William Yeatman

Can We Trust the Temperature Record?

by William Yeatman on September 24, 2009

in Blog

Patrick Michaels today has a thought-provoking piece on NRO about the reliability of the temperature record. According to Michaels,

In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate…

…Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/- 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/-” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “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?“

It doesn’t take a scientist to recognize that this last statement makes a mockery of the scientific method. After all, the entire point of peer review is to find something wrong with a scientist’s research, so as not to propagate inaccurate conclusions in academic journals. All of which begs the question: What is there to hide?  Stay tuned. Steve McIntyre, who exposed the fraudulent “hockey stick” temperature history, is working on the CRU issue.

On a related note, my colleague Marlo Lewis blogged on the inadequacy of the U.S. surface temperature record in this excellent post.

Cooler Heads Digest 18 September 2009

by William Yeatman on September 24, 2009

in Cooler Heads Digest

In the News

The Truth About the Treasury Trove
Chris Horner, Planet Gore, 17 September 2009

Climate Change and National Security Part 1, Part 2
Marlo Lewis, MasterResource.org, 16 September 2009

Fantasizing about a Low Carbon Future
Myron Ebell, GlobalWarming.org, 15 September 2009

Newsweek’s Begley Flunks Calculus, Science and Politics
Joseph D’Aleo, IceCap.us, 15 September 2009

Something’s Rotten
Chris Horner, Planet Gore, 15 September 2009

Allies Abandon U.S. at Climate Confab
John Zaracostas, Washington Times, 15 September 2009

When It Comes to Pollution, Less (Kids) May Be More
David A. Fahrenthold, Washington Post, 15 September 2009

Beware Cap-and-Trade
Senator James Inhofe, Clean Skies, 14 September 2009

Carbon Market Hit as UN Suspends Clean Energy Auditor
Danny Fortson, The Sunday Times, 13 September 2009

News You Can Use

The Obama administration concedes that the economic costs of a cap-and-trade “are equal in scale to all existing environmental regulations,” according to Treasury Department documents uncovered by the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Chris Horner with a Freedom of Information Act request.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Can We All Agree Now? It’s Gonna Cost a Bundle

The big news this week is furnished by my colleague at CEI, Chris Horner, who released some interesting documents he obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from the Treasury Department.  Chris’s initial blog post was picked up first by Amanda Carpenter in the Washington Times and then by Declan McCullough at CBSNews.com.  There has been a flurry of stories since then, most of them trying to explain why it isn’t really a news story.  (I wish more reporters spent more time explaining why what they are writing can be safely skipped.  It would save a lot of time.)

It turns out that a busy team of economists hired by Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to devise a better cap-and-trade program were fully aware that it would be very costly for consumers.  Treasury’s upper end estimate works out to $1761 for the average household per year.

That’s in line with what President Obama said when he was running for President (“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”), but a lot less than what EPA and the White House have been saying about the Waxman-Markey bill.

quick to point out that Treasury’s $1761 estimate couldn’t possibly apply to the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House in June on a 219-212 vote because, first, Waxman-Markey didn’t exist when Treasury was making its estimate and, second, Treasury assumed that all the ration coupons would be auctioned whereas Waxman-Markey gives most of the coupons away to big business special interests in the early years of the program.

That argument is specious.  As Peter Orszag, now director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, explained in congressional testimony last year when he was head of the Congressional Budget Office: “Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances, but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices. Such price increases would stem from the restriction on emissions and would occur regardless of whether the government sold emission allowances or gave them away. Indeed, the price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program….”

The most interesting thing about the documents Chris obtained from Treasury are the bits that are redacted.  For example, a paragraph headed Overview says: “[I]t will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of [rest of sentence is blacked out].”  Perhaps the folks in the FOIA Compliance Office at Treasury didn’t get the January 21st memo from President Obama on increasing transparency in his administration.  The memo says in part: “The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve.”

MPG Madness

The Obama Administration proposed new rules on Tuesday to increase vehicle fuel mileage by nearly 40% by 2016.  The anti-energy bill passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress and signed into law by Republican President George W. Bush in 2007 required automakers to reach an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, but the Obama Administration has moved that target up four years.

The 1227-page rule will be open for public comment for sixty days.  It is supposed to harmonize federal standards with the tougher ones first adopted by California in 2004 and then by a number of other States.  However, officials in California have already talked about adopting more stringent standards in order to force the federal government to follow.

The U. S. Chamber and the National Automobile Dealers Association have filed suit in the D. C. Circuit to overturn the California waiver on the grounds that legally waivers can only be granted to California to address local air pollution problems, whereas global warming is a global problem.

The new mileage standards apply to cars and light trucks, which category includes SUVs and pickups.  The Administration estimates that it will raise new car prices by an average of $1,100, but save an average of $3,000 in gasoline over the life of the vehicle.  These average estimates may be accurate, but conceal the fact that prices for bigger vehicles are going to have to go up a lot because manufacturers won’t be able to make the 35 mpg standard if they sell very many of them.

Carbon Dioxide, A “Pollutant”

There are more major rules on the way.  It is rumored that the endangerment finding will be finalized by the end of October.  On April 16, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare and therefore must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.  More than twenty-thousand public comments were filed, so EPA has been working overtime if they are going to be able to finalize the rule so quickly.

Another rule covering non-highway mobile sources of emissions is reportedly going to follow soon after the car and light truck rule.  That should make construction companies, off-road vehicle users, and snowmobilers happy.

Robin Bravender and Noelle Straub reported in Friday’s Energy and Environment Daily that Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is considering offering an amendment that would block EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions.  If enacted as part of the Interior (and other agencies) appropriations bill currently being debated on the Senate floor, EPA would be prevented from regulating stationary sources (such as coal and gas power plants) during the 2010 fiscal year, which begins October 1st.  EPA’s planned regulations of new vehicles would not be affected.

Across the States

New York Green Jobs Bill for ACORN

This week New York Governor David Patterson signed “Green Jobs, Green New York,” legislation that would leverage $100 million in revenue from a regional cap-and-trade energy rationing scheme into $5 billion worth of guaranteed loans for weatherization projects conducted by partisan activist groups, including the disgraced ACORN, which was exposed recently for having facilitated the establishment of underage brothels with public money. Sounds like a risky loan.

California Adopts Yet Another Anti-Energy Mandate

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger this week vetoed SB 14, legislation that would have mandated that California utilities use renewable energy for 33% of electricity sold by 2020. While Schwarzenegger supports the 2020 renewable energy standard, he objected to language in the bill that restricts energy imports. Schwarzenegger instead issued an executive order to reach the same target with fewer restrictions on interstate trade. A recent study by the California Public Utilities Commission estimates that achieving the 33% renewable energy mandate would raise utility bills more than 20%. California already has the some of the highest rates for electricity in the country, due to 30 years of anti-energy policies.

Around the World

Copenhagen

Last week the Cooler Heads Digest reported that all signs point to failure at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change this December in Copenhagen, where international policymakers hope to agree on a global warming treaty to succeed the failed Kyoto Protocol.

The dismal outlook for success in Copenhagen actually worsened this week. President Barack Obama had hoped that the U.S. Senate-which would have to ratify any treaty-would pass legislation before Copenhagen. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this week told reporters that the U.S. Senate isn’t likely to address climate legislation until 2010. The Senate’s inaction makes it difficult for the Obama administration to commit to binding emissions targets at COP 15.

And Yvo de Boer, the chairman of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, all but conceded failure in Copenhagen by ruling out a “comprehensive” treaty.

India Leads the Way

Jairam Ramesh, the Indian Environment Minister, announced this week that India will adopt greenhouse gas emissions targets.  The government plans to introduce legislation in parliament to set numerical goals for future emissions that will allow future economic growth of 8 to 9% annually.  The new targets will be voluntary.  It also appears that meeting the targets will still depend on transferring tens of billions of dollars a year from developed economies.   Although it has been suggested that this puts pressure on the United States, the European Union, and Japan to agree to a new treaty in Copenhagen at COP-15 in December, it could also be argued that India is leading the way for other nations to adopt voluntary targets and timetables.

CEI Uncovers Shocking Obama Admission: Cap-and-Trade = 15% Income Tax Hike

by William Yeatman on September 16, 2009

Yesterday, I blogged on how CEI’s Chris Horner used the Freedom of Information Act to uncover internal documents from the Obama administration in which Treasury Department officials admit that a cap-and-trade would impose a steep energy tax on American families.

In only 24 hours, the story has gone viral.

Here’s what CBS News is reporting:

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

This FOIA story has been highlighted by the Drudge Report, Breitbart, The Weekly Standard, and the Politico.

To read the internal Treasury Department documents, click here.

Treasury Department: Cap-and-Trade Is a Huge Energy Tax

by William Yeatman on September 15, 2009

in Blog

CEI’s Chris Horner used the Freedom of Information Act to uncover internal documents from the Obama administration in which Treasury Department officials admit that a cap-and-trade would impose a steep energy tax on American families.

The Treasury Department’s admission contradicts claims by Democratic leadership that a cap-and-trade energy rationing scheme would boost the economy. In fact, a massive new energy tax (Department officials suggest that a cap-and-trade would cost consumers hundreds of billions of dollars) would depress economic growth by increasing utility bills and gasoline prices.

CEI long has warned Americans that policies to fight so-called global warming would harm American consumers and businesses by increasing energy costs. It’s great to see that Obama’s Treasury Department agrees.

To read more about these internal documents, read this Planet Gore blog post by Chris Horner, and this write-up by the Washington Times’s Amanda Carpenter.

The Newest Fake Argument for Cap-and-Trade: National Security

by William Yeatman on September 15, 2009

in Blog

To listen to Democratic Party leadership tell it, one would never know that a cap-and-trade has anything to do with global warming.

For example, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) pitched the American Clean Energy and Security Act, a cap-and-trade energy rationing scheme that narrowly passed in the House, as a “vote for jobs,” rather than as a vote for global warming mitigation. Of course, this is malarkey-government only “creates” green jobs by destroying many more jobs in other, less politically favored economic sectors.

Now Democratic leaders in the Senate are saying that cap-and-trade is all about national security. Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), in particular, has been pushing the thesis that climate change is going to cause conflict over scarce natural resource, drought-induced famine, and massive population flows. Kerry’s idea is to give political cover to moderate democrats otherwise loath to vote for an energy tax-moderates tend to represent Americans who are concerned with national security, but skeptical of global warming alarmism. By framing climate change as a threat to national security, these moderates might escape the adverse political consequences of voting for a cap-and-trade scheme.

That’s a risky bet for moderates, because Kerry’s national security argument is bogus. To learn why, read this excellent blog post by my colleague Marlo Lewis. Kerry’s claims are also refuted Christopher Monckton at the Science & Public Policy Institute, available here.

How the New Senate Ag Chair (Blanche Lincoln) Changes America’s Energy Policy

by William Yeatman on September 15, 2009

in Blog

Last week Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) became chairman of the Agriculture Committee, after Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), the previous chair, accepted the gavel at the Health, Labor, Education and Pension Committee (vacated by the passing of Ted Kennedy).

Lincoln becomes the first female to chair this powerful committee, and her ascension to the top-spot will have a big impact on the country’s energy policy.

For almost a decade, the Senate Ag Committee has been the primary benefactor of ethanol, a fuel made from corn. Regardless whether the Ag chair was a Republican or a Democrat, the Committee, which is dominated by corn-belt politicians, showered ethanol with subsidies and give-aways-and even a Soviet-style production quota that forces consumers to use it. Government support for ethanol has been great for corn growers (they’ve seen demand increase by almost 50% since 2005), but it’s awful for livestock farmers, who have seen the cost of corn-feed skyrocket. Consumers have also been harmed, as the price of corn derivatives (meat, dairy, soda, etc., etc.,) has increased so sharply that inflation of the cost of food doubled the historical rate in 2008.

With Lincoln taking the gavel of the Ag Committee, however, the ethanol gravy train might be coming to an end. That’s because Lincoln doesn’t represent the corn-belt. To be sure, they grow corn in Arkansas, primarily in the eastern part of the state. But in western Arkansas, farmers raise chickens. In fact, the Natural State is the nation’s #2 producer of broiler chickens. America’s ethanol policy has seriously compromised the chicken industry, so we can expect Lincoln to take a more conservative approach with fuels made out of food.

Lincoln is also likely to affect the climate debate. The Ag Committee has some jurisdiction over climate change legislation, and Lincoln’s vote on cap-and-trade is a priority for her caucus leadership, which is having a tough time finding support for a climate bill among Senate Democrats. But Arkansas politics are decidedly unfavorable to global warming alarmism. Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Arkansas), who represents Little Rock and much of Pulaski County, was the only member of his State’s delegation to vote for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, cap-and-trade legislation that passed through the House of Representatives in late June, and he has been hammered over the airwaves by utilities, agriculture interests, and political opponents ever since. Now, there is considerable speculation that his seat is in jeopardy-all thanks to his vote for a cap-and-trade. No doubt Lincoln has noticed Snyder’s plight.

Is Cap-and-Trade Slipping on Obama’s Wish List?

by William Yeatman on September 14, 2009

in Blog

Rumors surfaced last week that President Barack Obama now considers financial sector reform to be his administration’s #2 priority after healthcare. Previously, climate change was thought to be the next big-ticket item on the President’s agenda.

The tea-leaves seem to indicate that this rumor is true.

For starters, Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) decided to stay on as Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, rather than accept the gavel on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (a post vacated by the passing of Ted Kennedy).

The only plausible explanation for Dodd’s decision to remain the chairman of the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over financial sector reform, is an expectation by Dodd that Obama will push for increased regulation of Wall Street in the short term. Dodd faces a tough re-election fight in 2010, and taking on Wall Street would put him in a favorable spotlight for the foreseeable future.

And today in New York, President Obama gave a speech on the need for a new regulatory regime to govern Wall Street, thereby lending further credence to the rumor that climate change has dropped as a priority.

Meanwhile, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee (which has primary jurisdiction over climate change legislation) last week again delayed the introduction of global warming legislation, and Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), the second ranking Democrat in the Senate, told reporters that cap-and-trade might have to wait until 2010.

Cooler Heads Digest 11 September 2009

by William Yeatman on September 14, 2009

in Cooler Heads Digest

Announcements

Freedom Action is a new political advocacy organization that aims to create a gathering of grassroots free market activists that will make their voices heard above special interests and big government advocates. Freedom Action’s first project is to Stop Al Gore’s Electricity Tax, and can be found here.

Americans For Prosperity is hosting grassroots demonstrations against cap-and-trade energy rationing in cities across the country. Learn more about the Hot Air Tour by clicking here.

The American Energy Alliance has launched a four week American energy bus tour to build public awareness of what cap-and-trade is, how it works, and the extent to which it’s capable of inflicting serious damage to the American economy. Click here to learn more.

In the News

How Much Does Waxman-Markey Increase Gas Prices in Your State?
Nicolas Loris & Ben Lieberman, Heritage WebMemo, 11 September 2009

Global Warming Takes a Break
Lorne Gunter, National Post, 11 September 2009

Cap-and-Trade Cost Would Devastate Economy
David A. Ridenour, Sacramento Bee, 10 September 2009

Administration Shocker: Green Jobs Harmful
Chris Horner, Planet Gore, 10 September 2009

New Paper Shows Staggering Cost of Waxman-Markey
Iain Murray, GlobalWarming.org, 9 September 2009

Coal Miners Blast Cap-and-Trade at Kentucky Rally
Tim Hubert, AP, 8 September 2009

Why Natural Gas Should Not Play the Cap-and-Trade Game
Robert Bradley, MasterResource.org, 8 September 2009

I Pledge To Promote Global Warming Propaganda
Paul Chesser, American Spectator, 8 September 2009

Solar Economics
The Coyote Blog, 8 September 2009

News You Can Use

Energy Tax = Job Losses

Higher energy prices caused by the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, would force businesses to shed 2.4 million jobs by 2030, according to a new economic analysis by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Senate Action on Cap-and-Trade Fades into Next Year

The Congress is back, and Washington is humming again. That doesn’t mean that the Senate is moving toward a deal on energy-rationing legislation.  Cap-and-trade looks to be stuck for the moment as Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) tries to put together a health care rationing bill. That may well be wrapped up quickly, but news reports suggest that the Obama Administration wants the Congress to turn to new financial regulation legislation after health care. So it appears that energy rationing is slipping down the list. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Majority Whip, said that he thought it would now have to be put off until next year.

Is the EPA’s Economic Analysis Trustworthy?

Representative Joe Barton (R-Tex.), the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Greg Walden (R-Oreg.) sent a letter this week to the Environmental Protection Agency asking the agency to explain several apparent problems and discrepancies in its economic analysis of the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Read the full letter here.

California Waiver Challenged in Court

The U. S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Automobile Dealers Associations filed suit in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn the EPA’s waiver that allows California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles. The suit argues that global warming is a global rather than a local problem and that waivers under the Clean Air Act can only be granted in order to address local problems.

Around the World

Rough Road to Copenhagen

All signs point to failure at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change this December in Copenhagen, where international policymakers hope to agree on a global warming treaty to succeed the failed Kyoto Protocol. Earlier this month, the United States Senate-which would have to ratify any treaty-again delayed action on a climate bill, and now Democratic Party leadership is saying that the Senate might not address global warming until 2010. The Senate’s inaction makes it difficult if not impossible for the Obama administration to commit to binding emissions targets in Copenhagen.

Also, there is still no agreement among nations on how to share the huge costs of reducing global emissions. This week the European Union announced that it was prepared to give $22 billion a year to “green” the economies of developing countries. Developing countries, however, are asking for at least 1% of global Gross Domestic Product, or about $500 billion a year, to pay for emissions reductions. Unless they get it, they won’t act. And without the participation of mega-emitters like China and India, global emissions will increase regardless what the U.S. and the E.U do to fight climate change.

The outlook for a deal in Copenhagen has become so bleak that dignitaries are actively lowering expectations. United Kingdom Foreign Minister this week told AFP that, “It’s a real danger that the world will not come together in the way that is necessary to agree on an ambitious and comprehensive deal in December.”

It Could Happen Here

  • French President Nicolas Sarkozy this week introduced a new carbon tax on energy use, despite polling suggesting that two-thirds of voters oppose it.
  • Last week a United Kingdom tribunal ruled that belief in manmade global warming had the same status as a religious conviction.

Cooler Heads Digest 3 September 2009

by William Yeatman on September 8, 2009

in Cooler Heads Digest

Announcements

The Science and Public Policy Institute invites Congressional staff to a briefing with the Viscount Monckton of Benchley on Wednesday, September 9th, from Noon-1:30 PM, in Dirksen 215 Senate Office Building. Lord Monckton is one of the world’s most sought-after public speakers, and a formidable international expert on the science and economics of “global warming.” Lunch will be served. To RSVP, email Bob Ferguson at bferguson@sppinstitute.org.

Freedom Action is a new political advocacy organization that aims to create a gathering of grassroots free market activists that will make their voices heard above special interests and big government advocates. Freedom Action’s first project is to Stop Al Gore’s Electricity Tax, and can be found here.

Americans For Prosperity is hosting grassroots demonstrations against cap-and-trade energy rationing in cities across the country. Learn more about the Hot Air Tour by clicking here.

The American Energy Alliance has launched a four week American energy bus tour to build public awareness of what cap-and-trade is, how it works, and the extent to which it’s capable of inflicting serious damage to the American economy. Click here to learn more.

In the News

Terms of Endangerment
Wall Street Journal, 3 September 2009

Jobs for Bugs in Coal Country
William Yeatman & Jeremy Lott, Investor’s Business Daily, 3 September 2009

Can We Trust the Models?
Jonah Goldberg, Houston Chronicle, 2 September 2009

French President Hammered over Energy Tax
Emma Charlton, AFP, 2 September 2009

India’s Emissions To Triple by 2031
Hari Kumar, DotEarth, 2 September 2009

Smart Grid Is Dumb Policy
William Yeatman & Jeremy Lott, Forbes, 2 September 2009

Is a ‘Death Spiral’ for Climate Alarmism Ahead?
Kenneth Green, MasterResource.org, 1 September 2009

The Democrats’ Cap-and-Traitors
W. James Antle, American Spectator, 1 September 2009

Quite a Load of Toro
Chris Horner, Planet Gore, 1 September 2009

EPA Considers Closing Whistle Blower’s Unit
Sam Kazman, GlobalWarming.org, 27 August 2009

News You Can Use

A new United Nations study says that meeting the UN’s greenhouse gas emissions targets would cost $20 trillion over the next two decades.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Senate Delays Climate Bill

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee announced on Monday that it would not have a draft energy-rationing bill ready to release on 8th September, as promised earlier. Although the Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has the votes to get almost any cap-and-trade bill out of committee, this delay means that it is highly unlikely that Boxer will meet Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev) deadline of 28th September. That is when all committees of jurisdiction are supposed to have their pieces of comprehensive energy-rationing legislation ready to go to the Senate floor. Senate action on cap-and-trade this fall looks less likely now.

EPA Proposes an Illegal Rule

The Environmental Protection Agency has sent rules for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act to the White House for review and approval. According to several news stories, EPA is proposing to regulate only those entities responsible for 25,000 or more tons of CO2-equivalent per year. The Clean Air Act says clearly that 250 tons is the threshold amount that triggers regulation of a listed pollutant. Read my colleague Marlo Lewis’s analysis of EPA’s obviously illegal proposed regulations here.

New Trailer for Anti-Alarmism Film “Climate Chains”

by William Yeatman on September 1, 2009

in Blog

Click here to check out the new trailer for ‘Climate Chains,’ a documentary on global warming alarmism by the Cascade Policy Institute. The film exposes why cap-and-trade is economically destructive and will lead to no measurable environmental benefit. The target release date for “Climate Chains” is mid-September before the Senate begins tackling cap-and-trade legislation.

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →