Tag Archive | greenhouse gas

Climate Change: Senator Barbara Boxer, Senate EPWC Approve Bill

Despite a GOP boycott, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chairwoman of the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee and other Democrats on the committee approved a climate change bill that would require cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent over the next decade from 2005 levels [Article – Senate Panel Approves Climate Change Bill Despite GOP Boycott].

In typical overreaching fashion, leftist politicians are attempting to force unpopular economy-killing legislation through. However, there is a silver lining: The bill has passed committee, but it now goes to the Senate floor, where it is expected to die an ignominious death.

This goes along with a previously submitted ACW post, touching on how leftist politicians tirelessly and tenaciously try to further their destructive interests [Reference – German Chancellor Merkel And The Climate Change “Wall”].

To be sure, the battle to force through legislation based on junk science will continue. Without unwavering, steadfast opposition to leftist environmental lunacy, it is a guarantee that climate change legislation will be passed and the suffering of the American people will last for decades.


German Chancellor Merkel And The Climate Change “Wall”

Yesterday marked the 20th anniversary of  the pulling down of the wall separating East and West Berlin in Germany. For the first time, a German head of state spoke before U.S. Congress. German Chancellor Angela Merkel addressed members of U.S. Congress and one of the subjects Merkel spoke about was the need for a global deal on climate change [Article – Merkel meets with Obama, then talks to Congress]. Perhaps a symbolic appeal by Merkel to tear down the climate change “wall” [Article – The European Experience with Cap and Trade]?

With support for cap and trade legislation on the decline, President Obama vows that the United States will play a prominent role in decreasing global greenhouse gas emissions. Obama’s answer to the climate change question is cap and trade legislation.

The Waxman-Markey bill or rather, Taxman-Malarkey bill (H.R. 2998 – American Clean Energy And Security Act Of 2009) is currently in limbo, since health care reform legislation has taken center stage. Beltway politicians have certainly been working behind the scenes on slipping cap and trade legislation through, with very little public scrutiny…so they hope.

If the United States agrees to comply with some sort of global climate change contract in Copenhagen, Denmark, this will surely embolden leftist environut anti-capitalists in America to get climate change-related cap and trade legislation enacted.

If such a bill goes through, it will destroy the American economy, no ands, ifs or buts about it. We think unemployment is bad now, wait and see how high it will be if cap and trade becomes law. In addition, we and future generations of Americans will pay dearly for the taxes, fees and other costs climate change legislation will incur [Article – Leading Climate Scientist: Cap and Trade Could Ruin US Economy | Reference – Treasury Department – Climate Change Bill Could Cost American Families $1,761 A Year]. Read More…

Waxman-Markey Cap And Trade: No Benefits…At Least Not For The Average American

How will the average American citizen benefit from the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 or the Waxman-Markey bill? Let’s get consumer opinions:

“Based on this sampling of letters to editors from across the country, H.R. 2454 clearly does not enjoy overwhelming support from informed American consumers who know best what this legislation’s negative impacts will be on their jobs and daily lives.”

Charles T. Drevna
President, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA)
July 6, 2009

From a Reader in Paradis, La.

If this bill becomes law, every American will see a substantial increase in his or her cost of living. That should rate front page news!” (Letter to the Editor, “Climate bill will cost us big,” The Times-Picayune [New Orleans], July 6, 2009)

From a Reader in Coshocton, Ohio

“Under the guise of lowering carbon emissions our government has further harmed our chances of economic recovery. The bill is largely a shell game that raises taxes by $646 billion dollars on coal, oil and natural gas. This tax increase on American businesses will cause massive job cuts and will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers by raising home energy bills substantially.” (Letter to the Editor, “Space let us down with yes vote,” Coshocton Tribune, July 2, 2009 [emphasis added])

From a Reader in Cumberland, Md.

“The House of Representatives narrowly passed the Cap and Trade bill — ‘Cap and Tax’ seems more appropriate — on June 26. All day people were bombarding phone lines so much that the switchboards overloaded. If this bill passes the Senate and gets signed into law it will mean higher cost on every household.” (Letter to the Editor, “What House passed should be called ‘Cap and Tax’ bill instead,” Cumberland Times-News, July 2, 2009 [emphasis added])

From a Reader in Roanoke, Va.

“Those of you who wanted change will have it in a big way if the Senate passes the House version of the cap and trade legislation. While we sit on some of the world’s largest oil, natural gas, coal and oil shale reserve, the cost of our energy for everything from gas, electricity and heating oil to bus and airline travel, etc., will go up. All of the extra cost associated with this tax will be passed on to consumers. … I encourage everyone to find out about this legislation, then call your senators and tell them how you feel.” (Letter to the Editor, “Cap and trade will cost consumers dearly,” The Roanoke Times, July 1, 2009 [emphasis added]) Read More…

EPA Administrator Admits U.S. Action Alone Will Not Lessen World CO2 Levels

Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), admitted before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in response to an EPA chart showing no effect on climate without China and India: “I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”

It would appear that there is a divide amongst those in the Obama camp regarding the information presented in the EPA chart. U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu disagrees with Ms. Jackson stating, “No, I don’t’ agree with that [EPA] chart.” [Press Release – Jackson Confirms EPA Chart Showing No Effect on Climate Without China, India]

This brings to light a past event pointing to the EPA’s involvement in a possible cover-up and suppression of dissenting information on global climate change and greenhouse gas emissions regulation, as a previous ACW post called to attention:

Environmental Protection Agency Report Suppression Before U.S. House Waxman-Markey Passage Arouses Suspicion

Why is there disagreement between Administrator Jackson and Secretary Chu? What could the motivation be to suppress potentially damaging information from coming to light? Another previous ACW post might have the answer:

Letter To Senator Barrasso

China and India refused to sign a climate change accord at the G8 summit in Italy recently. Russia responded to the accord tepidly, even though a Russian representative signed it. Why the lack of enthusiasm on the part of those countries toward a climate change agreement? They made it clear that they would not go along with any climate change agreement if it meant the harm and/or destruction of each of their country’s economies [Post – China And India Say “No” To Reducing CO2 Emissions…Russia Signs G8 Accord But Makes No Promises]. Yet President Obama and the leftist environuts that he is beholden to signed the climate change agreement.

I contend that the reason leftist eco-Marxist politicians want global climate change legislation passed is the same reason that was brought up before a committee with Administrator Jackson of the EPA: Political expediency and power. What will it mean for the United States if a cap and trade bill is signed into law? Ask the countries who know: China, India and Russia.

Letter To U.S. Senators—Vote “NO” On Cap And Trade

Here is a copy of an E-mail I sent to both Senators Barrasso and Enzi, my state’s U.S. Senators. Remember ladies and gentlemen, contact your state’s senators and urge them to vote “NO” on cap and trade. Enjoy:

Dear Senator (Barrasso/Enzi):

I would respectfully urge you to vote against any cap and trade, global climate change, or greenhouse gas emissions regulation legislation that comes through the U.S. Senate. I am hoping that you can persuade your colleagues to also vote against the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 or the Waxman-Markey bill.

(Paragraph included for Senator Barrasso) Senator, as you pointed out before to the Administrator of the EPA, regulating greenhouse gas emissions, namely carbon emissions, will spell disaster for the U.S. economy and the American people. It is evident that your words fell upon deaf ears.

If it is signed into law by President Obama, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 will place unreasonable demands on American citizens to effect costly changes to their homes in order to make them more “green”.

Every American will be unable to even sell an existing home without conforming to “green” laws that will be enacted after cap and trade legislation is signed into law.

Under cap and trade, new homes must conform to “green” standards, placing expensive burdens on home buyers and construction contractors. Under cap and trade, energy prices will go up considerably. By his own admission, President Obama has said that energy prices will necessarily go up as a result of energy companies having to conform to cap and trade laws.

Senator, I could offer additional information on Waxman-Markey, but I’m sure you already are looking into the content of the legislation and have found or will find even more shocking socio-economic ramifications contained therein.

Thank you Senator (Barrasso/Enzi) for taking the time to read this communication. I applaud your work and everything you do for the people of Wyoming and of the United States of America.


Name and Location Withheld for Security Purposes

China And India Say “No” To Reducing CO2 Emissions…Russia Signs G8 Accord But Makes No Promises

At the G8 summit in L’Aquila, Italy, all did not turn out as hoped for by world leftist eco-Marxists. The G8 summit events were reported in an article from the UK’s Telegraph.co.uk:

“The refusal of developing nations to sign up to a climate change deal overshadowed an agreement between rich nations to limit the rise in global average temperatures.

G8 leaders meeting in L’Aquila, Italy, agreed for the first time to work to prevent global temperatures rising by more than two degrees Celsius.

The summit also agreed that developed economies should aim to cut their carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. The agreement will force G8 economies to make significant changes in the way they operate to meeting that target.

Gordon Brown hailed the G8 statement on climate change as ‘historic’ and a precursor to global climate change talks in Copenhagen in December.

‘We have laid the foundations for a Copenhagen deal that is effective,’ he said.

But the deal was marred by the failure of fast-growing Asian nations to sign up. The G8 had wanted them to agree to cut their carbon output by 50 per cent in the same time.

However, the 50 per cent carbon targets faced resistance from India and China, which argued that the targets would hamper their economic growth.

‘For any long-term goals there have to be credible midterm goals in the range of 25-40 per cent,’ said Dinesh Patnaik, an Indian climate policy negotiator.

And the proposal received a further blow when, within hours of his boss, Dmitry Medvedev, apparently signing the deal, the Russian President’s top economic aide said found the emissions target set for developed countries ‘unacceptable and likely unattainable’.

‘We won’t sacrifice economic growth for the sake of emission reduction,’Arkady Dvorkovich said.

Greenpeace accused G8 leaders of ‘watering down climate ambitions’ while other green groups complained there were no earlier targets for cutting emissions by 2020.

The G8 leaders will formally debate climate change on Thursday with the leaders of China, India, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil, the so-called ‘plus five’ economies.

As well as resisting the 50 per cent target, those countries have not yet signed up to the two degree Celsius limit on global warming. Read More…

Environmental Protection Agency Report Suppression Before U.S. House Waxman-Markey Passage Arouses Suspicion

The Environmental Protection Agency’s suppression of a report that was not supportive of the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in relation to global climate change has raised many eyebrows and many questions [Post – Coincidence OR Cover-Up? Environmental Protection Agency Prevented Scientific Report Against CO2 Regulation From Surfacing].

The Obama Administration, state-run media, leftist politicians and environmental eco-Marxists are doing what they do best to those who oppose them: Spreading smears and lies about Alan Carlin, the author of the report, “GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE CONTROL: IS THERE A BETTER STRATEGY THAN REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS?” and making every effort to discredit the man saying the he is only an “economist” [Article – The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic]. Never mind that global climate change advocates, including “Captain Planet” Al Gore, do not have a science background or a science degree and some those advocates are, yes indeed, economists. What makes their opinions and reporting on global climate change and greenhouse gas regulation more credible than Mr. Carlin’s?

Since the EPA’s administrator reports to President Obama and regularly communicates members of U.S. Congress, the report suppression arouses suspici0n. Who else knew about the report and why was it suppressed? What was the motivation behind such a suppression of information that could have changed some congressmen’s and congresswomen’s views of H.R. 2998 or “Waxman-Markey” and could have impacted their votes on the legislation? This is an issue that deserves further investigation [Press Release – Barrasso, Inohofe Question EPA Commitment to Transparency | Article – EPA Substitutes Ideology In Place of Scientific Integrity].

%d bloggers like this: