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

 
Turning up the legislative heat on global warming
Posted by: McQ on Monday, March 12, 2007

Oh, good:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced the 15 members of the newly formed House committee on global warming, which has been asked to make recommendations on laws to fight global warming. The recommendations may include forced limits on greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide and methane that could require automobile manufacturers and power plants to make drastic changes.
Any guess who is on the hook to pay for whatever losses these "drastic changes" may take? I know you get tired of hearing it over and over again, but it is simply a truth which bears repeating loudly and often. The consumer will bear those costs in terms of the end cost of the products. And when it is entire industries which are hit with "drastic changes", then there's no ducking the price increases coming. All members of that industry are going to be looking at the same restrictions.

Oh, and I love this reasoning:
She said in February to the Science and Technology Committee at a hearing, "Many of the technologies to revolutionize our use of energy are already at hand, waiting on the shelf or under development.

"Restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions will drive these technologies into the marketplace quickly and cost-effectively, while simultaneously creating the next generation of good-paying new jobs."
Nothing like a little blatant government intrusion in the marketplace, eh? And we all know how well that normally works.

Some ideas of how the government might force these technologies on the nation aren't hard to visualize. But don't think the government would stop there. For instance, consider what's being reported about air travel in the UK:
The British Conservative Party's latest big idea is that Brits will all be allowed one short-haul return flight a year at the standard rate of tax (thus, according to the authors, not penalising “ordinary families” enjoying their annual holidays) but after that VAT or another levy would be imposed. Everyone would have a “personal green miles allowance”.
As one critic of the idea says:
Those put off would surely be “ordinary people” on domestic flights because most other travellers in this sector are on business trips and could reclaim the VAT later. It is insane. It is also absurdly statist. It represents a degree of micromanagement over what human beings do that the governments of the old Warsaw Pact would have been proud of.
Is this getting a little hysterical or what?

Many people are worried that the GWoT is the biggest threat to our liberty. I'd argue that the biggest threat is green and it's going to hit you like a 10 ton locomotive from the blind-side if we don't start calming all of this down and demand real science from real scientists and not quasi-governmental political panels like the IPCC.

This isn't settled science by a long shot, no matter who the proponents call heretics or deniers. Given what I saw on the film I featured yesterday, I'm hardly convinced that CO2 emissions (which it shows normally lag a heating trend by hundreds of years) are the culprit at all. And I'm not willing to sign on to anything until science is able to do a much better job of convincing me otherwise.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Since it’s far more dangerous to drive than it is to fly, the result of restricting air travel will be a higher mortality rate.

But no price is too high for the AGW crowd, right?
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced the 15 members of the newly formed House committee on global warming, which has been asked to make recommendations on laws to fight global warming.

—Starting with harsh curbs on congress’ flights and miles driven via automobile?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
on laws to fight global warming
Just make global warming illegal, then penalize the planet everytime the temp goes up 1 degree. Not only will the problem be solved, but it generates revenue also!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
And I’m not willing to sign on to anything
Unfortunately, people like Nancy, and Herr Professor Doktor Erb think they have license to sign you (and me) up, with or without our permission, mainly because they know what is best and ’we have to do something!’ to save the fuzzy polar bears and the children.

Last week when you posted a similar article about China not co-operating with the Global War on Warming it wasn’t 4 comments down before one of the ’someone has to do something!’ crowd showed up and volunteered us to be that someone, damn the economics, full speed ahead!

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
How about having all governemntal offices and services "pilot" the recommendations for two years prior to (imflicting) enforcement on civilian enterprises.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I like Shark’s idea, after all, we needn’t worry about where the money will come from. The government has lot’s of free money.

http://www.freegovmoney.net/

http://www.tvproducts4less.com/free-government-money.html

http://www.federalgrantsource.com/

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Pelosi said there are ways to limit greenhouse emissions, which the majority of scientists say are responsible for global warming..
At least this news source is moving towards honesty. They cited ’a majority of scientists’ instead of ’a majority of scientists that study climate’. It still failed to mention the real arguments against global warming, portraying all opponents as Republicans trying to save a buck at the expense of the planet, but it’s a step.
Then again, it may be small steps like this keeping this reporter from getting a job at the AP.

Secondly, why is the committe split 9D to 6R. I was under the (maybe false) impression that committee membership was supposed to reflect the overall make-up of the house with the exception of the Rules committee.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Well now the myth of human caused global warming has become the conventual wisdom, as expected Washington is on the move to solve another non problem.

More importantly this gives support to a new Industry, Global Warming Abatement Incorporated. Just the right place to flood with our tax dollars. There is already a host of companies selling carbon dioxide offsets. As expected investigations of this sector for fraud is underway. Another scam designed to separate the suckers from their coin.

Democrats are still practicing P.T. Barnum’s axiom “Never give a Sucker an even break, and never wise up a chump”
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
I have to go with the scientific consensus on this; it is exceedingly strong. However, as to what to do politically, I have to agree you have a point. Global warming could be severe and is likely caused by human activity, but governmental action designed to remedy it is likely to do more harm than good. If anything, R&D should be supported, and tax credits for energy savings (a good idea even if there isn’t human caused global warming). Let’s focus on promoting creative ideas rather than trying to force people to change their lifestyle. But that said, I have talked to too many scientists and have read too much about the breadth of the consensus to believe the cynics. I also focus on the scientific reports, not Al Gore or his movie (which I haven’t even seen).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Having found out that folks here respond to reason over invective, Professor Erb has decided (so long as it agrees with the LN) "why not be reasonable?" Once again my liberal arts (or is it the humanities?) weakness shows up. Help me out. Why did I think of "Cassandra" while reading Professor Erb’s comment?
Anyone? Beuhler?
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Why did I think of "Cassandra" while reading Professor Erb’s comment?
Come on, an opponent agrees with you, and you insult him? That’s not the way to change the hearts and minds of people. Got off your ego trip, and take yes for an answer
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
I have to go with the scientific consensus on this; it is exceedingly strong.
It isn’t consensus, it’s a sales pitch.

Look Erb, Coffee! Inhale deeply.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
The problem with “consensus” is that it usually is wrong. That’s how Warren Buffett and other successful people make money in the stock market. They go against the consensus.

Remember once the consensus was the sun revolved around the Earth, Cholera was caused by vapors in the air, and bleeding cured the patient.

I doubt there is a consensus among scientists who actually are studying the problem of humans and global warming. Those who believe in it are the ones yelling the loudest. Opponents fear for their jobs and reputations, stay in the closet. No one can deny the retribution threatened against sceptics.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
"Got (sic) off your ego trip, and take yes for an answer."
Mr. Fish. Professor Erb is hardcore. One can never take the first "Yes" from the hardcore. It, inevitably, is "Yes, but..." Just watch. By the way, you’re a young fella, aren’t you?



 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
I see from another thread that you are not young. What then, is your excuse?
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
I prefer to give someone the benefit of the doubt. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. You can disagree with out being disagreeable. I prefer to frame my arguments with out resorting to personal incitive. If the argument fails to persuade your opponent, calling him an anal orifice is not going to make things better.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
I have to go with the scientific consensus on this; it is exceedingly strong
.

You can have your consensus Erby. When you get facts on your side, gimme a call.
I have to go with the scientific consensus on this; it is exceedingly strong. However, as to what to do politically, I have to agree you have a point. Global warming could be severe and is likely caused by human activity, but governmental action designed to remedy it is likely to do more harm than good. If anything, R&D should be supported, and tax credits for energy savings (a good idea even if there isn’t human caused global warming). Let’s focus on promoting creative ideas rather than trying to force people to change their lifestyle. But that said, I have talked to too many scientists and have read too much about the breadth of the consensus to believe the cynics. I also focus on the scientific reports, not Al Gore or his movie (which I haven’t even seen).
The cynical part of me wants to deride this as a face-saving move. And so I shall :)

That said, the bolded stuff is shockingly reasonable.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"That said, the bolded stuff is shockingly reasonable."
Jesus, Shark, I’m center/right, I’m entitled to be reasonable. For you to indicate a crack in the wall like this....well, I dunno. I suppose that we are entitled to be taken in by a skilled, experienced liberal LN guru at least once in a while. What are you setting up?
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
More to the point...what is HE setting up?
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Jesis. What if no one is setting anything up and they are just saying what they reallly mean?




Naaah.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
notherbob2

Erb has stated before that he didn’t agree with the Kyoto protocols. Then he said he’d agree to it anyway just to shame China into action. Remember Tiananmen Square. Shame worked so well, the tank didn’t run over that kid. The just put down the student outbreak off-camera. It had such a lasting impact that the next time some Chinese started thinking on their own (Fulan Gong) they just made sure people disappeared before they could gather in public.
Maybe he’s setting something up and maybe you’re just giving him too much credit.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Maybe he’s setting something up and maybe you’re just giving him too much credit
.


Wow do I detect a strain of paranoia here? Is it possible nothing is being set up? Probably not.
 
Written By: James E. Fish
URL: http://
"Wow do I detect a strain of paranoia here? Is it possible nothing is being set up? Probably not."
You had me until "...Probably not."

 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Why did I think of "Cassandra" while reading Professor Erb’s comment?
Cassandra, whose predictions were always accurate, but everyone ignored her? Are you saying my comment makes you think that I’m right but will be ignored?

(She was given that gift/curse by Apollo because she didn’t want to have sex with him.)
That said, the bolded stuff is shockingly reasonable.
And, of course, agreement on what to do is ultimately more important than agreement on the science.

But do you really think it is unreasonable to believe the UN report and the word of a number of scientists I know that humans are at least in part responsible for climate change? I know that such a belief may be wrong, but is it unreasonable? True, a scientific consensus is often wrong, and almost always incomplete. I know that skeptics can point to some good arguments. To this day you can find believers in a steady state universe (as opposed to the big bang theory) who make pretty strong arguments about the gaps in the big bang story, and reasons why they find the steady state theory more persuasive. I believe the big bang theory not because I compared the evidence of the two sides and reached my own conclusion; I lack the scientific training to do that, to really gather enough data and make sense of the models and math. I believe the big bang theory because I’m impressed by the depth and breadth of the consensus on it. So it is with global warming.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
But do you really think it is unreasonable to believe the UN report
Scott Scott Scott -
You’re talking about an organization where Libya sits on the Human Rights Commission and makes decisions.
You’re talking about an organization that does nothing in parts of Africa because what’s happening is ’ethnic cleansing’ and not ’genocide’.

Do you seriously want to make them your gold standard on Global Warming(TM)?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
You’re talking about an organization where Libya sits on the Human Rights Commission and makes decisions.
So you think the scientists of international stature who have done intensive studying of the issue can’t be trusted because...Libya sits on a human rights council?!
You’re talking about an organization that does nothing in parts of Africa because what’s happening is ’ethnic cleansing’ and not ’genocide’.
For that you can’t blame the organization, you have to blame the states on the Security Council who have the power to act or not act. Look at the US, UK, France, China and Russia especially. The UN acts only insofar as the member states choose to act. Blame the states.

I’m not looking at the UN, I’m looking at the scientists.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
So you think the scientists of international stature who have done intensive studying of the issue can’t be trusted because...Libya sits on a human rights council?!
The fact Libya is on that council is emblematic of the the fact it is ultimately a political body, and everything it does is primarily done to satisfy the political goals of such nations as Libya.
For that you can’t blame the organization, you have to blame the states on the Security Council who have the power to act or not act.
And given the interest China has in Africa’s oil and their relationship to Darfur’s Islamic overlords, there is no point in any of the other permanent members attempting anything.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
You’re talking about an organization that does nothing in parts of Africa because what’s happening is ’ethnic cleansing’ and not ’genocide’.

For that you can’t blame the organization, you have to blame the states on the Security Council
They sure don’t call you Professor Mercury for nothing.

Scott, the UN is an organization built and maintained, from the ground up, on a putrid landfill of larceny and lies. You can build a 5-star restaurant on that stinking hill of detritus and hire the most acclaimed chefs from every corner of the globe to whip up an award-winning pizza du jour, but when it’s all said and done, no one in their right mind is going to actually eat that crap.
 
Written By: Lynette Warren
URL: http://www.no-treason.com

 
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