Conservative Blog

According to this story at Politico, Democrats are about to pull the “War Against Global Warming and the American Economy” bill off the table after failing to get the 60 votes needed to move the vote forward. In fact, voting came in at 48-36.

Both sides immediately tried to use the bill’s failure for political gain, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blaming the bill on Bush/McCain, once again trying to create in the voters’ minds the odd notion that these two men are on the same ticket. Reality, as usual, doesn’t matter to Reid since McCain actually favored the bill. But what does that matter when you can put out a sound bite?

For the Republicans we had Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gloating over the failure as proving that the Democrats themselves don’t support the bill or want to talk about energy at all (since they ended the debate “prematurely”). What he doesn’t say is that, counting the votes of absent senators (they already knew there weren’t enough votes) there would have been 54 in favor, a mere 6 short of the total needed. And in the current political climate, it’s only a matter of time. But for now, that’s what we’ve bought—more time.

The fact is that our economy can’t suffer through a bill of this nature right now. With $4.00 gasoline and jobs on the run, we can hardly agree to make energy more expensive and levy new taxes on businesses.

That we’ll eventually get all this shiny new legislation, oversight and taxes is almost a foregone conclusion. In fact, unless the alarming rate of Global Liberalization decreases, we can expect something next year. The only solution is to reduce our liberal emissions by voting for conservatives in November. Unlike global warming, in which the timetable for action is infinite, if we don’t decrease liberal emissions now, this very election, carbon freedom will be another patch of red, white and blue liberty that is bulldozed to make way for progressive development.

Debate in the Senate over this bill should begin today, and word is that it doesn't stand much of a chance of getting passed. And even if it does manage to scrape its way out of congress, President Bush would only veto it. Even as the bill prepares to, we hope, go down in flames, we get wind from this CNN article that "supporters concede that the debate will set the scene for action in 2009."

And why shouldn't the supporters of the bill be optimistic? For all the conservative anger over Bush, everyone should realize he's the last president we'll have for awhile who would veto this bill. A quick trip to the presidential candidates' websites gives us this information:

Ms. Puerto Rico supports: "A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence"

Barack Obama supports: "Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050."

John McCain believes: "Climate Policy Should Utilize A Market-Based Cap And Trade System."

So any failure this year should really only be seen as a first step to passage in 2009. A "cap and trade" system has many features, after all, that a visionary, progressive politician could grow fond of. What's not to love about having more control over businesses, raising billions of tax dollars through carbon auctions, and getting to decide where to redistribute that wealth?

Is there still time to prevent this overwhelming infringement upon liberty? Well, there is an election in November, and all the House of Representatives is up for grabs, but if you've been following public opinion lately, you likely know how this is going to turn out. And why should anyone be motivated by liberty anymore anyway? After years of suffering low blows at the hands of the righteously indignant left, conservatives have become a bunch of feel good appeasers and enablers for the erosion of freedom.

Ah, America. What have you done? Where have you gone?

Every adult should be forced to use a 'carbon ration card' when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.

This comes from a story at MailOnline. Of course, this particular article is about Britain, but we in America are only a few terrifying steps away from being in this same position. In fact, the Warner Lieberman Energy Bill is one giant, scary step in that direction.

In a summary of the bill, as I posted below, it includes the following information: "Provides for the distribution of emission allowances, including initially giving allowances to: (1) specified owners and operators of covered facilities; (2) states; (3) load-serving entities that deliver electricity to retail consumers; (4) the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce GHG emissions in the agriculture and forestry sectors; (5) international forest protection activities; and (6) the Emission Allowance Account for covered facilities in the electric power and industrial sectors."

The first thing you should notice about this is the phrase "initially giving allowances to..." which gives the obvious impression that we'll be distributing emission allowances to additional groups not listed above in the future. The second and third things that you should notice are the first two groups, "specified owners and operators of covered facilities" and "states". If "states" doesn't scare you enough, let me clarify "covered facilities" for you. This means businesses.

Skipping away from the slippery slope argument for a moment, let's look a little deeper at the results of this bill. Quoting the minority party from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, "...analysis by CRA International estimates the Lieberman-Warner bill will cost $4 to $6 trillion over 40 years. The American Council for Capital Formation has concluded that the legislation's emissions-swapping scheme would lead to higher energy prices, lost jobs and reduced [gross domestic product]...The bill's end results would cause serious damage to our economic security and at best have a negligible impact on the world's rising greenhouse-gas emission levels. It also does nothing to boost nuclear-energy development, one of the cleanest and most efficient energy sources. The bill fails to compensate and protect consumers from rising natural gas prices and harms job security by encouraging companies to move overseas to nations with less draconian standards."

The most prominent nations with less draconian standards would be China and India, who are given a free ride internationally as "developing nations" despite the exponentially increasing release of carbon by both these billion-plus person countries.

Even if this did not take us one step away from individuals being issued carbon credits, which it does, the bill itself is a disaster for America. But that is the direction we are headed--disaster. And all because of the neo-socialist global warming movement. So there's your future, oh Kreskin. First your state and your business get carbon allowances and then you'll personally get one. But will your state, your business and you survive it? That'll be another $50 to find out.

The truth of the matter is that the bill is not likely to pass when it comes up in June. After all, it is an election year. But what will happen after the elections when we put more Democrats into congress and, God forbid, Obama in the presidency? What will happen after another year of irrational environmental hysteria?

That's right, give me another $50 to find out--if you haven't figured it out already.

The Brookings Institute has released a study that many chambers of commerce and city councils will undoubtedly groan over. It's a list of the cities with the top carbon footprints. Fifteen years ago that might have been seen as a sign of a growing city with a healthy economy. Now it's a big red target for environmentalists and pastors of the church of global warming.

The top ten cities (sorry about this guys) are:

1. Lexington-Fayette, KY
2. Indianapolis, IN
3. Cincinnati-Middletown, OH
4. Toledo, OH
5. Louisville, KY
6. Nashville, TN
7. St. Louis, MO
8. Oklahoma City
9. Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA
10. Knoxville, TN

Currently there are no federal standards regarding carbon emissions, but that day is coming. One component of the Warner-Lieberman Energy Bill is designed to, according to a summary of the bill,

"(Provide) for the distribution of emission allowances, including initially giving allowances to: (1) specified owners and operators of covered facilities; (2) states; (3) load-serving entities that deliver electricity to retail consumers; (4) the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce GHG emissions in the agriculture and forestry sectors; (5) international forest protection activities; and (6) the Emission Allowance Account for covered facilities in the electric power and industrial sectors...Establishes the Climate Change Credit Corporation to auction emission allowances. Provides for the use of auction proceeds, including for a zero- or low-carbon energy technologies program, an advanced coal and sequestration technologies program, incentives for production of fuel from cellulosic biomass, and an advanced technology vehicles manufacturing incentive program."

This is a piece of legislation coming to a vote in early June. As I've said before, the scope and implications of the Warner-Lieberman Energy Bill are staggering, but especially for businesses (I'm sorry, "owners and operators of covered facilities") and for the states, and therefore cities, in which these "covered facilities" operate. Never mind that American manufacturers are already fighting against near impossible odds to remain in the game with their overseas competitors, now we will place a greater burden upon them. Never mind that the economy is already struggling. Never mind that the cost of carbon is already at all time highs. This bill is going to be hammered through. It's the perfect example of Pollyanna legislation dreamed up in a vacuum. No regard to this bill's impact on anything other than the great villain, carbon, has been properly examined. It's a piece of feel-good, global warming nonsense.

To see the report from the Brookings Institute, click here.

If you thought a new energy bill would be aimed at increasing the amount of oil in the market and refining more gasoline as opposed to the opposite, click here.