Today’s announcement by President Bush on strategies to limit global warming has yet to come, but unless he is ready to unveil a new and miraculous source of energy that produces no carbon dioxide, one can only assume that he will simply be adding his voice to the many other lemmings who are calling for a mass migration to the nearest cliff from which we can all jump. The fact is that there is simply nothing we can do — short of shutting down the global economy — that will substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Julie Walsh
So, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) weighed in among the rest in today’s news with his take on President Bush’s strange foray back into the hyper-politicized “global warming” debate, with an even stranger comment.
It seems that Congress – the legislature, mind you – really can’t act on legislation addressing this issue that they really want to act on…really…until the Executive sends them legislation.
Of course, this is how the European Constitu…wait, not allowed to say that…European rules of operation work. The executive, or Commission, proposes legislation to the European Parliament, which of course isn’t allowed to draft such things. They just approve them (and if they disapprove of them, in now-classic EU fashion as the Irish and Danes can tell you better than most, they keep voting until they get the answer right).
As you ponder this newest European export to the US, on top of those steel jobs piling up in Kentucky and now Alabama, I’m going to ask you all to roll up your sleeves and drill down into the depths of the Constitution. Say, Article I, and, uh, Section 1:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
[youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUmsw1lwcY0 285 234]
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY2wm7sEVkQ 285 234]
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNe2YGbBVj0 285 234]
After being a stalwart opponent of the nonsensical anti-science buttressing the “global warming” industry throughout his tenure, President Bush today is scheduled to announce a multi-part program to combat the man-made climate change that mostly exists in the fevered brows of the Left here, in Hollywood and in Europe.
Al Gore received an honorary doctorate from the Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne Tuesday but, like the greenhouse gases he is famous for combating, he was invisible to the media. Reporters were shut out of the ceremony where the Nobel Peace Prize winner accepted his degree, which honors the former US vice-president’s efforts to publicize the climate change issue. A select few journalists were invited to attend the affair on the condition they did not report on what was said and did not film the event or take photographs – an edict that went down like a lead balloon with local news organizations.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released the national greenhouse gas inventory, which finds that overall emissions during 2006 decreased by 1.1 percent from the previous year. The report, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006, is the latest in an annual set of reports that the United States submits to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate change.
It appears that there has been some positive movement in the President's position:
One person briefed on White House deliberations said a cap-and-trade program for electric utilities was dropped from the package yesterday, after the White House was flooded with complaints from industry officials and lobbyists.
"It got pulled out. It happened somewhere between this morning and five o'clock," said the person, who said the Bush announcement still marks a significant departure from its policy for the last seven years.
It would still be better if he concentrated on what's wrong with the civil litigation under the environmental acts and did not announce any target, particularly a mandatory one, but this is good news, and all those who took their time to express their concern to the White House (yes, all you "industry officials and lobbyists*" [ha!] out there) should be thanked.
* Under most cap and trade schemes, industry would benefit at the consumer's expenses, which explains why so many industries are now lobbying for one. This is peculiar wording, to say the least.
Posted on National Review Online
Ramesh,
I fear this is likely to be another Harriet Miers/immigration fiasco. We are hearing some very bad things from reputable sources. One who certainly cannot be dismissed commented that "the last line of defense has been breached" and that "it will be very bad." No matter how they spin it, any mention of mandatory emissions limits amounts to an invitation to a cap and trade regime at the very least. Once you've conceded that, then you have an open invitation not to something weaker, but to something stronger than Lieberman-Warner.
And it's just crazy to propose something that will raise energy prices when we stand on the brink of a recession! There are food riots all over the world caused partly by the biofuels idiocy (something else the President endorsed in the hopes of winning plaudits that never came from the left) and partly by high energy prices. This can only make that situation worse, and possibly lead to genuine hunger problems in America (as opposed to the "food insecurity" nonsense). Moreover, increasing energy prices hurts red states more than blue states — a fine reward for those who voted for the president in the belief they would thereby avoid Al Gore's policies.
Moreover, politically this leaves those Republicans and (yes, some) Democrats who have been holding the line in support of the American consumer hanging out to dry. By this — oh so unnecessary — concession, the President will have shifted the political center on energy and environment policy violently to the left. In that respect, this is a political earthquake. And having had this victory over what they regard as their greatest foe, don't imagine the left will stop there.
As I said, this is just so unnecessary. The President is right that activist litigation has forced his agencies into a regulatory nightmare – and things will only get worse if his own Interior Secretary decides to list the Polar Bear as endangered thanks to climate change. What he should be doing is telling Congress in no uncertain terms that the activists have twisted the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Protection Act to breaking point by their use of them as a vehicle for global warming activism and that therefore Congress should fix those Acts so they can't be used so inappropriately again. As for emissions, the problem lies with Congress and Congress should debate among itself what to do, without any direction from the President. Siding with those who call for a mandatory emissions target does not help that debate.
If it is so unnecessary, why has he done it? I am inclined to agree with those who suggest it's in pursuit of a legacy. However, those who have criticized him for so long are unlikely to give him plaudits; rather they will continue to call him a laggard for taking so long and a dullard for failing to understand the science for so long, both of which judgments they will feel he has himself confirmed by this action. Meanwhile, in the real world, increased energy prices will mean the one sure effect of this action is likely to be his genuine legacy — recession.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org