Issue 1082/1083 (July 9, 2009) of Rolling Stone magazine has an article by Matt Taibbi, "The Great American Bubble Machine." Tabbi traces the role of investment bank Goldman Sachs in 5 historical bubbles-- from the Great Depression to the oil price bubble last year. Bubble Number 6 is the bubble to come-- trading carbon credits, and Goldman is poised to get in on it big time.

As envisioned by Goldman, the fight to stop global warming will become a "carbon market" worth $1 trillion a year.

As Taibbi points out the carbon caps will get lowered in future years increasing the value of carbon credits trading in the secondary market. This of course will open up new vistas for for abuse in financial markets. According to Taibbi Goldman has been pushing for cap-and-trade a long time ago and now they are positioned to make a bundle off it. No wonder they have lobbied for Waxman-Markey. No wonder they funded Obama's presidential campaign. A straight tax on carbon emissions would be infinitely preferable to this new monstrosity that will milk the public out of more of its money and hurt if not destroy the American economy. Goldman doesn't care as they are globalists-- "citizens of the world" to borrow Einstein's phrase.

Unfortunately the article at the Rolling Stone's website is just an excerpt. You have to buy the issue or read a not completely legible version over at zero hedge.

The Waxman-Markey bill goes way, way beyond the fundamental foolishness of cap and trade.

For example, it apparently has provisions that require homes for sale be brought up to federal energy efficiency standards (does this mean new jobs will be created for federal home inspectors)? It contains detailed restrictions on such major important items as candelabra.

It is an example of Liberals Gone Mad.

Elections have consequences. Rarely have they been as dramatic and disastrous as what we are seeing now.

Obviously if they want it to pass through the Senate, they'll need to add about $50 billion more.

At least the House-Senate conference will make a big stink about cutting $10-20B and call it a breakthrough.

Don't worry, this nonsense ain't going anywhere. That vote the other day smoked 'em out, if you notice. The coastal kooks will go for it, as ever, but the rest of the country will throw the bums out if they try, and you can now tell the bums know it, too. That's why the premature vote, to get this out of the way and end the distraction (for now, at least).

This is just perfect campaign fodder. That vote is gonna cost some poor congrescritters their jobs.

I'm glad they put Waxman in charge of that committee, because that assured doomsday for that bill. If they'd left Dingell in charge, the old coot woulda probably found a way to cobble together some type of coalition to get something passed, but no chance a Cali kook can ever do that.

Dingell woulda probably gone for Adler's pet statist project, the carbon tax. No dice on that one, now. I love it when a plan comes together.

It was in the 40's outside my house this week. We just gotta keep the pushback going for another 2-3 years now, until it snows in Memphis in June or something. That will end this AGW madness once and for all.

"What's in Waxman-Markey?"

Wouldn't it be wonderful if every Senator had to actually answer that question PRIOR to voting on it ? And all other bills ?

Of course, that would break our entire legislative process ....

Is there a way to restrict this blog to people who don't use buzz words like "statist" and "congresscritter?"

Just asking.

A. Zarkov:
Let's say the bill passes and is implemented, and in 5 years atmospheric CO2 concentration continues to have climbed at the historical rate indicating it has no effect. What then? Will Congress repeal the bill?

If the Democrats are still in charge, of course not. They'll do what they always do when one of their pet programs fails, double down, on the predictable claim that it's only because they didn't spend enough yet.

Even if the Republicans capture both houses, they'd never have a large enough majority to override Obama's veto (assuming he gets re-elected.)

By that time, government run by either party will be too addicted to the revenue stream to repeal it.

And the one-way rachet towards Collectivism motors on.

By that time, government run by either party will be too addicted to the revenue stream to repeal it.

The problem is that there is no real revenue stream for the government right now, just for the politicians, lobbyists, Green activists, Al Gore, etc. Initially, it looked like they were going to sell a lot of the indulgences, but now seem to have given most of them away to favored parties to buy the votes necessary to pass this bill in the House.

What will be very interesting is what happens when it gets to the Senate. The Democrats now technically have a filibuster majority there (if they can get Bob Byrd and Teddy Kennedy out of the hospital long enough to vote), but the regional priorities are very different in the Senate than in the House. California only gets two votes there, Feinstein and Boxer, and not all those environmental wackos up and down the coast. A really nutso vote here by the Democrats in the Senate could possibly give the Republicans a filibuster proof majority in 3-5 years. I expect more farm and energy subsidization from the Senate, and less international do-gooding and loony alternate energy (excluding the problems of ethanol).

"JM:

It is an example of Liberals Gone Mad."

John, the biggest analytic mistake is that all of this is some "liberal" issue. Goldman Sachs and the forces behind these things transcend petty ideological categories. Do you think that there would not be a similar development under a McCain? Don't be naive.

I think the "homes must be remodeled to be energy-efficient before they can be sold" provision isn't known at all by the general public and will be very, very unpopular when it comes to light. Will the homeowner have to replace windows? Put in a new furnace or air conditioner? All new appliances? Roof? Insulation? People who still have equity left in their homes, hoping to cash it out on sale, will see it vanish in unnecessary re-dos. (Or raise the selling price of the home, which isn't really possible in this market).

John, I think Psalm 91 has it right. McCain was all-in on this AGW nonsense, as was Bush, as is Gingrich. Yes, this AGW push likely dovetails with the liberal drive for unlimited government, but there are many strains of that push, and those guys are some of them, and they are or at least were keystones in our body politic.

Now, you can make the claim that they're just cynically nodding their head and looking to kill this behind the scenes, or letting it die of its own accord. That's not leadership, however. It is not to be celebrated, it is to be called out. It is one of the many reasons that those of us who truly believe in a limited government cannot vote for the McCains of this world.

John, McCain teamed up with Lieberman on the first global warming nonsense bill, so yes he did do something about it... action and not just words. I would expect him to do similar once in the WH. Again, this was a reason not to vote for that guy... one of many.

I don't much care for Obama, but would McCain have been any better? He stood side by side with Bush and Obama last Fall, championing this bailout madness. He was part of the problem.

In that election, we were going to get exactly the government we wanted... good and hard.

And no need to waste time voting for either of the fools giving it to us.

I say he follows most of 'em, John. AGW? Check. Foreign policy? Check, absent the World Apology Tour 2009 it's about what McCain would have done. Bailouts? Check. Stimulus? Check, with only the size as a potential variable. Sotomayor? Likely check, and no chance a firebreather gets through the Senate in any event. Health care? Too muddled to call. Immigration? Checkmate.

John, those few places I mention are the critical places... and both guys are in functional alignment on them. They will determine the current and future direction of the country, and that direction will be constant no matter which wins.

There was no gamechanger in this election. There wasn't even a pinch hitting singles hitter.

Appointees? The same tax-dodging Wall Street crooks wind up at Treasury and the Fed, regardless. Geithner is the Sec., under either schmuck, I bet. Paulsen was a crook and a shyster, and McCain goes along with flimflams as did Bush, as he did when he sat with Bush/Obama last Fall, and blessed all this resultant madness. He lost my vote that day, not that he ever woulda got it, but he lost all chance, and with one action. Nice work, McCain.

Ethics? Need I remind you of McCain and the Keating 5? McCain is no more ethical than Obama, and Chicago ward heelers got nothin' on McCain's buddies, make no mistake.

I'll see your one ACORN and raise you one La Raza.

McCain would not have gone on the World Apology Tour, I grant you. But frankly, that's not necessarily harmful in the long term, even if foolish and unhelpful. Other things override that bit of Messiah stupidity, far override it.

Sotomayor or equal gets in no matter who's president, so this isn't an issue, imo.

McCain will screech at a bureaucrat, IG or otherwise, in a heartbeat. He intimidated that SEC director, remember? What a moron. In the middle of a fiscal disaster, he stumbles into rantings. Obama was smart enough to keep his mouth shut, at least. McCain is a loose cannon.

Cutting missile defense? Maybe short term, but that won't hold. We'll be doing this, for all of the reasons discussed elsewhere, as you know. Obama is privy to all of the intelligence now. He knows the threat. Reasonable people may differ as to how we meet that threat, but invariably missile defense will be brought forth, with or without Obama. No difference here.

But speaking of defense buys, what about McCain screwing US manufacturers on that Air Force tanker deal? Many tails to that story, no doubt, and he may have had a point, but he ended up pushing an extremist position, and now Airbus is bringing their accident prone jets into our airfleet, and cashing in. Huh?

Nationalizing GM? Yeah, there is a small chance McCain wouldn't have done this, but he's always spoken nicely about AFSCME, or at least not gone to war with them. That's the real union threat to this country's future... not a couple hundred thousand UAW members (who shouldn't have been bought out, I agree).

John, I'm looking beyond the surface, and I see no functional difference between Obama and McCain. They would both be bankrupting my grandchildren right now, pursuing AGW madness, signing off on some health care boondoggle, and seeking a way to give citizenship for 15M illegal aliens to glom onto the welfare state, further bankrupting us. Those things matter more than all else. YMMV.

I'm not advocating kicking out everybody, John. It's not an either/or situation. There are reasonable solutions, but another classic Beltway "comprehensive" solution, is a non-starter, as "comprehensive" solutions are massively complex, bring on unintended consequences and cost massive $$$... always. Simple steps, simply executed, are the key to this issue and most others. McCain eschews this type of thinking, and goes Beltway, because he is a creature of government, just like Obama.

McCain intervened in the Keating 5 situation, just like Dodd and Frank have done recently in similar situations. They all get paid by the people they're helping. They are bought and paid for... all of these men.... and we can check the receipts on their purchasings... as well as their actions given in trade.

Yes, government caused the S&L scandal, and McCain was part of that government. He's also been part of the recent scandal, even if to a smaller degree than in the past. He's tainted.

I do not acknowledge McCain to be an "honorable" man, sorry. His military service was honorable, no doubt, but he's acted despicably in more than a couple instances since leaving the military. He deserves no more deference than any other Beltway Bandit.

And by the way, he originally rejected the Bush tax cuts, and played the class warfare "for the rich" card, just like Comrade Obama.

Nope, no dice on this guy.