April 2010

The LA Times Gets Scooped on Climate (Because It Wasn’t Looking for the Scoop)

by William Yeatman on April 21, 2010

in Blog

I’ve blogged before on the LA Times’s one sided coverage of AB 32, California’s first-in-the-nation climate change mitigation law. In a nutshell, the LA Times is a big cheerleader for the legislation, with a record of publishing favorable stories and ignoring negative ones.

Case in point: Today, the Times ran an opinion piece, “A Green Jobs Generator,” by two economists who claim that their economic analysis of AB 32 is being distorted by opponents of the legislation. The LA Times allowed them the space to set the record straight, and thus its editorial page again reassured readers that “doing something” about climate change will be easy because it will reduce energy costs and create “green jobs.”  Of course, this is baloney-in fact, “doing something” about climate change will make energy more expensive and thereby kill jobs-but the LA Times has an agenda to push, so why sweat the details.

Also today, E&E ClimateWire broke the news that Larry Goulder, the lead author of a recent AB 32 economic analysis commissioned by the state, is on the board of directors of a non-profit that has given money to a political campaign to defeat a ballot initiative that would suspend AB 32. So it’s not surprising that he concluded that AB 32 would create jobs. Naturally, the LA Times covered Goulder’s favorable economic analysis when it was released a few weeks ago. But it has yet to report on his association with a pro-AB 32 political organization. Perhaps it will tomorrow, but I doubt it.

Goulder told ClimateWire that nothing is amiss, but it sure seems like a conflict of interest to me. If an Exxon staffer punched up an economic report suggesting that AB 32 would harm California’s economy, environmentalists would throw a hissy-fit. And the LA Times, no doubt, would try to discredit the report as “industry funded.”

What’s the Cost if Congress “Fails” to Enact Cap-and-Trade?

by Marlo Lewis on April 20, 2010

in Blog

That is the question posed this week on National Journal’s energy experts’ blog. My answer, available  here, is that “failure” will have multiple benefits:

– The U.S. economy won’t be hit by virtual or outright energy taxes in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, improving prospects for a recovery.

– Congress will not declare political warfare on coal, continuing America’s access to abundant, affordable base-load power.

– Congress will not adopt carbon tariffs, avoiding an era of trade warfare between the United States and emerging industrial powerhouses such as China and India.

– The U.S. Government will lack a bully pulpit for pressuring poor countries to ban coal-based power, allowing them to escape from energy poverty.

The Spin Zone

by Ryan Lynch on April 20, 2010

in Blog, videos

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4BBKEyEiZc 285 234]

Chris Horner on His Book “Power Grab” & Obama’s Green Agenda

by Richard Morrison on April 19, 2010

in Blog, videos

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCmI6Wl0dcE 285 234]

Read Chris Horner’s New Book, “Power Grab”

by William Yeatman on April 19, 2010

in Features


Christopher C. Horner, author of Red Hot Lies, has a new book out from Regnery Publishing. Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America is an exposé of the Green Movement’s rise to political power and the frightening consequences of Obama’s Green-friendly energy mandates. Horner reveals who in Washington is driving this expansion of environmentalist policy and analyzes how new restrictions will harm economic recovery and development in America.

From the Front Flap:

If Obama and his “green” coalition get their way, we’re headed for blackouts, skyrocketing energy prices designed to bankrupt disfavored industries, and even greater government control of our economy.

Obama’s green jobs agenda masks a declaration of war against America’s most reliable sources of energy-coal, oil, and natural gas. He seeks to shut them down and convert America to green energy-mostly wind and solar-in an irresponsible experiment that will guarantee an energy crisis and drive America from recession to depression. The Obama administration, working in collusion with green groups allegedly protecting the environment, unions protecting their paychecks, and local elites protecting their ocean views, is putting the special interests ahead of your interests.

From Chapter One:

“Under Obama’s economic and energy plans, conventional energy is punished by government policy in order to force the adoption of new, Obama-favored technologies. These plans will force us into energy poverty, a return to government-inspired uncompetitiveness, and a surrender of individual and economic liberties.

Modern environmentalism in a nutshell sounds something like this: impose energy taxes that serve as a rationing scheme (the “cap”), along with mandates of what sort of energy people can use, and in what amount. Environmentalists seek to use the state to create scarcity in order to further impose their will over our lives.”

From the Back:

“Power Grab exposes the incestuous relationships between the Obama administration and the piles of taxpayer money it wants to pipeline to the Big Green juggernaut consisting of Big Business and Big Labor. Horner shows that the green agenda isn’t so much about a clean environment as it is about redistributing income from us to them.”

– Stephen Moore, member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board

“Chris Horner was right in his bestselling The Politically Incorrect Guise to Global Warming and Environmentalism. He was right in his book Red Hot Lies that exposed the cover-ups, lies, and intimidation of the global-warming alarmists. And he’s right again in his new book Power Grab, which exposes what the extremists are really after: power over you, your wallet, and even your right to self-government. Power Grab is essential reading for fighting back.

– Congresswoman Michele Bachmann

powergrabcomp

Cooler Heads Digest 16 April 2010

by William Yeatman on April 16, 2010

in Cooler Heads Digest

In the News

Krugman Wrong on Climate Economics
Jim Manzi, National Review Online, 16 April 2010

Krugman Wrong on Climate Science
Robert Murphy, MasterResource.org, 16 April 2010

Climate Change: Always Room for Doubt
Telegraph editorial, 15 April 2010

AB 32 Is a Losing Bet
Margo Thorning, San Jose Mercury News, 14 April 2010

What It Takes To Be a Coal Miner
Iain Murray, In Character, 13 April 2010

Lyin’ for Climate Indoctrination
Paul Chesser, American Spectator, 13 April 2010

EPA Is Choking Freedom
Mark Landsbaum, Orange County Register, 9 April 2010

News You Can Use
Peer Review?

A new report from NoConsensus.org calculates that 21 of 44 chapters in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Nobel-Prize winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cite peer-reviewed sources less than 60% of the time

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Cap-and-Tax Update

It was first reported this week that Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Lieberman (I- Conn.) planned to release a draft of their energy-rationing bill next Tuesday. But today Environment and Energy Daily reports (subscription required) that they will now release it on 26th April.  Why?  Here’s what Darren Samuelsohn reports: “The trio originally hoped to unveil their proposal during the week surrounding the 40th anniversary of Earth Day next Thursday. But Kerry said that was not the message he wanted to get across. ‘This is not Earth Day-related,’ he said. ‘This is a jobs bill. This is an energy independence, national security bill. It’s not wrapped to one week or another.’

I’m not creative enough to make stuff like this up.  What’s more, the Terrific Trio are not going to introduce their draft as a bill and have it referred to a committee.  Instead, they’re going to hand it over to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to see if he can come up with the sixty votes needed to pass some version of it on the Senate floor.

Obama on Graham’s Gas Tax

The Hill reported that the White House claims that the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill does not contain an increase in the gas tax and that it is not being discussed.  That doesn’t quite close the door, however, since Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are calling the gas tax in their bill a “linked fee.”  Apparently, neither the White House nor the three Senators consider it a gas tax.  But it seems highly unlikely that they can’t get away with it even if they call it a linked fee.  Gas prices have gone up by more than a dollar a gallon since Barack Obama was sworn in as President. His administration is pulling the plug on plans put together by the Bush Administration in 2008 to increase oil and gas production in federal offshore waters and on federal lands.  If gas prices continue to climb, this could be a potent campaign issue in the fall.

Obama Meets with Enviros

President Obama is continuing to push for a comprehensive energy-rationing bill. This week, the White House held a meeting with heads of a number environmental pressure groups in order to urge them to get behind Kerry-Graham-Lieberman.  Some of the environmental pressure groups that aren’t fronts for big business are not going to go along no matter how much Obama pleads.  That’s because they see that Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Graham-Lieberman have very little to do with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  They are mostly about transferring vast amounts of wealth from consumers to politically-favored big businesses.

Senate Democrats Push a Trade War

Eight Democratic Senators from States that still have some manufacturing wrote a letter to Sens. Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman, stating that a condition of their supporting energy-rationing legislation such as Kerry-Graham-Lieberman is that it include carbon tariffs or something equivalent to protect domestic manufacturers from foreign competitors that can use less expensive energy from fossil fuels to produce their goods.

Climategate Update

Myron Ebell

The University of East Anglia “international panel” released its report on the ClimateGate scientific fraud scandal today.  At eight pages, it’s not even a thorough whitewash.  They don’t even make a minimal effort to rebut the obvious appearance of widespread data manipulation, suppression of dissenting research through improper means, and intentional avoidance of complying with Freedom of Information requests.  However, the report makes one concession, which is quite damning: “We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.”  In fact, the handling of the historical temperature data and production of the Hadley/CRU temperature record by Jones et al. and the handling of the paleoclimatological data and fabrication of the hockey stick by Michael Mann et al. was only possible because they hid their data and methods from professional statisticians.  When professional statisticians were able to look at Mann’s methods and data, the result was the Wegman report, which was devastating.

Across the States

Connecticut

The Connecticut General Assembly’s Energy and Technology Committee has passed R.B. 463, which would lower the State’s renewable portfolio standard (a requirement for minimum electricity generation from renewable energy) from 20% by 2020 to 11.5% by 2020. Proponents of the bill argue that renewable energy is too expensive.

California

Los Angeles is teetering on bankruptcy because no one wants to pay for expensive renewable energy, according to the Wall Street Journal. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa proposed electricity rate hikes of 9% to 28% to finance LA’s renewable energy agenda, but the City Council refused. As a result, the Department of Water and Power, which needs the rate hikes to buy expensive renewable energy, withheld $74 million of the $221 million surplus revenue it was expected to transfer to the city. But without the $74 million, city controller Wendy Greuel warns that LA won’t be able to pay its bills within a month.

Washington

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire (D) boasts of having created more than 99,000 “green jobs,” but a new study from the Washington Policy Center puts the lie to the Governor’s claim. In fact, there was little or no difference in the work done by green employees and the non-green employees for 71,000 of the reported green jobs. So taxpayers are paying around $2,400 per trainee to acquire green job skills no different than skills needed for existing non-green jobs.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary check out the Coalition’s website, www.globalwarming.org.

Cooler Heads Digest 16 April 2010

by William Yeatman on April 16, 2010

in Blog

In the News

Krugman Wrong on Climate Economics
Jim Manzi, National Review Online, 16 April 2010

Krugman Wrong on Climate Science
Robert Murphy, MasterResource.org, 16 April 2010

Climate Change: Always Room for Doubt
Telegraph editorial, 15 April 2010

AB 32 Is a Losing Bet
Margo Thorning, San Jose Mercury News, 14 April 2010

What It Takes To Be a Coal Miner
Iain Murray, In Character, 13 April 2010

Lyin’ for Climate Indoctrination
Paul Chesser, American Spectator, 13 April 2010

EPA Is Choking Freedom
Mark Landsbaum, Orange County Register, 9 April 2010

News You Can Use

Peer Review?

A new report from NoConsensus.org calculates that 21 of 44 chapters in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Nobel-Prize winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cite peer-reviewed sources less than 60% of the time

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Cap-and-Tax Update

It was first reported this week that Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Lieberman (I- Conn.) planned to release a draft of their energy-rationing bill next Tuesday. But today Environment and Energy Daily reports (subscription required) that they will now release it on 26th April.  Why?  Here’s what Darren Samuelsohn reports: “The trio originally hoped to unveil their proposal during the week surrounding the 40th anniversary of Earth Day next Thursday. But Kerry said that was not the message he wanted to get across. ‘This is not Earth Day-related,’ he said. ‘This is a jobs bill. This is an energy independence, national security bill. It’s not wrapped to one week or another.’

I’m not creative enough to make stuff like this up.  What’s more, the Terrific Trio are not going to introduce their draft as a bill and have it referred to a committee.  Instead, they’re going to hand it over to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to see if he can come up with the sixty votes needed to pass some version of it on the Senate floor.

Obama on Graham’s Gas Tax

The Hill reported that the White House claims that the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill does not contain an increase in the gas tax and that it is not being discussed.  That doesn’t quite close the door, however, since Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are calling the gas tax in their bill a “linked fee.”  Apparently, neither the White House nor the three Senators consider it a gas tax.  But it seems highly unlikely that they can’t get away with it even if they call it a linked fee.  Gas prices have gone up by more than a dollar a gallon since Barack Obama was sworn in as President. His administration is pulling the plug on plans put together by the Bush Administration in 2008 to increase oil and gas production in federal offshore waters and on federal lands.  If gas prices continue to climb, this could be a potent campaign issue in the fall.

Obama Meets with Enviros

President Obama is continuing to push for a comprehensive energy-rationing bill. This week, the White House held a meeting with heads of a number environmental pressure groups in order to urge them to get behind Kerry-Graham-Lieberman.  Some of the environmental pressure groups that aren’t fronts for big business are not going to go along no matter how much Obama pleads.  That’s because they see that Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Graham-Lieberman have very little to do with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  They are mostly about transferring vast amounts of wealth from consumers to politically-favored big businesses.

Senate Democrats Push a Trade War

Eight Democratic Senators from States that still have some manufacturing wrote a letter to Sens. Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman, stating that a condition of their supporting energy-rationing legislation such as Kerry-Graham-Lieberman is that it include carbon tariffs or something equivalent to protect domestic manufacturers from foreign competitors that can use less expensive energy from fossil fuels to produce their goods.

Climategate Update

Myron Ebell

The University of East Anglia “international panel” released its report on the ClimateGate scientific fraud scandal today.  At eight pages, it’s not even a thorough whitewash.  They don’t even make a minimal effort to rebut the obvious appearance of widespread data manipulation, suppression of dissenting research through improper means, and intentional avoidance of complying with Freedom of Information requests.  However, the report makes one concession, which is quite damning: “We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.”  In fact, the handling of the historical temperature data and production of the Hadley/CRU temperature record by Jones et al. and the handling of the paleoclimatological data and fabrication of the hockey stick by Michael Mann et al. was only possible because they hid their data and methods from professional statisticians.  When professional statisticians were able to look at Mann’s methods and data, the result was the Wegman report, which was devastating.

Across the States

Connecticut

The Connecticut General Assembly’s Energy and Technology Committee has passed R.B. 463, which would lower the State’s renewable portfolio standard (a requirement for minimum electricity generation from renewable energy) from 20% by 2020 to 11.5% by 2020. Proponents of the bill argue that renewable energy is too expensive.

California

Los Angeles is teetering on bankruptcy because no one wants to pay for expensive renewable energy, according to the Wall Street Journal. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa proposed electricity rate hikes of 9% to 28% to finance LA’s renewable energy agenda, but the City Council refused. As a result, the Department of Water and Power, which needs the rate hikes to buy expensive renewable energy, withheld $74 million of the $221 million surplus revenue it was expected to transfer to the city. But without the $74 million, city controller Wendy Greuel warns that LA won’t be able to pay its bills within a month.

Washington

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire (D) boasts of having created more than 99,000 “green jobs,” but a new study from the Washington Policy Center puts the lie to the Governor’s claim. In fact, there was little or no difference in the work done by green employees and the non-green employees for 71,000 of the reported green jobs. So taxpayers are paying around $2,400 per trainee to acquire green job skills no different than skills needed for existing non-green jobs.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary check out the Coalition’s website, www.globalwarming.org.

My Commentary on James Hansen’s Huffington Post Column

by Marlo Lewis on April 15, 2010

in Blog

Is tax-and-dividend (aka “carbon fee and green check”) a morally compelling alternative to cap-and-trade?

Is it the path to presidential greatness?

Will it be good for the economy?

Will China adopt it if we do?

Yes to all of the above, climatologist James Hansen argues in the Huffington Post.

No, says your humble servant, today on MasterResource.Org.

ClimateGate: the Official Whitewash Continues

by Myron Ebell on April 14, 2010

in Politics, Science

The University of East Anglia’s carefully selected “International Panel” released their report on the ClimateGate scientific fraud scandal today.  At eight pages, it’s not even a thorough whitewash.  They don’t even make a minimal effort to rebut the obvious appearance of widespread data manipulation, suppression of dissenting research through improper means, and intentional avoidance of complying with Freedom of Information requests.  It appears that they concluded that the only way they could produce a whitewash and protect the interests of the establishment was by making only the most superficial investigation.  Perhaps they realized that doing more than taking the representations of Phil Jones and the others on trust would involve them in the moral difficulty of having to choose between being honest and maintaining their exoneration.

The seven panel members only looked at eleven published articles from CRU selected on the advice of the Royal Society.  And all eight panel members didn’t read all eleven papers.  Instead, “Every paper was read by a minimum of three Panel members at least one of whom was familiar with the general area to which the paper related.  At least one of the other two was a generalist with no special climate science expertise but with experience of some of the general techniques and methods employed in the work.”  Perhaps the third reader was a chimpanzee.  Yes, they have done a thorough and professional whitewash.

However, the report makes one concession, which is quite damning: “We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.”  In fact, the handling of the historical temperature data and production of the Hadley/CRU temperature record by Jones et al. and the handling of the paleoclimatological data and fabrication of the hockey stick by Michael Mann et al. was only possible because they hid their data and methods from professional statisticians.  When professional statisticians were able to look at Mann’s methods and data, the result was the Wegman report, which was devastating.

Cooler Heads Digest 9 April 2010

by William Yeatman on April 9, 2010

in Cooler Heads Digest

In the News

The Looming “Energy Bill” Fight
Chris Horner, Planet Gore, 9 April 2010

The EPA’s Giant Power Grab
Iain Murray, Washington Times, 8 April 2010

God Bless the People of Coal Country
Iain Murray, Investor’s Business Daily, 8 April 2010

EPA’s Adventure in Arithmetic
Donald Hertzmark, MasterResource.org, 8 April 2010

What’s the Next Global Warming?
Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, 6 April 2010

Ethanol Subsidies Drive up Fuel and Food Prices
Washington Times editorial, 5 April 2010

A Super Storm for Global Warming Research
Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf, & Gerald Traufetter, Der Spiegel, 5 April 2010

Cold Weather as Deadly for Birds as It Is for Humans
Robin Mckie, Observer, 4 April 2010

The Deadly Price of the Auto Mileage Mandate
William Yeatman & Sam Kazman, AOL News, 3 April 2010

News You Can Use

USA Today Poll: Environment Ranks Last among Concerns

A new USA Today/Gallup poll ranks the environment at the bottom of seven topics pollsters asked voters about to gauge their priorities. The economy ranked first.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Major Economies Meeting

The Obama Administration will host a meeting of the Major Economies Forum (MEF) in Washington on April 18 and 19 to continue their ongoing climate discussions.  The seventeen nations that belong to the MEF account for over 80% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.  The group hasn’t met since COP-15 in Copenhagen in December.

The MEF was originally called the Major Emitters Meeting when it was created by President George W. Bush.  I suppose the Obama Administration renamed it so as to demonstrate that they were pursuing a new course.  But in fact the two are remarkably alike.  This is not the only instance where the Obama Administration seems to be following the path on international climate negotiations laid out by the Bush Administration.  Most notably, the Copenhagen Accord that President Obama personally brokered in December is modeled on what the Bush Administration took to COP-13 in Bali in 2007.  That plan was attacked as too little too late by the delegates in Bali, which caused Bush’s negotiators to give a lot of ground and agree to the Bali Action Plan.  That plan was supposed to culminate at COP-15 with a new international treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol that contained binding targets and timetables.  Instead, Obama retreated to the U. S.’s pre-Bali position.  The establishment media have largely reported that the Copenhagen Accord is at least one small step forward and have praised President Obama for achieving this breakthrough.  That’s not how they reported it two years ago.

EPA Moves To Shut Down Coal Mining in Appalachia

The Obama Administration has not yet stopped all proposed new coal-fired power plants from being permitted, but they have taken a giant step toward stopping all new coal mines in Appalachia. The Environmental Protection Agency last week set new water quality standards for streams in central Appalachia.

The new “guidance” document takes effect immediately and sets limits on the conductivity of water.  How well water carries an electrical charge depends on levels of salt, sulfides, and several other substances. New mining projects will be prohibited if they will cause the levels of these substances in streams to exceed five times the “normal” level.  Some watersheds are already more than five times above what are alleged to be normal levels.

According to a story in Greenwire, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that there are “no or very few valley fills that are going to meet this standard.”  This means that no or very few surface mining projects in Appalachia will be permitted by EPA.  That would be a huge economic blow to West Virginia, Kentucky, and parts of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, and Tennessee.  But that isn’t all.  Jackson added that the EPA could apply the new standards to block permits for new underground mines as well.  And it seems to me that there would be no reason to stop there.  Any new development that involves significant earth moving could release enough minerals into the water to exceed the standard.

The EPA today announced a comment period on the new standards.  Comments will be accepted until December 10, but the rule goes into effect immediately and will be used to stop all mining projects currently in the permitting process and could be used to cancel Clean Water Act permits that EPA has already issued. The EPA took the unprecedented step last week of ordering the Army Corps of Engineers to cancel a permit for a mine in West Virginia that is already in operation.

CBO Report on Climate Change Spending

The Congressional Budget Office released a study this week of federal funding of climate programs.  From 1998 to 2009, the federal government spent $99 billion.  The stimulus bill-the American Recovery and Re-investment Act of 2009-accounted for $35.7 billion of that.  It seems to me that one of the principal purposes of spending all these billions is to create a scientific-bureaucratic complex to promote the alarmist agenda and thereby secure more funding for itself.

Around the World

U.S. to South Africa: Stay Poor

The United States joined the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Italy in abstaining from a World Bank vote to grant South Africa a $3.5 billion loan to build a 4,500 megawatt coal fired power plant north of Johannesburg. For years, the South African economy has been crippled by blackouts due to a lack of investment in electricity generation, and coal is the cheapest power available, but these countries (the U.S. et. al) objected to the deal’s carbon footprint. Despite the abstentions, the Bank approved the loan, although the victory might prove Pyrrhic for developing nations. In a statement, the U.S. Treasury Department said that, “We expect that the World Bank will not bring forward similar coal projects.” This statement, coming from the Bank’s largest shareholder, suggests the end of cheap financing for cheap electricity in poor countries.

France Pursues Carbon Tariff

French Foreign Minister Jean-Louise Borloo this week told the French Parliament that he would achieve an international regime for carbon tariffs by dealing directly with U.S. President Barack Obama, thereby circumventing the European Commission, which has expressed opposition to the idea. It remains to be seen if Obama will oblige. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, the climate bill passed by the House of Representatives last June, gives the President the authority to impose taxes on the carbon content of imports.

Across the States

Florida

According to the Miami Herald, the Florida House Of Representatives Energy and Utilities Policy Committee will hold a hearing on a proposed bill that would remove a 2008 legislative finding that greenhouse gas emissions promote global warming and another provision to push utility companies to use renewable energy.

Missouri

The Missouri House of Representatives gave final approval Thursday to a HJR 88, a proposed constitutional amendment that would assert the state’s sovereignty over all powers not enumerated and delegated to the federal government. HJR 88 would nullify the Congress’s power to impose a cap-and-trade.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary check out the Coalition’s website, www.globalwarming.org.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →