Cap and Trade Passes House; On To Senate
This news report must be translated. Ready? Here we go.
Item 1: “Democrats scurried to bring [the bill] to a vote today before the July 4 congressional recess.” Translation: Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey notes that Waxman loaded the thousand-page bill down with three hundred pages of amendments…today. People have not read more than 20% of this bill. At least. John Boehner tried to take advantage of a House custom allowing speakers to extend their remarks on a subject indefinitely and read the entire thing aloud on the floor.
Item 2: The articles notes “concerns that it will raise energy costs and put millions of Americans out of work.” After a bit of back-and-forth, it became clear that the bill would seriously hurt American families, and so the bill was changed to hide the costs until 2019.
Item 3: “Creating clean energy jobs and curbing global warming are the goals of the milestone legislation.” George Will directed our attention to a study by a professor at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos detailing how Spain’s far-reaching green jobs spending program has cost the nation 2.2 jobs for every one job created and led to an 18.1% unemployment rate, not to mention the exorbitant spending required to keep those jobs afloat.
Not mentioned by ABCNews, however: global warming is coming under renewed evidence-based attack around the world. Kimberly Strassel writes:
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)
The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
ABCNews does manage to quote Barack Obama thus: “Europe, in many ways over the last several years, has moved more rapidly than the United States on addressing this issue.” True enough; so why not take some time to mull over the success–I should say, lack thereof–of their policies before enacting a massive one of our own? Contrary to the way our Congress is acting, ours is to wonder why–instead, we will simply do, and…well, we’ll see.