Betting Blind on ACES:
Yesterday I had an NRO column on the just-passed House climate bill. Here's the intro:
Last Friday, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a massive climate-change bill that few, if any, members of Congress had actually read. The legislation would impose the first-ever limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and impose a raft of other regulatory measures, while simultaneously ensuring that key constituencies are protected from climate policy’s pinch. The bill is one step closer to becoming law, and yet most of our elected representatives could not tell you much of what it contains.It is relatively certain that few, if any, members of Congress had read the bill before voting on it. Why? For one thing, House leaders dropped 300 pages of amendments 3am Friday morning and a complete copy of the bill language incorporating the amendments was still unavailable during the debate; not even the House clerk had one.
Meanwhile, Clive Crook understands how ridiculous the Waxman-Markey bill is, while Paul Krugman has a conniption over "treason against the planet" even though he supported the bill and it passed. Roger Pielke Jr. wonders whether the bill's sponsors really understand offsets, and Gregg Easterbrook observes how cleaner coal facilities are being blocked while we wait for "FutureGen" coal facilities that may never appear. On a sunnier front, the NYT reports on promising efforts to make ethanol from algae that can be used as a fuel or feedstock for plastics.
Related Posts (on one page):
- What's in Waxman-Markey?
- Betting Blind on ACES:
Fortunately, the public is now beginning to understand how ridiculous this global warming flimflam really is, and we can use that vote the other day as a gauge for the public's growing understanding.
I'd estimate that between 2-5 congresscritters will be losing their jobs, directly because of a yea vote on this scam.
Sometimes, one vote and you're history. Who's next?
But John McCain's op-ed was not fit for publishing...
Some surely did, but there have been a number of opponents of the bill who have made the most tired, dumbest arguments claiming that global warming is a hoax.
Not a hoax, in the sense that those climatology pranksters are going to turn around in 10 years and say, "haha! gotcha suckers!" Rather, a scam, in the sense that, without a single controlled experiment, "consensus science" is used to expropriate and dispose of the assets of others, while creating graft and corruption opportunities for those in government. If it were really about reducing fossil fuel usage, there would have been a simple tax, perhaps one that would increase at regular intervals. Instead, we have this monstrosity.
The more the AGW theory weakens and crumbles, the shriller its converts become.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.