Senator McCain gave a speech in Portland, Oregon Monday reiterating and explaining his longstanding support for a “cap-and-trade” approach to global warming. He proposes that the government require reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions but allow companies to trade emissions credits, supposedly creating an efficient, market-based distribution of the regulatory burden. Support for this policy is the biggest mistake his campaign has made so far.
May 2008
Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new "Manhattan Project" for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
Lawmakers in Montana have been reviewing the recommendations that came out of the state's Climate Change Advisory Committee — nudged along by the Center for Climate Strategies — and for the most part are taking a pass:
The legislative Environmental Quality Council agreed to tackle legislation that promotes, with minimal expenditure, the use of local food, recycling and energy efficiency programs.
The decision follows previous meetings where the panel carved out recommendations that failed to gather the bipartisan support needed to adopt committee legislation.
The committee is now working with a pared down list of about a dozen broad areas for them to consider tackling – far fewer than the 54 recommendations that came from the governor's Climate Change Advisory Committee. Gone are items dealing directly with carbon emissions, standards on cars and off-road vehicles, and other ideas that scored lower in a public survey sought by the panel.
In other words, like the general public, Montana legislators are only willing to address the global warming crisis as long as it won't cost anything.
Yet another pair in a series of climate non-aggression pacts have been inked between U.S. states and foreign governments. This time, according to Greenwire (password required), “Wisconsin and Michigan entered into separate agreements with the United Kingdom on Monday, vowing to work together toward solutions to climate change. Under the pacts, Britain and the states agree to share research and ideas about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting low-carbon technologies and raising public awareness.”
Here’s a quick refresher. Article I, Section 10:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
These two agreements appear to be arguably less “a cooperative effort…to reduce carbon dioxide emissions” as are the regional climate pacts such as RGGI or their counterparts with, e.g., Canadian provinces. But do they nonetheless still purport to supplant activities which the constitution vests exclusively with the federal government, barring express approval by Congress?
Their champions have long indicated that is their intent. Let’s turn to Environmental Defense’s Tony Kreindler, whose comments on the MI and WI agreements echo several years of explanations by activist governors: “The states are stepping up because of a lack of leadership at the federal level.”
It’s a good thing that, out of a sense of caution and zealous protection of the Constitution and Congress's prerogatives, there are all of those strict constructionists up on Capitol Hill introducing legislation setting forth the “wherefore” of the constitutional requirement and calling for a vote, to give the courts some guidance in the event one or more of these states’ citizens objects. Apparently holding up agreements with Indian tribes is one thing, but we're talking about the "imminent Danger" of a climate crisis here.
The latest stop on John McCain's policy tour came at an Oregon wind-turbine manufacturer, where the topic was – what else? – the Senator's plan to address climate change. This is one of those issues where Mr. McCain indulges his "maverick" tendencies, which usually means taking the liberal line. That was the case yesterday, no matter how frequently he claimed his approach was "market based."
Republican White House candidate John McCain Monday veered sharply away from President George W. Bush on climate change, saying he would not "shirk" from the need for US global leadership.
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
Nice to see Ryan Radia's piece in the Des Moines Register today after yesterday's abominable piece reporting on what global climate change "means to Iowa." As usual the article ignores real global trends (no temp increase in last 10 years; oceans not warming; Antarctic sea ice increase; record cold winter; etc.) and instead regurgitates the IPCC Summary schtick and alarm-sounding from the Center for Climate Strategies, U. of Iowa prof Jerald Schnoor, and Iowa State U. global warming studier Eugene Takle.
"People are more worried," Takle was quoted without reporter curiousity or devil's advocacy.
Anyway, according to the Register, what does this all "mean to Iowa?" Let us count the "coulds," "ifs," "likely's," and "mights:"
"If we do this smart, we will create green jobs, improving the economy and cutting greenhouse gases," Schnoor said…
Scientists have noted for years that more carbon dioxide, which feeds plants, will likely mean booming crop yields. Takle said the longer period between the spring thaw and the return of frost in winter could mean longer growing seasons. The changes could open the door for farmers to grow two, maybe even three, crops a season, Takle said…But weather and climate changes could dampen the gains…For example, crop yields could drop 40 percent by 2100 because of higher levels of ground-level ozone…
Moisture in the air will likely increase because water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas. Over time, this results in higher temperatures day and night….
Warming might make water shortages a bigger issue in Iowa, where a boom in ethanol plants and hog confinements have already strained supplies….
Milder temperatures could mean savings on home-heating bills, Takle said. It also could provide more groundwater recharge in periods of fast snowmelts. On the down side, look for more freeze-thaw cycles, damaging roads and bridges and altering growing seasons…
Deer, skunks and raccoons could benefit from a smorgasbord of new plant growth in places, but they might spread rabies and other diseases farther….
Of course, sprinkled about are claims made with more certainty, all based upon computer models fed by who-knows-what kind of data. Meanwhile the Register clings to only their kind of experts and ignores the respected Joe D'Aleo– and William Gray-types within meteorology and atmospheric science.
As reported by James Pethokoukis of the U. S. News and World Report Capital Commerce blog, “According to Stephen Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece: Reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent (from 1990 levels) by 2050, would cut U.S. annual emissions from 6 billion metric tons a year, or 20 tons per person, to 1 billion metric tons. When you consider that the U.S. population will be over 400 million by 2050 with a much larger economy, per capita emissions would have to fall to 2.5 tons, or about what you would find in today's Haiti and Somalia.”
With those numbers in mind, consider the study released this week by a team of MIT researchers that quantifies a “floor” below which the individual carbon footprint of a person in the U.S. will not drop, regardless of income. The "floor" below which nobody in the U.S. can reach, no matter a person's energy choices, turned out to be 8.5 tons. That was the emissions calculated for a homeless person who ate in soup kitchens and slept in homeless shelters.
Even before the media turned on ethanol, commodities markets were growing volatile because of record prices and subsequent speculation. A legislative assault on ethanol would add further uncertainty to the market, eroding price stability and endangering the utility of futures contracts and options – the two hedges that have protected Iowa farmers for a half-century from the boom-and-bust cycle that plagued their forefathers.
Do today's soaring food prices and Third World food riots mean we're headed for global famine?
Not any time soon-if we suspend the biofuels mandates quickly. Unfortunately, if we keep burning corn, wheat, and palm oil in our vehicles, there's no limit to the hunger, malnutrition, wildlife extinction and political disruption we can cause.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org