Category Archives: Environment

DARK AGES REDUX–CAP AND TRADE


STOP CAP AND TRADE LEGISLATION

Players are needed. Players that will get on the phone, write letters, do something active to put a stop to the Administration’s plans that will wreck our economy.  It is doubtful that President Obama or his cabinet of Czars can be persuaded to put an end to Cap and Trade legislation because they need the money it will generate to help reduce the massive deficit they are creating.  Cap and Trade is simply a $624 billion tax clothed as “saving the world from CO2”.  But YOU may be able to make the Congress bring it to a halt.  Write and or/call your members of Congress and tell them what you think.  Al Gore has a campaign underway  letting Congress know that he and the radical greens want Cap and Trade. 

Again,  players are needed to offset the Gorebuls.   Cheering from the sideline wont cut it. Don’t let government pass on huge debts to your children and grandchildren to pay.

A committee led by Representative Waxman and  one led by Representative Markey   are sponsors of the Waxman/Markey Cap and Trade legislation.  It is out of these committees that this legislation will emerge unless we can stop it by letting them know how we feel about it.

The most active House committee is Waxman’s Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce. 

                                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                                                                   MEMBERSHIP

 DEMOCRATS                                                                  REPUBLICANS

Henry A. Waxman, CA, Chair   Joe Barton, TX, Ranking Member 
John D. Dingell, MI, Chair Emeritus   Ralph M. Hall, TX
Edward J. Markey, MA   Fred Upton, MI
Rick Boucher, VA   Cliff Stearns, FL
Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ   Nathan Deal, GA
Bart Gordon, TN   Ed Whitfield, KY
Bobby L. Rush, IL   John Shimkus, IL
Anna G. Eshoo, CA   John B. Shadegg, AZ
Bart Stupak, MI   Roy Blunt, MO
Eliot L. Engel, NY   Steve Buyer, IN
Gene Green, TX   George Radanovich, CA
Diana DeGette, CO   Joseph R. Pitts, PA
Lois Capps, CA   Mary Bono Mack, CA
Mike Doyle, PA   Greg Walden, OR
Jane Harman, CA   Lee Terry, NE
Jan Schakowsky, IL   Mike Rogers, MI
Charles A. Gonzalez, TX   Sue Wilkins Myrick, NC
Jay Inslee, WA   John Sullivan, OK
Tammy Baldwin, WI   Tim Murphy, PA
Mike Ross, AR   Michael C. Burgess, TX
Anthony D. Weiner, NY   Marsha Blackburn, TN
Jim Matheson, UT   Phil Gingrey, GA
G.K. Butterfield, NC   Steve Scalise, LA
Charlie Melancon, LA    
John Barrow, GA    
Baron P. Hill, IN    
Doris O. Matsui, CA    
Donna M. Christensen, VI    
Kathy Castor, FL    
John P. Sarbanes, MD    
Christopher S. Murphy, CT    
Zachary T. Space, OH    
Jerry McNerney, CA    
Betty Sutton, OH    
Bruce L. Braley, IA    
Peter Welch, VT    

 

Representative Markey’s Committee on Energy and Environment  is also involved and should be contacted as well.

Committee on Energy and Environment  link

To contact your Representative go to link    

Let’s review what is happening.  Based on faulty science, the environmental radicals say that carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing the Earth to heat up.  They say that if left unchecked, this atmospheric CO2 will result in a global catastrophe of heat, cold, water, drought, disease,etc..

The folks in DC are probably not sure all of this will happen, but they see using this as a way to tax and regulate and so they really don’t care about the validity of the science.  Their plan is to reduce the use of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) because when the fossil fuel is combusted to release its energy, CO2 is produced.  By setting a limit (capping) on how much CO2 can be emitted to the atmosphere and then over time reducing it, they plan to essentially eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

The bill would set the amount that each CO2 emitter can emit.  The Feds would sell permits to the emitter.  The following year the amount that could be emitted would be lowered.  And new permits would be sold to the emitter.  The Trade part of the bill would allow an emitter that did not need all of its permitted CO2 allowance to sell the excess portion to an emitter that needed more permitted CO2.  The price of this permit would be agreed to by buyer and seller.  For further understanding of Cap and Trade, view this presentation.    view 

The Feds could potentially bring in a lot of money to the Treasury this way.  Obama hopes to raise $624billion over 10 years.  Obama says that $500 billion would be used to make a permanent tax credit that provides individuals up to $400 and working families $800.  See   

However, Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office says that the corporations that buy the $624 billion worth of CO2 permits will pass this cost on to the consumers. He estimates that Cap and Trade would cost each American household an average $1600 per year and it could go as high as $2200 per household.  So the tax credit the Fed plan to give, would be much smaller than the increased costs of Cap and Trade to those same families.   So far Obama’s record of living up to his promises of tax cuts would not seem to inspire confidence on getting any relief from the the proposed tax credits.  see

Moreover, The Wall Street Journal says “But the greatest inequities are geographic and would be imposed on the parts of the US that rely most on manufacturing or fossil fuels—particularly coal, which generate most power in the Midwest, Southern, and Plains States.  It is no coincidence that the liberals most invested in Cap and Trade—Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Ed Markey—come from California or the Northeast.” Twenty-five states get more than half of their electricity from conventional coal fired generation. See  

Representative Joe L Barton, (R TX), the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in an editorial made a number of important points about the Cap and Trade bill.  He cites other studies that say the increased cost of energy for a typical family will be at least $3100 per year and that over 20 years results in 7 million lost jobs and $7 trillion in reduced economic output.  Barton says “if the Democrats manage to pass a cap-and-trade fiasco, millions of lost American jobs will likely pop up overseas.  I think we can expect to start buying more Mexican cement, Chinese fertilizer and Indian Steel”. He believes you would have to go back to 1875 to find a time comparable to what the US will look like when the Cap and Trade bill meets its stated goals of 80% reduction of CO2 by  2050.  

A  Zogby International poll says that only 30% of the US people support Cap and Trade and 57% oppose it. Other polls show very low interest in this or any new legislation that might weaken the recovery. see

Waxman has had much difficulty with his reluctant Democratic Committee members that see this legislation having a negative effect in their home districts.  The New York Times reports that Waxman is agreeing to no cost emissions permits in trade for votes.  This is BAIT AND SWITCH!  Some industries will be given a free ride for a while, but will eventually have to begin buying these permits.  Mike Doyle (D PA) is saying that approval for an agreement that would give away a large share of the permits for free during the opening 10 to 15 years of the cap-and-trade program is near.  Waxman is said to be comfortable with this give away.  see       It does not seem that Obama is in favor of the give away.   He is banking on this indirect tax to help offset his budget deficit woes.   see

When the European nations signed the Kyoto Treaty, they set up a Cap and Trade system as a means of meeting their CO2 reduction commitments.  It did not work. Their overall emissions have not gone down, but in fact have grown and at a rate faster than non-signer  US’s CO2 emissions.  The reason that Europe failed will be the reason that Cap and Trade will fail in the US.  The law driven reductions of fossil fuels are presumed to be replaced by alternative sources of energy such as wind, solar, ethanol, other biofuels, etc.  that will keep the business’s output  the same or even increase.   But these sources are not ready for prime time.  And they wont be for many years to come, if ever.  Perhaps nuclear will be able, in time, to make up the gap in the electrical generation sector.   If the Europeans had reduced fossil fuels use, they would have, by default, reduced their business output.  They chose to ignore the idea of reducing the use of fossil fuels.   

Additionally, the world’s largest emitter of CO2 is China.  China along with India and Brazil have stated they have no intention of imposing CO2 restrictions on their people.  With their huge populations, they plan to increase their use of fossil fuels to build their manufacturing base and to bring their countries to American and European standards of living.  Cap and Trade will assist these nations and harm ours.   See

The facts are that we don’t need this legislation because there is no compelling evidence at this time that increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere will result in disastrous consequences.  There will be disastrous consequences for our economy both short and long term if this legislation is passed into law.  For one of the many documents that show how far off the man-made global warmers are from the real world  see

Please speak up about this issue. Waxman’s goal is to get Committee approval by Memorial Day.  The Republicans and many Democrats on the  Committee are opposed to this legislation.  But they need your support to hold the line.

 

The need for making better use of our own resources is surely obvious to you. So this blog will discuss the need for expanding our sources of energy–oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear is subsequent postings.

 

 

 

 

 

Dark Ages Redux


Dark Ages Redux—The Issue

It becomes clearer everyday that President Obama and his allies hope to kill free enterprise and substitute socialism in its place.  One of the major elements in this economic suicide plan is to impose fossil fuel use restrictions on our nation so draconian that the US economy will become third world.    Fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) are the lifeblood of our economy.   Without them, we would revert to an existence similar to that “enjoyed” in the 17th century.  But, you have heard that there are many forms of alternate fuels just waiting to replace the fossil fuels.   With the possible exception of nuclear energy, the others are just pretenders without the practical or economic ability to replace fossil fuels.

Obama has proposed that laws be set in place that will reduce use of fossil fuels to curb the carbon dioxide that results from combustion that releases the energy in these fuels.  He and his allies in Congress want to set the maximum use, in the year 2050, of these fuels to no more than 20% of that used in 1990.   These reductions will begin no later than 2012.   

Lets see what this means:

Year 1990 2007 2030 2050
US energy use Total Q btus* 86.6 101.6 113.4 f/c 125 f/c**
    Fossil Fuels Q btus* 72.3 86.2 93.1  f/c 14.5***
    Renewable Fuel Q btu*    6.2   6.8    9.0  f/c     ?
    Nuclear   Q btu*    6.1   8.4    9.4  f/c     ?
    Fossil fuels as % of Total   83.5 86.4 82.1 11.6
US Population,  millions of people^^ 249 302 375 420
Per Capita fossil fuel use, millions of btus 290 285 248 35

Actual and forecast  annual energy use from US Energy Information Administration 1990 through 2030.

* quadrillion btus;  **Author’s business as usual forecast;  ***Obama’s maximum allowable annual fossil fuel energy by 2050; ^^ Census Bureau

From the table above, in the year 1990, US consumption of energy was 86.6 quadrillion BTUs of which 85% or 72.3 quadrillion BTUs were from fossil fuels.   Calculation shows that 20% of 72.3 quadrillion BTUs is equal to 14.5 quadrillion BTUs and that would be the maximum usage in the year 2050 according to the Obama’s plan.  If that’s not staggering enough, lets consider the population effect. In 1990 the census counted 248.7 million people in the US.  The forecast by the Census Bureau for 2050 is 419.9 million people that is an increase of nearly 70%.  So the proposed plan is for 2050 use of only 20% of the fossil fuels used in 1990 despite a population that is 70% larger than it was in 1990.  This tells us that the Obama cut in fossil fuel use  is greater than 80%,. When you consider the population increase, the cut is actually 90%.   Expressed as per capita usage,  fossil fuels use would drop from  285 million btus per capita in 2007  to 35 million btus in 2050.

But that is not all that President Obama has promised.  He said in his Feb. 24,  ‘09 address to a joint session of Congress that “ we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years.”   This is appears to be unlikely to happen.   If you break down the Renewable Fuels contribution of 6.8 quad BTUs in 2007 from the above table it looks like this :

Renewable Fuels     quad. BTUs                                2007                2012             2030

            Wind                                                                      0.32

            Solar                                                                      0.08

            Biofuels (ethanol principally)                        1.02

            Hydroelectric                                                      2.43

            Geothermal                                                          0.35

            Wood and Waste                                                2.60        

Total                                    quad. BTUs                        6.80                13.2 *              9.0     

Hydro, geothermal and wood and waste make up 80% the energy supplied by renewable fuels.  Hydro (damming rivers) has been pretty well exploited and unlikely to see much growth.  No one expects any significant growth in geothermal or wood and waste.  So a (*) doubling of total renewable energy in three years to 13.2 quad BTUs will essentially require an increase in wind, solar and biofuels from 1.4 quad BTUs to 8.2 quad BTUs ( a 585% increase).   If, of course, he restates the goal to that of just wind, solar and biofuels,  it would be from 1.4 to 2.8.  That is probably unlikely too.

The goal is unrealistic. Note that the EIA forecast for renewables is only 9.8 quad BTUs in 2030.  

But let’s talk about if we should be doing anything at all. 

First of all, the man-made global warming scare is a scam.  Yes, the globe has been warming, but this is typical of the Earth’s natural climatic cycle which has gone on for millions of years.  Ice followed by warming followed by ice, etc.   The current  cycle began at the end of the last ice age some thousands of years ago.  Gases and vapors in the Earth’s atmosphere do cause part of the warming.   But the contention that CO2 drives the temperature has been disproven by the examination of ice core samples that showing CO2 lags temperature up and down.  Hence CO2 follows temperature change.

The global temperatures have been on a downward trend since 1998.   This cooling has taken place while CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has  been increasing.   The Sun is in a period of relative quiet which seems to validate the idea that the Sun, not man, is the primary force behind the Earth’s climate. Thus restricting CO2 emissions will not have a major effect of global temperatures

Let us also consider that eighty percent of the world’s population will not stop trying to bring their citizens up to some sort of parity in per capita consumption with the rich 20%.  These countries, such as China, India and Brazil with their vast populations have indigenous sources of fossil fuels that they will use.   China’s CO2 emissions exceed those of the United States thus making China the No. 1 emitter.  These countries with huge populations are not going to stop using fossil fuel regardless of any  treaties that we Americans, Europeans and Japanese come up with to restrict our use.  The likely outcome of restricting our use is to see our jobs sent to their nations.

Future postings will discuss these topics in detail. 

cbdakota

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gore’s “The Climate Project” Spreads Fear not Science.


In 2006 Al Gore began a program called The Climate Project.  The objective of the program was to train 1000 individuals to make presentations of his “An Inconvenient Truth” in their local community.  Each trainee committed to making a minimum of ten presentations over a one year period following the completion of their training.   This program is underway and it is too early to tell how effective it will ultimately be.  But The Climate Project will probably pass on more disinformation than any other speaking tour since PT Barnum stormed the country.    It scientific foundation is An Inconvenient Truth and the additional distortions of science Gore regularly produces.  

 

To give you an example of what is being presented to unsuspecting audiences was reported in the South Asian Focus, an information source for the “Brampton’s South Asian Community”.  Brampton is the third largest city in the Greater Toronto, Canada area. The presentation was made by Jaipaul Massey-Singh one of “250 Canadians personally trained by Al Gore in 2008 to spread the message of An Inconvenient Truth……”

 

Here are some of the things Mr Massey-Singh  is quoted to have said:

“Right now, the earth is cited to have an average temperature of 15 Celsius–and if we do nothing to reduce gas emissions, it’s estimated it will warm up by roughly 4 to 5 degrees over the next 40 years.”

 

          “If we increase the average temperature by 3 degrees, there is only a 1 degree increase in at the equator but up to 7 degree increase at the north and south poles”, he said. “This will accelerate an alarming rate of thaw, which will then cause the earth’s temperature to rise even further by decreasing the area of ice that reflects the sun’s rays.”

 

The Glaciers will melt, the atmosphere will become warmer and the oceans will heat up and react by producing major storms–like Hurricane Katrina.  There will be extreme flooding and drought, and movement of water through the atmosphere will become unpredictable.”

 

“If this happens”, he explained, “by the year 2050 roughly 400 million people on the planet could be displaced due to an estimated 20 foot-rise in sea level.  Water will overtake the land mass, regions of the world as we know now will virtually disappear, and polar wildlife will be in danger.”

 

Fortunately he has some ways(???) to save us from these catastrophes,  which he outlined:

 

“If you bring your own mug to Tim Hortons and turn off a few light bulbs, it’s going to make a difference.”

 

“If North America can reduce even a couple of hundred tons of greenhouse gas emissions a year, there is the potential for stabilization.”

 

Mr Massey-Singh repeats Gore’s refuted canards about 20 foot sea levels,  

large increases in global temperature,  and global climate change creating major hurricanes for example. Unfortunately, although it was not reported,  the audience probably also got the rest of the Gore fallacies such as history showing that an increase  in carbon dioxide is followed by an increase in temperature.  

 

The United States Energy Information Administration estimates the total man-made CO2 emissions in 2007 from US sources was 7,282,000,000 metric tons which was an increase of 103,000,000 metric tons CO2 emission over the previous year.   A far cry from a “…..couple of hundred tons of greenhouse gas emissions a year…..”.  

 

This Gore group is dangerous.  It is spreading fear and not science.  Not surprising,  the leader (Gore) is not a scientist, and The Climate Project executives are not either.  Like nearly every other Green Group,  they are lead largely by lawyers.  

 

See this site  http://www.southasianfocus.ca/community/article/64852

 

A related story was The UK’s Guardian on line blog.  They carried statements by the experts at the top British climate research center that warned “Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts.”   These experts “launched a blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming.”  

 

This warning was aimed at the believers, and we skeptics too.  But if exaggeration about global warming were dynamite we skeptics could not make a loud bang while the man made global warming believers (Al Gore near the top of that list) would sound like a megaton hydrogen bomb. 

 

Unfortunately,  Mr Massey-Singh probably believes he is spreading the written word and surely doesn’t realize that he is really spreading apocalyptic fiction.

Sun and Climate Change


A PDF of the essay on Climate Change is available by email if you wish to leave your address.  Email to cbdakota@comcast.net