In The News
Emissions Caps Unpalatable to Northeastern States Governors Cite Carbon Cap Costs That Would Be Passed Along to American Consumers
Thursday December 15, 2005
Emissions Caps Unpalatable to Northeastern States Governors Cite Carbon Cap Costs That Would Be Passed Along to American Consumers Several days after the close of the Montreal climate change conference, where Kyoto Protocol nations failed to reach an agreement on the next series of mandatory greenhouse gas caps beyond 2012, global warming alarmists suffered yet another defeat with the apparent unraveling of the northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) amidst fears that increased energy costs associated with caps would be passed along to American consumers. “Talks broke down Wednesday among state officials trying to reach an agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the Northeast,” the AP writes (“Northeast Emissions Talks Break Down”). “A spokesman for Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri said Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut had misgivings over the proposed nine-state plan to cut so-called greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Carcieri is concerned about the costs, according to spokesman Jeff Neal. ‘Ultimately we don’t know how much this plan will raise energy prices,’ Neal said. A spokeswoman for Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he would likely comment on the matter on Thursday. Romney has expressed concerns with the initiative in the past, saying the costs of cutting emissions would be passed on to consumers.” According to the AP, “[e]nvironmental groups were disappointed that the states couldn’t reach an agreement. ‘It’s very disappointing, but we’re hopeful it will proceed,’ said Seth Kaplan, senior attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation in Boston.” (Brooke Donald, “Northeast Emissions Talks Break Down,” Associated Press, December 14, 2005) Fact: Talk is cheap, but implementing mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions is not. Expectations were high moving into the Montreal discussions, yet the industrialized nations backing Kyoto balked at producing future targets beyond those set for 2012 (understandable considering that the overwhelming majority of those nations are actually increasing their emissions and thus missing their 2012 targets). A narrow majority of the United States Senate voted in favor of a Sense of the Senate that stated the Congress should enact a policy, sometime in the future, that would implement emissions caps – provided that the U.S. economy would not suffer as a result. But when it came time to vote on legislation that would actually enact mandatory caps, 60 senators voted against it. The costs associated with caps would hurt American families. Despite the misgivings and warnings about the costs from three of the RGGI states, the remaining states may still attempt to reach an agreement to avoid further political embarrassment. As they do so, they should keep the following examples of the high costs in mind (Charles River Associates / United for Jobs estimates based on McCain-Lieberman legislative approach): Impacts of CO2 Controls / Cap and Trade Legislation on Maine - A loss of 4,000 to 5,000 jobs by 2010 - A loss of 5,000 to 7,000 jobs by 2020 - A 33% energy cost increase for the poorest households - A 3% energy increase for the elderly - A 19% to 53% increase in natural gas prices and 2% to 3% increase in electricity prices for industry by 2020 Impacts of CO2 Controls / Cap and Trade Legislation on New Hampshire - A loss of 4,000 to 6,000 jobs by 2010 - A loss of 5,000 to 8,000 jobs by 2020 - A 47% energy cost increase for the poorest households - A 9% energy increase for the elderly - A 19% to 53% increase in natural gas prices and 8% to 19% increase in electricity prices for industry in 2020
Limousine Leo
Wednesday December 14, 2005
Will DiCaprio’s New Global Warming Movie Show Adverse Economic Impact of Emissions Caps on America’s Families?
Actor Leonardo DiCaprio, a self-anointed Hollywood eco-warrior, recently announced he is producing a documentary on global warming titled, “11th Hour.” DiCaprio’s global warming alarmist credentials are indisputable as shown by placing former United Nations Weapons Inspector Hans Blix’s quote on his website: “To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. I’m more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict.” DiCaprio himself said in a recent statement, “Global warming is not only the number one environmental challenge we face today, but one of the most important issues facing all of humanity.” Undoubtedly however, as a spokesperson for the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, DiCaprio knows his statements run contrary to the very group he speaks for.
Fact: The ministerial declaration from the 2002 UN Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg found that eradicating poverty—not global warming—was the world’s most serious environmental challenge, particularly for developing countries. “We recognize,” the UN declared, “the reality that global society has the means and is endowed with the resources to address the challenges of poverty eradication and sustainable development confronting all humanity.” Conferees even gave a green light to “efficient, affordable, and cost-effective energy technologies, including fossil fuel technologies.” The 2004 Copenhagen Consensus, an organization created to improve the “prioritization of the numerous problems the world faces,” placed climate change at the bottom of its list of challenges, preceded by malnutrition, disease, water and sanitation, and several other issues. The group even listed the Kyoto Protocol and proposed carbon taxes among “bad projects.”
DiCaprio’s movie seems even further at odds with the UN statement considering comments made by co-producer Lelia Conners Peterson with Tree Media: “Global warming is one of the things the movie is about, but it’s also about the human footprint on the planet in general and how we’ve arrived to where we are.” The movie, she said, will “show people how the basic acts of feeding ourselves, clothing ourselves and moving ourselves is causing the planet harm.”
It is highly unlikely that DiCaprio’s movie will feature the heavy financial burden from greenhouse gas caps that would be felt by low- and fixed income families here in the United States. But then again, how would he know about or understand their challenges? After all, on Earth Day 2000, according to a 4/24/2000 American Investigator news release, “Earth Day Chair Leonardo DiCaprio arrived in a stretch limousine with his entourage, while Vice President Al Gore, who once again called for an end to the internal combustion engine, boarded his oversized dark green Chevy Suburban, upon exiting with a fleet of SUVs.”
Tom Mullen, president of Cleveland Catholic Charities, testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that the dramatic increases in energy prices resulting from legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions would severely impact low-income families, especially poor children “as their moms are forced to make choices of whether to pay the rent or live in a shelter; pay the heating bill or see their child freeze; buy food or risk the availability of a hunger center.”
In Case You Missed It…Kyoto’s Bill
Tuesday December 13, 2005
In Case You Missed It…
Investor’s Business Daily
Kyoto’s Bill
December 13, 2005
…[Former President] Clinton also failed to note [in Montreal] that so great was his faith in the need for Kyoto that he never submitted the treaty for ratification after signing it in 1998. He knew then what he won’t acknowledge now: that Kyoto couldn’t be ratified because it was all pain and no gain.
On July 25, 1997 -- Clinton’s watch -- the U.S. Senate voted 95 to 0 for a resolution saying the U.S. should not be a signatory to Kyoto. The main reason was that the treaty exempted developing countries and major polluters like China and India.
The resolution stated that “the Senate strongly believes that the proposals under negotiation, because of the disparity in treatment” between industrialized and developing nations “and the level of required emission reductions, could result in serious harm to the United States economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy and consumer costs.”
In July 1998, Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research calculated that Kyoto, if implemented on a consistent basis by all industrial countries, would avert only 0.07 degrees Celsius of global warming by 2050, an amount too small to matter or even verify.
In October 1998, the U.S. Energy Information Agency estimated that for this imperceptible reduction, the U.S. gross domestic product would be reduced by as much as $397 billion annually. …
Rather than chasing phantom and temporary reductions in what many consider to be a natural and cyclical phenomenon, money wasted on Kyoto enforcement could be better spent.
Bjorn Lomborg, Danish statistician and author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” once said: “For less than one year of (the cost of) meeting Kyoto, we could provide clean water and sanitation for all of the developing world forever.”
We’ll drink to that.
Click here for the full text of the editorial.
In Case You Missed It…Martin will do anything to hold on to power
Tuesday December 13, 2005
In Case You Missed It…
The Leader-Post
[Regina, Saskatchewan] Martin will do anything to hold on to powerBy Lee Morrison, Special to The Leader-Post
December 13, 2005
CALGARY -- Until quite recently, I considered Paul Martin to be merely a veracity challenged but otherwise harmless windbag.
I couldn’t have been more wrong. On two successive days last week, Dec. 7 and Dec. 8, he displayed a lack of scruples and a level of chippiness rarely seen among people in leadership positions. He is a politician’s politician in the most pejorative sense -- a man who volubly professes to “love Canada” but, in reality, will say anything and do anything to stay in power, regardless of the consequences.
At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal, he enthusiastically endorsed the Kyoto Accord even though the “science” behind it has been largely discredited. With his personal staff of about 200, it is inconceivable that he hasn’t had access to the scientific rebuttals (much of it by Canadian scholars) to this gigantic fraud.
Actually, long before independent climate experts became interested in the subject, the entire Kyoto exercise was predicated on misrepresentation of the Report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which states:
1.) That none of the studies have shown clear evidence that we can attribute observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases;
2.) That no study has positively attributed all or part of climate change to man-made causes.
The public, and politicians who could, in those days, still plead ignorance, were exposed only to the report’s blatantly political summary, to which the committee scientists had minimal input.
Martin can no longer be unaware of the facts any more than he could have been unaware of the boodle going out the door during the sponsorship scandal. Nevertheless, he is happy to ride the wave of mass hysteria and pander to public misconceptions by promising to “do something” about the non-problem at any economic or social cost. He knows where the votes are and the country be damned.
To compound his shamelessness, he then indulged in the good old Canadian political pastime of trolling for votes by bad-mouthing the U.S.A. for failing to leap into the Kyoto trap.
Ironically, since 1990, Canada’s annual carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 24 per cent whereas the nasty Yankees have increased theirs by only 13 per cent -- not because they have been converted to the new religion but because, with dwindling oil supplies, they are becoming serious about energy efficiency.
American delegates were deeply offended by some of his remarks. Our Ambassador to Washington, Frank McKenna, was called in for a chat but, what the heck, publicly kicking a neighbour with which we already have strained relations was great domestic politics. … .
Click here for the full text of the op-ed.