Inhofe still says cap and trade dead July 1, 2009

But don’t rest on your laurels.  Just don’t.  Contact your Senators at (202) 224-3121.

With yesterday’s ruling that Al Franken will be a Senator (gag), that gives Democrats a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senators.  Which means at least 11 have to turn – and all Republicans have to vote “nay” – to kill cap and trade for now.

From Michelle Malkin:

U.S. Jim Inhofe, who earlier said a criminal investigation “probably should be’’ conducted into allegations the EPA suppressed a climate change report, conceded Tuesday he is not qualified to make that determination.

“I have no way of knowing,’’ the Oklahoma Republican said.

Inhofe, however, stood by his prediction that a historic climate change bill narrowly approved by the House last week faces certain defeat in the Senate.

“It’s dead in the water,’’ he said.

Inhofe said the much-anticipated conclusion of a Senate race in Minnesota that will give Democrats the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican filibusters would not be enough to save the climate change bill.

“I’ll tell you what a lot of people are thinking, and that is it looks like things are going to be over and we are going to get the clown from Minnesota,’’ he said.

“They are not going to get more than 35 votes.’’

Asked if he was referring to Al Franken as the clown from Minnesota, Inhofe confirmed he was.

“I didn’t mean to be disrespectful. I don’t know the guy, but … for a living he is a clown,’’ the senator said.

“That’s what he does for a living.’’

But I repeat – I implore you – DO NOT REST ON YOUR LAURELS.  Do not let this news make you feel in any way comfortable.  It is a glimmer of hope, and nothing more.

You need to make your voice heard.

Electric vehicle mandate July 1, 2009

The cap and trade bill lays out a mandate forcing utility companies to provide plug-in stations for electric cars.

Who will pay for it?

YOU.

At anywhere from $1,000-$10,000 a pop.  From the Green Hell blog:

Who will pay for this? Waxman-Markey says that,

Each State regulatory authority (in the case of each electric utility for which it has ratemaking authority) and each utility (in the case of a nonregulated utility) shall consider whether, and to what extent, to allow cost recovery for plans and implementation of plans.

So state regulators and utilities will get to decide whether to pass the costs on to consumers as increased electricity prices or whether to directly stick property and business owners with the costs. To the extent tax credits/deductions are available, taxpayers will pick up the tab.

How much will this cost? How much money do you have?

While Coulomb Technologies’ sells its “Smartlet” for between $1,000-$2,000 per charging station, Toyota’s unit costs $4,600, Edison EV’s cost $5,000-$10,000 (indoor units) and $15,000-$20,000 (outdoor units), and solar-power stations cost as much as $85,000 for a six-station unit.

Without the Waxman-Markey mandate, it’s not likely that too much electric vehicle infrastructure would be installed.

Poll: 56% don’t want to pay more July 1, 2009

From Rasmussen:

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken since the climate change bill was passed on Friday, finds that 21% of Americans are willing to pay $100 more per year for cleaner energy and to counter global warming. Only 14% are willing to pay more than that amount.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of all adults say it is more important to keep the cost of energy as low as possible than it is to develop clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy. But 41% disagree and say developing cleaner, greener energy sources is the priority.

Sixty-three percent (63%) rate creating jobs as more important than taking steps to stop global warming. For 22%, stopping global warming is more important.

For the 35% who are willing to pay $100 or more per year, you’ll get your wish.

For the rest of us – especially the majorities who worry about energy costs and creating jobs – the House just gave you the collective finger last week.  Will you contact the Senate and tell them what a majority of you have told Rasmussen?

United States Capitol switchboard – (202) 224-3121.

Selling your home? Not if you don’t satisfy cap and trade. July 1, 2009

From Examiner.com, cap and trade provisions that allow government beaureaucrats into your home to make sure it toes the “green” line…before they allow you to sell it.

Yeah.  You read that right.  The house you own, the house you work to pay for, the house that’s your property is subject to strict government regulation and inspection before YOU can do something with it!  You know, like sell it.

Within cap and trade is a provision which mandates a national building code for energy efficiency. This national building code would override all state provisions already in place. By 2012, new buildings are to be 30% more efficient than they are under current regulations. By 2016, new buildings are to be 50% more efficient, and so on. “New buildings” include new homes, thus making new homes more expensive which will only serve to hamper the housing market.

Also, the bill stipulates that state codes match the national codes, or the said state codes will be nullified, and states will lose federal funding and carbon allowances. Remember, in this new world of cap and trade, the federal government has the authority to “allow” businesses within a state or community to conduct operations and emit carbon. Thus, millions of private sector jobs would be politicized under cap and trade. This type of politicization can only be found throughout history in societies governed by tyrants.

Perhaps President Obama and Nancy Pelosi are taking advantage of the foolish anti-business climate prevalent in America today. If one argues on behalf of business, he or she is part of the old, racist, rich, fascist, balding, all white male club. So maybe explaining how cap and trade will kill businesses and jobs is not so advantageous. However, homeowners have also been made the target of further regulations under cap and trade.

In this economy, selling a home may be the last ditch effort of someone trying to keep his or her head above water. Perhaps an individual or a family has to move on short notice but can only do so if the house they own is sold. Or, even more common nowadays, people are downsizing and are attempting to sell their house in order to buy something more in line with personal budget concerns. Whatever the case may be, Americans ought to be able to sell their houses whenever they want, and in whatever condition they want to sell it in, so long as the buyer agrees to the deal. That idea is not good enough for our federal government, instead, through cap and trade they will exact control through federal inspections of your home before you are allowed to sell.

So, new homes will be more expensive, thus limiting who can afford a new home, and further depressing the housing market. Now what of this inspection business? Yes, the cap and trade bill that passed through congress allows for somebody from the government to come into your house and inspect your windows, appliances, A/C, furnace, and anything else that you can think of to make sure your house is on par with the new national building codes. Not only will they inspect your house, but they will then be able to mandate that you, the seller, provide the necessary remedies regardless of cost, within a certain amount of time BEFORE YOU MAY SELL YOUR OWN HOUSE. So unless you bought a house that is seen as suitable through the eyes of the federal government, you can expect to spend plenty of money remaking your house, even if selling your house is a matter of economic survival for you.

You WILL pay more! July 1, 2009

From Stephen Spruiell at National Review Online, who writes:

Krugman Does Our Work For Us [Stephen Spruiell]

Fresh off his thundering condemnation of “treason against the planet,” Paul Krugman has a written a blog post on the subject of that trade provision in the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. Here’s the shorter version of Krugman’s argument:

The goal of Waxman-Markey is make the cheapest form of energy we have more expensive, consequently making everything produced in this country more expensive. It would defeat the purpose of this legislation to allow U.S. consumers to evade this energy tax by purchasing products from countries like China that choose not to adopt a similar tax. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to restrict Americans’ access to products from these countries, and the president is wrong to oppose such restrictions. What about that don’t you dumb hicks understand?

To which I reply: Please, please keep making this argument. As loudly as you can.

If you don’t understand Spruiell’s summation of Krugman’s argument, it’s this:  We Americans need to be punished financially and economically.  Krugman wants Obama to make it illegal to purchase products from China because it will save us money after cap and trade doubles the price of pretty much everything made in America.

As Spruiell says:  Let’s make sure everyone in America knows what Krugman thinks.  I doubt many people out there can afford to have everything but their salaries double with cap and trade.

More on the topic from FoxNews.com.

Coming to a home near you: the “Shower Nazi” July 1, 2009

Is there nothing in your home that Obama doesn’t think he can regulate?  Yesterday, it was your lamps and lightbulbs.

Today, it’s your shower.

The cap and trade bill subsidizes “water efficient” products like the “Shower Manager.”  From the Green Hell Blog:

A “Shower Nazi” may be coming your way courtesy of Waxman-Markey.

Section 217 of the bill provides for a “water efficient product incentive program” that would provide rebates, vouchers, direct installs and other forms of financial assistance for the installation of water-saving products.

During my radio interview last Friday with Bob Jamison (Kern Valley News, KNCQ 102.5 FM / Bakersfield, CA), Jamison, a motel owner, told me that he had been solicited by the seller of the “Shower Manager,” a water-saving device. Curious, I went to the Shower manager web site.

Here’s how the Shower Manager works:

The Shower Manager not only puts time limits on the shower, it also cuts the water flow when the time has expired. Our unique shower timer is a patented two-phase flow controller that permits a full-flow of water for a time period you select, (5, 8 or 11 minutes) and then restricts the water flow by two-thirds when that time limit expires. You set the full-flow Interval that best fits your lifestyle and lock it in using a special magnetic sensor.

Coming soon to public facilities near you.  And, if you rent, most likely your apartment.

Those “green” jobs? Not so successful July 1, 2009

I’m not a math major.  In fact, I hate math.  I can balance my checkbook and do some basic gemoetry, but other than that I avoid mathematics like the plague.

But even I know that 2.2 > 1.

Apparently, the Obama doesn’t.

From CNSNews, a story from April 2009 that shows for every 1 “green” job supposedly created by stimulus money, 2.2 jobs are lost, and this isn’t speculation.  It’s the actual effect of “green” initiatives in Spain.

(CNSNews.com) – Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.

President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama’s economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.

But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain…

Read the whole thing.

New lighting standards June 30, 2009

Is there nothing in your house that Obama doesn’t think is his business?

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON — Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation, President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.

“I know light bulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and businesses,” the president said, standing alongside Energy Secretary Steven Chu at the White House.

Obama said the new efficiency standards he was announcing for lamps would result in substantial savings between 2012 and 2042, saving consumers up to $4 billion annually, conserving enough energy to power every U.S. home for 10 months, reducing emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars a year, and eliminating the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.

The president also said he was speeding the delivery of $346 million in economic stimulus money to help improve energy efficiency in new and existing commercial buildings.

Republicans took issue with Obama’s pitch.

“Conservation is only half the equation. Even as we use less energy, we need to produce more of our own,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “We have to admit there’s a gap between the clean, renewable fuel we want and the reliable energy we need.”

The White House added the event to the president’s schedule at the last minute, just three days after the House narrowly approved the first energy legislation designed to curb global warming following furious lobbying by White House advisers and personal pressure by the president himself.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that in phone calls to reluctant Democrats in endangered districts, Obama “affirmed his commitment to support the policy position that they were taking in helping to explain to their constituents and to the American public the great benefit of this bill.”

The measure’s fate is less certain in the Senate, where Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to block a certain filibuster.

Still, in an interview with a small group of reporters, Obama energy adviser Carol Browner said: “I am confident that comprehensive energy legislation will pass the Senate.” But she repeatedly refused to say exactly when the White House expected the Senate to pass the measure, and she wouldn’t speculate on whether Obama would have legislation sent to his desk by year’s end.

The White House is working to keep energy in the spotlight even as Congress takes a break this week for the July 4 holiday. Obama has spent the past few days pressuring the Senate to follow the House while also seeking to show that the administration is making quick, clear progress on energy reform without legislation.

In February, the president directed the Energy Department to update its energy conservation standards for everyday household appliances such as dishwashers, lamps and microwave ovens. Laws on the books already required new efficiency standards for household and commercial appliances. But they have been backlogged in a tangle of missed deadlines, bureaucratic disputes and litigation.

The administration already had released new standards on commercial refrigeration. Lamps were next.

The third lie: Cap and trade & energy indpendence June 30, 2009

One of the lynchpins in Obama’s “cap and trade” legislation was reducing our independence on foreign oil imports.

Guess what?  The cap and trade bill that the House passed June 26 does exactly the opposite.

Why?  According to Bloomberg:

The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston.

Read the whole thing.

Does that make sense to you?

No?

Then it means you aren’t a U.S. politician.

“The Worst Bill Ever” June 29, 2009

So says Rick Esenberg of the blog Shark and Shepherd.  Rick writes:

They say that, in Wisconsin, if you don’t like the weather, wait a few hours. In Washington, if you don’t like the weather, pass a bill. As Jim Lindgren points out, the House of Representatives has voted to change the weather.

It’s hard to know where to start with the cap and trade bill.

It comes at a time when the scientific “consensus” on climate change seems to be unraveling. That always seemed likely. While we certainly experienced (but are not now experiencing) global temperature increases and it is certainly possible for carbon emissions to have an impact on climate, every time I waded in to some of the literature, I was struck by how uncertain the entire project is and how unlikely catastrophic climate change really is. Al Gore’s horror shows never represented the scientific consensus and the science seems to be moving further away from his alarmist vision.

It comes at a time when we have heard, for eight years, that science has been politicized. While much of that criticism was overblown, science does get politicized and the change in administrations hasn’t changed that sad fact.

It comes at a time when the economic analysis seems to suggest that that adjustment is a better avoidance, yet it sets wildly aggressive emission reduction goals. Maybe they can be met, but not because Congress voted for them. What passed on Friday is a leap of faith.

Read the whole thing…