Features

The problem with “doing something” about climate change is that it is extraordinarily expensive to “green” the economy using the statist policies advocated by the enviro lobby and global warming alarmists.

What if there were ways to reduce America’s carbon footprint and increase wealth creation at the same time? It sounds too good to be true, but it’s not.

This week the National Center for Policy Analysis released “10 Cool Global Warming Policies,” a great new study by CEI’s Iain Murray and H. Sterling Burnett. They identify 10 simple policies that would simultaneously increase prosperity and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

To read more about these risk free, “no regrets” policies, click here.

Can Big Brother be green? Absolutely. If carbon dioxide were the planetary poison that global warming alarmists claim, then every aspect of our lives would be fair game for government control: the homes we build, the cars we drive, the light bulbs we use. Even the number of children we have-because lets face it; any reduction in CO2 that we achieve will be more than offset by the households our kids will create when they grow up.

There are already proposals in Congress and federal agencies to vastly increase taxes and regulations in order to address the so-called global warming crisis. But as a growing number of scientists are openly declaring, there is no crisis.

To let Washington know that you don’t want them controlling access to energy, visit cei.org/1984 and send a letter to your Congressman today.

Americans for Prosperity recently announced it has been joined by three key allies in its call for the nation’s elected officials to commit – in writing – to oppose anti-global warming legislation that results in a net increase in revenue to the federal government.  This comes as House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats meet today with President Obama, who is pressuring them to accept a plan that hides a massive tax hike.

Through the NoClimateTax.com Web site, thousands of activists from across America have asked members of Congress and state legislators to sign a written pledge committing them to oppose any efforts to use anti-global warming legislation as a vehicle to raise taxes.

“We’re excited to have CEI, NTU, and IFL on board this important effort,” said AFP Policy Director Phil Kerpen.  “With these key allies helping promote the pledge to their members and directly with elected officials, we hope that a majority in Congress will commit in writing to take tax hikes off the table during discussion of what is supposed to be an environmental bill.”

“The Competitive Enterprise Institute joins Americans for Prosperity in urging Members of Congress to sign the NoClimateTax.com pledge,” said Myron Ebell, CEI’s director of energy and global warming policy.  “Cap and trade would be a huge indirect tax on the American people and probably the biggest tax increase in history.  As President Obama rightly said, ‘electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'”

“President Obama may be sincere in his desire to make the planet a healthier place to live,” said Institute for Liberty President Andrew Langer, “but his proposed budget is dishonest in that it uses popular fears about global climate change to drive the biggest tax increase in American history through the Congress. In fact, his proposed Cap and Trade system will actually make the world a less healthy place.”

“Cap-and-traders are peddling their plan as if they were in a fiscal vacuum, but taxpayers can’t ignore the giant sucking sound near their wallets,” National Taxpayers Union Vice President for Policy and Communications, Pete Sepp, said.  “In addition to threats of punitive tax hikes on domestic energy production, payrolls, and small businesses, more burdens are on the way if President Obama’s health care scheme is enacted. Policymakers must pledge to switch off this money-grabbing machine now, beginning with cap-and-trade.”

The full text of the pledge is:
“I, ___________________________, pledge to the taxpayers of the State of _________________ and to the American people that I will oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in federal government revenue.”

AFP has already sent the pledge to every member of Congress, Republican and Democrat.  Signatories thus far include House Republican Leader John Boehner, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence, Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price, and Rep. Joe Barton, the ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.  No Congressional Democrats have yet signed the pledge.  In addition, over 100 state legislators, on a bi-partisan basis, have signed similar pledges and are moving resolutions through state legislative chambers urging Congress to forgo the tax increases that are part of the “Cap and Trade” scheme included in the President’s budget.

A regularly updated list of signers, including scans of the signed pledges and local press releases, is available on the web at www.NoClimateTax.com.

This is a worthy topic for continued congressional exploration. In short, the video and accompanying narrative dissect how, at his Friday Capitol Hill appearance touting a scheme to ration energy while in the process rewarding business who helped write the scheme:

Al Gore obfuscates, downplays and refuses to discuss the role that CEOs have played in crafting his Cap-and-Trade C02 trading schemes and carbon swapping systems.

Al Gore tries to put a lid in Congressional committee testimony on a little reported but vitally important subject in the global warming, carbon-tax ‘debate’- the new derivatives bubble in the emerging green-energy credit-swap market….

The point from Rep. Scalise that is gaveled over by the chairman and stuttered-over by Gore is that many of the Congressmen are ‘concerned about turning over our energy economy over to firms like Enron and some of these Wall Street firms that wrecked out financial economy.’

Fmr. Vice President Al Gore denies that Ken Lay and other CEOs developed carbon scheme: “I didn’t know him well enough to call him ‘Kenny-boy’.

Of course, Gore wasn’t the home-state governor of this Fortune 15 company either, so I guess his supposed lack of familiarity (keep reading) would make sense – but one might ask what nickname Gore had for (or from) close family friend and, ahem, benefactor, the Soviet stooge Armand Hammer? Maurice Strong? The gang at his own personal Enron, scam-artist and buddy-run Molten Metals? Et cetera, et cetera…

Here, we see how Gore lapses into his true self, well-known before adoption of this Right Rev. persona, to rather awkwardly try and change the subject from something that is rightly discomfiting to him. So allow me to address the point, as there is much, much more to the story.

Twelve years ago almost to this very day I left my law firm to accept a position that had rather unexpectedly fallen in my lap with a phone call from Enron, asking me to be their Director of Federal Government Relations. Everyone polled suggested it was a great opportunity, a company admired throughout town, not just by the current (Clinton-Gore) administration with which it was very close, but by Republicans, too.

My recollection is that it was my first day on the job when I walked into my boss’s office in Enron’s suite across from the White House, smack into a meeting between her and who I now know to be two of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s senior DC officials. OK. But the next day I was tasked with sitting in for “Kenny Boy” at a meeting in fancy New York law firm offices (in DC), around a table of Baptists and Bootleggers, rent-seekers and green puritans, discussing how to ensure a global warming treaty came about, of our collective design, and how to rope the U.S. in.

So, seeing very measured groups like Union of Concerned Scientists on my immediate left, I turned to one of the rent-seekers’ officers on my right, among whom I recall being the American Gas Association, Niagara-Mohawk Power, and BP, among others. In response to my query, “what are we doing sitting around a table with a bunch of people who want to put us out of business?”, I was told with a laugh, “they want to put coal out of business first.”

Lovely people, these folks kind enough to introduce me to the world’s second-oldest profession of trying to make one’s fortune off of policy favors from buddies in government instead of by innovation or competition. Frederic Bastiat, phone your office.

So I fired off a “Houston, we have a problem” missive to my boss asking if Enron knew what it was getting into in this group. That’s when they explained the specifics of their business plan to me – which did include setting up a trading business with Goldman, by the way, as one of Goldman’s energy practice chiefs at the time also roared to me in joy about about all of the money they were going to make. This cannot conceivably be news to Gore and his VC partner and former Goldman Pooh-Bah Blood discussed in the linked item.

This plan has since been carried off to greener pastures by numerous of Kenny Boy’s protégés – including one of the most vocal leaders of the current industry push for the cap-and-trade rationing scheme, as I detail in “Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Force, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed“. Read that if you want to know just how Rep. Scalise really did nail things in his questioning.

Anyway, fast forward a few uncomfortable weeks of retaliatory behavior that I am confident you wouldn’t believe, but I’d be happy to take a speaking fee to tell you about. I’m gone, and Enron and the greens are continuing on their way with what happens to be Congress’s current agenda. Soon thereafter, in July of that year (1997), a unanimous Senate votes pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 2, its (unsolicited) “advice” to Clinton-Gore to not go to Kyoto and agree to that beast. In December Al Gore then flies off to Kyoto to do just that.

The intervening event? An August 4, 1997 Oval Office meeting with Kenny Boy, (then-) Sir John Browne of BP, and the President and Vice President of the United States. Let that sink in. He didn’t know the guy. But anyone who can even spell “Beltway” can tell you that that kind of orchestration and attention takes serious influence. Ask Gordon Brown.

As revealed by the August 1, 1997 Kenny Boy briefing memo subsequently aired after the unpleasantness, in this meeting Kenny Boy was to demand that the Senate be ignored, that the administration agree to Kyoto, and most important that it contain a cap-and-trade scheme.

I know where “advice and consent” is in the Constitution. I’m not so sure where Ken Lay and Sir John Browne are, probably in the back with all of the scary stuff. Anyway, you know who won.

So, in tossing things back to Gore to finally answer the question, I leave you with key excerpts from the “what I did in Kyoto” memo by Lay’s Kyoto aide (yep, he had one), John Palmissano, hailing Enron’s success:

  • “This treaty [Kyoto] is exactly what I have been lobbying for”
  • “This agreement will be good for Enron stock!!”
  • “Enron now has excellent credentials with many ‘green’ interests including Greenpeace, [World Wildlife Fund], [Natural Resources Defense Council], German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI, and Worldwatch.”
  • “This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monitized).” (sic)
  • “if implemented, this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.”

Obama has asked the big three networks to give him a free hour of air time on his hundredth day in office. They have said they’ll probably give it to him — not surprising if you consider all the support they gave him in the 2008 election.

One thing they probably won’t do is ask him any inconvenient questions about all his broken campaign promises, like his pledge to enact a “net spending cut,” his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year, and his promise not to sign bills without first giving the public five days of notice. Obama has broken his campaign promises far more flagrantly than his predecessors did in their first 100 days in office.

The Congressional Budget Office says that Obama’s proposed budgets will explode the national debt through massive spending increases, increasing the already large deficits left behind by the Bush Administration from $4.4 trillion to $9.3 trillion. His record-setting budgets flagrantly violate his promise to propose a “net spending cut.”

Obama broke his campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year by signing a regressive SCHIP excise tax increase, and by proposing a cap-and-trade energy tax that could charge up to $2 trillion, a massive cost that Obama himself has said will be passed “on to consumers,” as well as homeowners and motorists. (In 2008, Obama privately admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle that if he was elected, electricity bills would “skyrocket” under his Administration, but it didn’t report that).

Over and over again, Obama has broken his campaign promise to give the public five days of notice before signing bills into law, including his very first law, the trial-lawyer backed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Obama also repeatedly made false claims about the Supreme Court decision that the Ledbetter law overruled, misstating the facts of that case and how long it gives employees to sue over pay discrimination.

Obama broke seven campaign promises dealing with transparency and clean government in signing the $800 billion stimulus package, much of whose contents were secret until shortly before Congress voted on it, and whose 1400 pages went unread by most Congressmen who voted on it.

Obama’s broken promises are part of a larger pattern of dishonesty. Obama claimed his $800 billion stimulus package was needed to avert “irreversible decline.” But the Congressional Budget Office concluded before and after its passage that the stimulus package will actually cut the size of the economy in the long run. Obama’s budgets don’t add up, either, piling up $9.3 trillion in red ink, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a staggering $2.3 trillion more than Obama claimed.

This is CNN (you know, no bias; no bull) — so complete the last sentence from this article’s first few paragraphs for me:

A large ice shelf is “imminently” close to breaking away from part of the Antarctic Peninsula, scientists said Friday.

Satellite images released by the European Space Agency on Friday show new cracks in the Wilkins Ice Shelf where it connects to Charcot Island, a piece of land considered part of the peninsula.

The cracks are quickly expanding, the ESA said.

Scientists are investigating the causes for the breakups and whether it is linked to…

So guess which of the following completes this last sentence excerpted from CNN’s report? Your choices:

1) …wind and wave conditions.

2) …volcanic activity.

3) …stress caused by ice growth.

4) …natural processes.

5) …global climate change.

Remember, it’s no bias and no bull, so your choice should be a difficult one. Right?

Representatives Henry Waxman (D-California) and Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) today unveiled the Clean Energy and Security Act, a massive bill that incorporates virtually every lame-brained global warming policy ever considered by Congress (and then some).

To read the bill, click here.

To read the executive summary, click here.

To read CEI’s reaction to the bill, click here.