What is being said

Bunkerville - God Guns and Guts Comrates

Climate Treaty Would Create New Global Agencies to Transfer Money and Technology from U.S. and Other Developed Countries to Third World- UPDATE:

... Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the initiatives from Copenhagen, Denmark, on Monday where the United Nations' climate conference is being held. The initiatives are part of the Major Economic Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) that President Barack Obama started in March as a partnership between wealthy and poor countries.

In the "I am not surprised column" goes this one. Not that it is unexpected from our fav Marxist. BUT: All of the world leaders are descending on wonderful wonderful Copenhagen, including George Soros. ...

...

NewsBusters

Poll Shows Support for Cap and Trade, Until Consequences are Considered

The Associated Press today [12-15-09] reported on an AP-GfK poll showing that a majority of Americans believe, in the words of the AP headline "action on climate will heat up economy, jobs." The headline was misleading, however, in that it gave readers the impression that the public is firmly behind the creation of what the Obama administration has dubbed the "green economy."

When asked what effect they thought federal policies designed to curb global warming would have on the economy, 46 percent said it would help, 27 percent said it would hurt, and 24 percent said it would have no effect.

The AP trumpeted these results as a sign that "the public is showing more faith in President Barack Obama's economic arguments for limiting heat-trapping gases than in Republican claims that the actions would kill jobs." ...

...

Frugal Cafe

72 Percent Don't Want Feds Changing Their Light Bulbs

... Just 18% of adults think it's the government's job to tell Americans what kind of light bulb they use, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Seventy-two percent (72%) say it's none of the government's business, and 10% are not sure.

The federal government under an energy bill passed in 2007 is requiring consumers to dump incandescent bulbs, the ones we've used for well over a century, for more expensive incandescent ones. The plan is scheduled to go into effect over the next 10 years in the name of great energy efficiency.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Republicans and 78% of adults not affiliated with either major political party say it's not the government's role to make Americans change their light bulbs. Among Democrats, 58% share that view, but 29% say it is the government's job. ...

[...]

Michelle Malkin

The farce of cap-and-tax revealed

... During a hearing today in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA's analysis.

"I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels," Administrator Jackson said.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) presented the chart to both Jackson and Secretary Chu, which shows that meaningful emissions reductions cannot occur without aggressive action by China, India, and other developing countries. "I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain," Sen. Inhofe said. "With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate." ...

[...]

Hyscience

API Chief Jack Gerard: Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill Will Drive Up the Cost of Gasoline, Diesel, Other Fuels

American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said in a letter to Congress that the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation will drive up the cost of gasoline and other petroleum fuels for consumers and businesses and is so fundamentally flawed that the House should reject it:

Right Wing News

'Green Jobs' Likely To Destroy More Jobs Than Are Created

A study just completed in Spain finds that the creation of so-called "green jobs" doesn't at all seem to be the employment panacea promised by their advocates. As you recall, President Obama pointed to Spain as the reference point for the establishment of government aid to renewable energy. As the study points out, "No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources." But the results are not at all what you might expect given the hype. In fact, they've been quite the opposite:

... Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain's experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created. ...

[...]

Hyscience

Obama's 'incovenient tax'

... [...] The Administration in fact projects that these "climate revenues" will become the sixth largest source of federal receipts by 2019, outpaced only by individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare and (barely) excise taxes. We're supposed to be living in a new era of fiscal honesty, so let's start with cap and trade.

Of course it's easy to see why Democrats don't want the public to think of cap and trade as a tax. Tax increases aren't popular, as Mr. Gore learned when he and Bill Clinton tried to impose a BTU tax in 1993. The complex cap-and-trade tax would ripple throughout the energy chain and ultimately the entire economy. All consumers, not just "the rich," would pay more for goods and services that use carbon energy -- though some would pay more than others. A majority of those "95% of working families" probably lives in the middle of the country that relies far more on manufacturing and coal-fired power than do the better-off coastal regions.

Mr. Obama's Energy Secretary Steven Chu was refreshingly candid on this point with the New York Times earlier this month. Given that higher prices are supposed to motivate the changes necessary to reduce carbon energy use, Mr. Chu said he was worried that climate taxes may drive jobs to countries where costs are cheaper. "The concern about cap and trade in today's economic climate," he said, "is that a lot of money might flow to developing countries in a way that might not be completely politically sellable." You are correct, sir. ...

Michelle Malkin

Breaking: Obama to ration oxygen

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power.

[...]

LandLineNow

Boxer bill battles global warming

Mark Reddig spoke with Mike Joyce about the press conference by Senator Barbara Boxer of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee outlining new legislation to deal with global warming.

You can read the Principles for Global Warming Legislation here.

You can hear the press conference in its entirety from the Senate EPW Web site here.

Don't Drink the King's Wine

Global Warming: Part II - A Christian Response

It matters where Christians come out on the global warming debate. While we all agree that we must be good stewards of the environment, our response to this stewardship mandate depends on whether the sky is actually falling. If climate change is cyclical and is not driven by CO2 or primarily by man's activity, then many of the millions (billions?) spent on climate change initiatives and programs may be unnecessary, even wasteful. Instead, much of that money could go towards real-time programs providing sustainable growth in developing nations.