech that he's going to give on Tuesday that he's going to talk about energy and he's going to even talk about global warming. If he doesn't, it's really too bad."

Reid called on Bush to acknowledge, "as the American people long since recognized, that global warming is one of the biggest issues facing this world, if not the biggest world problem. Every other country recognizes it. America should recognize it."
Yup. No one is arguing it isn't happening. Nor is anyone really arguing that man hasn't some hand in it. What is being argued is how much of a hand and that's just not clear, of course. But since we now seem to think consensus is more important among scientists than hard scientific fact, political pressure is building to do something, anything, to change what we still don't understand well and can't positively quantify:
Bush is coming under growing pressure to take action on global warming, with European allies urging stronger action to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Throughout his presidency, Bush has resisted imposing mandatory limits on those emissions, arguing that doing so would damage the U.S. economy and insisting that reductions can be achieved through voluntary measures.
Can you say "expensive programs and regulation which will be economy wreckers"? Of course you can. Isn't the fact that the world has grudgingly recognized the impossibility of meeting Kyoto standards (the minimum most agree necessary to make the changes demanded by those who claim a large hand in global warming by man) and bailed on the agreement a strong argument against massive regulation on the scale it required?

What has changed in that regard? How will this be accomplished without destroying the US economy (and thereby throwing the world into a recession)? Will India and China actually be pressured to do the same this time?

Sorry folks but this sort of nebulous talk about "ground breaking legislation" and the environment scares the bejesus out of me, especially when Dems do it.

Like I said, hold on to your wallets, because this is the first of many promises which will attempt to empty it over the coming years.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
No one is arguing it isn’t happening. Nor is anyone really arguing that man hasn’t some hand in it.
Really?
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
Good thing we have Gridlock now to restrain government spending and over-regulation. Messages being sent and lessons being learned all over the place.
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
Really?
Yes, unless you’re prepared to say (and prove) that absolutely nothing man does has any effect whatsoever on the phenomenon.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
You said "no one is arguing". There are lots of people arguing. Until you can prove that every single person on the planet is NOT arguing, your statement is false.

Technically you are right, there is no way to prove (or disprove for that matter) what I have said. How, exactly would anybody prove such a thing, anyway? I would literally have to review every action any human being has ever performed and and THEN prove that it had not "contributed to teh phenomenon". Congratulations, you have argued me into a corner.

Heck, Newton’s laws and the Conservation of Energy couldn’t even stand up to that level of proof.

Is it so hard to admit that you over-stated your case, most likely for dramatic effect? Geeez.


 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
Buyer’s remorse in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

BTW, if you followed the brouhaha between the Weather Channel Weather Nazi and other Weathermen, you know there is no scientific consensus on Man being the cause of Global Warming.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
You said "no one is arguing". There are lots of people arguing. Until you can prove that every single person on the planet is NOT arguing, your statement is false.
Ah, I see. We’re in a nitpicky mood today.

Heh ...
Is it so hard to admit that you over-stated your case, most likely for dramatic effect? Geeez.
Well I have to admit, out of that whole post, I certainly didn’t think that would be the most important thing for which someone would take me to task.

But then I just write ’em and you guys get to decide what you want to pick over.

Granted, people still argue. But since arguments about absolutes in this area aren’t credible, I’d say their arguments don’t amount to anything. So perhaps I should have modified it by saying "no reasonable people are arguing ..."

Fair enough?
Buyer’s remorse in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..
Not from me ... We again have Republicans acting like fiscal conservatives and in a position via the Senate minority, to make that count.

I’m simply providing analysis of the game at hand.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Hey - we warned you what these thugs called Democrats would do if they got their grimy little paws on the power in DC. You said the Republicans were bad. You wished for a change.

Now you have to live with that change. And stop bitching about it, willya?

Don’t blame me - I voted Republican. Corrupt Republicans are always better than money sucking, tax increasing, troop hating Democrats, ANY DAY.
 
Written By: Alexander Alt
URL: http://
Hey - we warned you what these thugs called Democrats would do if they got their grimy little paws on the power in DC. You said the Republicans were bad. You wished for a change.
For the 700th or is it the 7000th time, I and the rest of us were very specific in our desires.

Now, you can continue this disingenuous nonsense and be ignored or you can be honest and admit that what happened wasn’t what we said we wanted.

And, of course ...
Don’t blame me - I voted Republican. Corrupt Republicans are always better than money sucking, tax increasing, troop hating Democrats, ANY DAY.
...anyone this absolutist and blind can’t really be taken seriously anyway.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
So perhaps I should have modified it by saying "no reasonable people are arguing ..."
That’s not fair. I could say "Nobody with an IQ above freezing (in Celsius, mind you) would argue against {insert some BS statement here}" which is a backhanded insult to anyone who doesn’t agree with my assertion.

There are plenty of reasonable people who disagree with Global Warming and man’s involvement in it. To call them unreasonable is beneath you, Bruce.

However, it appears that our masters... I mean ’elected officials’ agree with you and consider the best way to deal with ’unreasonable people’ is to suck their money dry.

And you’re correct - my (R) representatives are voting like conservatives again, albeit only because they’re not in power. Shame, really.

Can’t elect Republicans and keep our rights, can’t elect Democrats and keep our freedom, can’t elect either and keep our money.

Anyone up for a little revolution?
 
Written By: Robb Allen
URL: http://blog.robballen.com
There are plenty of reasonable people who disagree with Global Warming and man’s involvement in it. To call them unreasonable is beneath you, Bruce.
Robb, what I’m saying is no reasonable person is arguing against the fact that man surely has had some hand in the global warming phenomenon. What isn’t at all settled, and is arguable, is how much of the phenomenon is attributable to him and how much is attributable to other causes.

Because we really have no idea, I’m against the idea of costly and economically damaging "fixes" when we don’t even know how much of the problem we are yet.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The Buyer’s remorse comment was meant as a general remark and not anyone specifically.

My contention is that Disgust for Republicans, justifiable due to their lack of commitment to spending control and other things they used to claim as their issues is what in part lost Republicans the election.

My further contention is as bad as the Republicans have become the Democrats have slide even further. The general public has no clue what they’ve done. I really believe they don’t.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
The general public has no clue what they’ve done. I really believe they don’t.
Sometimes a reminder is necessary and in order.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Hmmm, I wonder why global warming wasn’t so urgent in 1997 when Clinton and Co. signed that Kyoto Accord? Wonder why they didn’t submit it to the Senate at the time? The same Seante that voted 95-0 in a non-binding resolution disapproving its effects. That Senate included Harry Reid, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, John Kerry, etc.

There are too much anomalous data contradicting these models of global warming. I am an environmental engineer and I have a hard time believing them.
 
Written By: Ron
URL: http://isophorone.blogspot.com
It’s worth noting that there is some very strong evidence out there that the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA’s organic statute and some others have actually made the country wealthier (the cost of compliance is far less than the benefits created).

why? a combination of focusing on low-hanging fruit, forcing the regulatory capture of externalities and investment in technology-forcing research.

there remain tremendous inefficiencies in our systems of power production and consumption. the inefficiencies exist because the cost of conversion exceeds the benefit, because addressing them is a pain in the posterior, and plain old habit.

so what will be the true cost of moving away from a petroleum-based system for both mobile and stationary sources? That will be a question for historical economists. For now, all we can do is put together a basket of incentives and costs and see what happens.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
It’s worth noting that there is some very strong evidence out there that the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA’s organic statute and some others have actually made the country wealthier (the cost of compliance is far less than the benefits created).
Again, Francis, given that we, at this point have no idea of the effect on global warming any regulation would have, if any, its seems rather pointless to talk about evidence of the benefits of compliance v. the cost.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Francis in the past it wasn’t easy to export US industry because other countries were either even more bureaucratic like Europe or failed to have a develop infrastructure to support factories on a widespread basis.

That’s changed.

With Kyoto, you are only burdening industry in countries that already have pollution controls and exempting those that don’t. Businesses are faced with a choice. Stay in the US or export industry to where it will be exempt from Kyoto, like China.

Kyoto basically creates economic pressure, which is already large, to move industry out of developed nations that have some pollution controls to countries that essentially have none.

Kyoto is nothing but scheme to ship industry out of the West into essentially people that aren’t really our friends. And net C02 production is quite likely to increase.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Bi-partisan as it has always been defined in recent history means "do it my way or you’re the partisan one".
Actually, bi-partisian means all Dems and that one idiot Republican "maverick" who throws in with them to give that designation the fig-leaf it requires.
But since we now seem to think consensus is more important among scientists than hard scientific fact
BEST LINE YOU HAVE WRITTEN THIS YEAR.
Sorry folks but this sort of nebulous talk about "ground breaking legislation" and the environment scares the bejesus out of me, especially when Dems do it.
Doesn’t bother me that much. Let the Dems be Dems, and lets see if the public can draw a cause and effect from the results.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Robb, what I’m saying is no reasonable person is arguing against the fact that man surely has had some hand in the global warming phenomenon. What isn’t at all settled, and is arguable, is how much of the phenomenon is attributable to him and how much is attributable to other causes.
Because we really have no idea, I’m against the idea of costly and economically damaging "fixes" when we don’t even know how much of the problem we are yet.
So no reasonable person is arguing against something we really have no idea about?

Huh?
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
So no reasonable person is arguing against something we really have no idea about?
Again, I can’t imagine this to be the most important point in the post, but it is certainly something you’ve come to obsess over, isn’t it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider