2008

[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.

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.

We're hearing some very bad things about the President's likely unconditional surrender on global warming today. One senior source suggested that the last line of sound defense had been breached and that "It will be very bad." I'd imagine he will request, against all evidence from Europe that this does anything but make consumers poorer and utilities richer, a cap and trade regime for energy utilities.

I cannot emphasize too much how idiotic this is. At a time when the poor of the country and the world are feeling the twin crunches of credit being withdrawn and food and energy prices rising, jacking up energy prices farther will just add insult to injury. The fat cat traders of Wall Street will be licking their lips, of course. Meanwhile, House and Senate Republicans and (yes, some) Democrats who have stood up for the American consumer against this insanity will be left hanging. Those who voted for Bush in the mistaken belief they wouldn't get Gore's policies will have been betrayed. The political center on energy and environment will be jerked massively to the left. Some acheivement.

Mr. Bush, if you think this will secure your legacy, you are right. Your legacy will be just one word: Recession.

People need to get very, very angry about this. I know I am.

Registered attendees will receive copies of the book, compliments of CEI.
Please Rsvp by e-mail to Julie Walsh at jwalsh@cei.org.

For more information, please call Myron Ebell at (202) 331-2256.
Note that this is a widely-attended event and open to the public.

About The Deniers

Is The "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming a Myth?
Yes, says internationally renowned environmentalist author Lawrence Solomon who highlights the brave scientists–all leaders in their fields– who dispute the conventional wisdom of climate change alarmists (despite the threat to their careers)
Al Gore and his media allies claim the only scientists who dispute the alarmist view on global warming are corrupt crackpots and "deniers", comparable to neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust.
Solomon calmly and methodically debunks Gore's outrageous charges, showing in on 'headline' case after another that the scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday scenarios have far more credibility than those who support Gore's theories. These men who expose Gore's claims as absurd hold top positions at the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world. Their work is cited and acclaimed throughout the scientific community. No wonder Gore and his allies want to pretend they don't exist.
This is the one book that PROVES the science is NOT settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming–like Al Gore's–to survive.
A review of the book by Dr. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis (and a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition) appeared on NRO’s Planet Gore recently and can be found here: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjJmZDYxZThlMzNmNzYzZmIzMGExNWY0Mzg1MGRiZTY=,

The Deniers is published by Richard Vigilante Books.

Lawrence Solomon is one of Canada’s leading environmentalists.  His book, The Conserver Solution (Doubleday), which popularized the Conserver Society concept in the late 1970s, became the manual for those interested in incorporating environmental factors into economic life.  An advisor to President Jimmy Carter's Task Force on the Global Environment (the Global 2000 Report) in the late 1970s, he has since been at the forefront of movements to reform foreign aid, stop nuclear power expansion and toll roads.  Mr. Solomon is a founder and managing director of Energy Probe Research Foundation and the executive director of its Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute divisions.

Mr. Solomon writes a weekly column for Toronto’s Financial Post.  He has been a columnist for the Globe and Mail, a contributor to the Wall Street Journal, the editor and publisher of the award-winning the Next City magazine, and the author or co-author of several books.