Tag Archives: Cap and Trade

Commentary

How the Democrat push to pass cap-and-trade costs jobs

11 Comments

Consider the words of this CEO from an IBD editorial.

Excerpt:

T.J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, isn’t surprised. In an interview Thursday with Neil Cavuto on Fox News, Rodgers saw the move as part of a brewing corporate revolt against an overbearing government sucking the economic oxygen out of the room, tilting at windmills, imposing burdens such as the health care overhaul and environmental regulations but not providing the incentives or certainty that companies need to plan and survive.

“When we continue to put money into bad things, take money out of the productive sector, take money away from me to invest, take money away from families to spend on what they think is right, and dump it into these foolish government projects and blather about green jobs,” Rodgers said, “you know eventually the overall economy is going to get less competitive and some sort of recession or some sort of problem is going to set in.”

As a result, Rodgers continued, “I am not spending any money, I am not opening any plants and I am not hiring anybody, and corporate America is doing the same thing.”

And it’s not just CEOs who are affected by energy taxes:

According to the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, under cap-and-tax legislation, gas prices at the pump would increase 58%. Residential electricity costs would “necessarily skyrocket” by 90%. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. Net job losses (after “green” job creation) would be nearly 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing would lose 1.4 million jobs in 2035.

If only Democrats could be affected by the laws that Democrats pass, while Republicans can be affected by the laws that Republicans pass. Let the Democrats live in bankrupt states like California and the Republicans can live in booming states like Texas. There are two different cultures – one that doesn’t understand economics, and one that does.

News

MUST-READ: How reliable are the “independent” reviews of Climategate?

1 Comment

From the Wall Street Journal. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world’s leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called “a nice, tidy story” of climate history. The scandal became known as Climategate.

Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, “nothing to see here.” Last week “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review,” commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia.

[…]One of the panel’s four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton’s school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia “adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity.”

Let’s assess the reliability of the “independent” reviews.

The Russell report states that “On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that the CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data.” Really? Here’s what CRU director Jones wrote to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in February 2005: “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]”

Then there’s the problem of interference with peer review in the scientific literature. Here too Mr. Russell could find no wrong: “On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process, we find no evidence to substantiate this.”

Really? Mr. Mann claims that temperatures roughly 800 years ago, in what has been referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, were not as warm as those measured recently. This is important because if modern temperatures are not unusual, it casts doubt on the fear that global warming is a serious threat. In 2003, Willie Soon of the Smithsonian Institution and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard published a paper in the journal Climate Research that took exception to Mr. Mann’s work, work which also was at variance with a large number of independent studies of paleoclimate. So it would seem the Soon-Baliunas paper was just part of the normal to-and-fro of science.

But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that “I’ll be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: “I think we should stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”

Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that “I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute.”

There’s billions of dollars of funding at stake in global warming alarmism – your money and mine. They’re not going to just give that up.

Read the whole thing. And thanks to ECM for finding it.

Related stories

Videos

Why does Obama think that cap and trade laws will stop the Gulf spill?

4 Comments

Mike Pence vs Frank Pallone re: Obama’s horrible speech from earlier this week.

Topics:

  • Obama refused to talk about the spill in his speech
  • Obama wants to call in experts to “kick asses” instead of solve the problem
  • Obama won’t ask other private companies (oil experts) to help stop the spill
  • Obama promises to cap 90% of the spill without explaining how he would do it
  • Obama thinks that cap and trade legislation will help to stop the spill
  • Obama thinks that pushing renewable energy laws will help stop the spill

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey writes:

This speech was suited for Day 1 of a catastrophe, not Day 57.  It had no answers at all.  None.  It’s as if Rip van Obama awoke after eight weeks of slumber and had been told just that morning about a massive problem in the Gulf of Mexico.  For a man who has repeatedly claimed to be “fully engaged since Day 1,” and who repeated that claim last night, Obama gave every impression of still being in the spitballing stage of crisis management.

Obama didn’t even offer an original thought for spitballing.  In his short presidency, Obama has had two responses to any issue: appoint a czar or create a commission.  The auto industry got a czar, for instance, and the deficit that Obama’s spending has driven out of sight got a commission.  Last night, Obama wanted people to know he was taking this seriously by appointing a czar and a commission, the latter of which had been announced weeks ago.  That was the sum total of his substantive response last night.  Small wonder Obama chose an Oval Office speech rather than face another press conference.

Just keep in mind that even the radical, radical nutcases at MSNBC hated Obama’s speech. (H/T The Anchoress)

Excerpt:

Olbermann: “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”

Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

Olbermann: “Nothing specific at all was said.”

Matthews: “No direction.”

Howard Fineman: “He wasn’t specific enough.”

Olbermann: “I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling.”

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a “commander-in-chief.”

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. “I’ll barf if he does it one more time.”

Matthews: “A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk.”

Matthews: “I don’t sense executive command.”

Obama’s only tool is a hammer (socialism) so it seems like every problem is a nail. The solution is always to raise taxes on the productive and then spend the money buying votes from the unproductive.