Just how far is all this global warming nonsense going?
Well, on Tuesday, four senators proposed a bill that would create a new federal bureaucracy to oversee the growing multi-billion dollar carbon trading market.
Just what we need, right? Another monolithic bureaucracy, this one designed to help solve a problem the existence of which is greatly questioned.
As Duke University reported Tuesday (emphasis added):
Senators Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and John Warner (R-Va.) introduced a bill to minimize negative economic impacts to consumers and industry of the transition to a lower-carbon economy while achieving critical environmental goals. The bill is designed to be incorporated into broader climate change legislation.
The measures would be implemented by a Carbon Market Efficiency Board, which would oversee what is estimated to be a multi-billion dollar emissions permit trading market. The board would operate much like the Federal Reserve Board, providing information on price and low-emission technology investment trends to Congress and the public, and it would employ cost-relief measures when a market correction is needed.
For those wondering why the Duke citation, it's because this proposal went almost totally ignored by conventional media outlets, and the University is connected to the bill: "The plan was developed with analysis provided by the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions of Duke University."
Why might media have ignored this? Well, one possibility is that regardless of how green the press appear today, the new federal bureaucracy they're looking to back at this point in time is universal healthcare.
On the other hand, maybe they're concerned that too much coverage of the issue will kill it much as what happened to Hillary Clinton's healthcare proposal in 1993, especially given some of the similarities.
Yet, as this bill seeks to grease the wheels for stricter global warming regulations, it is nonetheless curious it went so ignored:
Concerns about containing costs have been a stumbling block for the passage of legislation to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The new proposal focuses on providing the market with flexibility to help reduce costs. It offers two measures to relieve excessively high costs that would indicate a scarcity of low-carbon options.
Regardless of why this went virtually unnoticed, not everyone was thrilled by this proposal. As reported by Greenwire (subscription required, emphasis added):
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) offered a more critical perspective on the cost plan. "Constructing new federal bureaucracies like the proposed 'Carbon Market Efficiency Board' will do nothing to alter the climate or solve the economic issues," said Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe cited Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate scientist Richard Lindzen, who said in March, "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life."
Makes sense. Not only that, when bureaucracies are created to save the public money, it ends up being very expensive.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Noel - come on. Its not
July 25, 2007 - 18:32 ET by Gat New YorkNoel - come on. Its not April 1 but this has to be a spoof. We are trying to cut government spending and we have bipartisan support for a Carbon Market Efficiency Board? The very idea of efficiency is a joke.
Noel,Isn't this the
July 25, 2007 - 18:36 ET by Chris NormanNoel,
Isn't this the ultimate goal whenever the Left begins to harp on a "problem" they've identified - the expansion of the federal government and it's power? We knew they weren't going to be satisfied with us merely switching to florescent light bulbs. I wonder what other horrors they have for us, coming down the pike...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
How far global warming is going.
July 25, 2007 - 18:32 ET by Lame CherryMr. Sheppard you read 1984 in Orwell warning of the communist state.......that is how far it is going and beyond.
James Woolsey of the CIA announcing he had done studies on how much crude oil could be converted from a dead human body.......well Soylent Green or Soylent Gas Station is where this is headed.
They want to destroy the entire free state system and put everyone into a Logan's Run society where you are bred to service the state and are expended at age 40 before you cost too much.
None of this is exagerated as you only have to look at the butcher shop of China in babies and prison donor shops to see what these cartels are about.
People, normal people, live under laws and behave themselves. This globalist bunch for centuries has been running the opium and coke trades, laundering money, double dipping on diamonds and selling guns to Indians so Custer who talked too much could end up dead and people would be talking about him instead of who is making the money and taking the power.
That explains George Bush who is the feature of the moment as the global warming religion rapes billions out of economies for the elite and people will still be talking Bush instead of just who is it again syphoning millions of gallons of Iraqi crude off.......just like before the war.
Hitler once stated that he got away with telling big whopper lies because normal people were too honest to do it....these global warming cartels tell the same whoppers knowing they might not get all they want, but they already have carbon footprint and now a United Nations board probably with an army to enforce emissions.
1984
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Carbon Market Efficency Board
July 25, 2007 - 18:43 ET by allanfIt is a nice touch to have two RINOs as cosponsors of the legislation. Carbon will prove tricky to regulate since all life is carbon based. Perhaps they will have to get into the number of permissible breaths a human can take. If you exceed the limit (as certified by a board doctor) you pay higher taxes!!!
One can have great fun with this nonsense. Lindzen is correct, if you control carbon you truly control everything of interest to humans.
It is truly frightening that
July 25, 2007 - 19:00 ET by VT Con ManIt is truly frightening that Senator Inhofe seems so "alone" when he makes his very logical, fact based observations about these friggin moonbat ideas. Scary, very scary...
Imo, the main reason we
July 25, 2007 - 20:02 ET by RESTLESS 1Imo, the main reason we haven't heard about this in the media is that the immigration defeat is still fresh in their minds. They know that the majority of Americans don't believe in AGW and would be in and uproar if they knew that this was being proprosed. Of course it seems funny. We will have a Federal reserve for the stock market, and now they want a "Feeral reserve" for a carbon market. This is crazy, and proof that global warming freaks need to be stopped in their tracks.
What will they call it . .
July 25, 2007 - 20:41 ET by FastEd. .when the GW fakeout turns out to be false? AND, since we are carbon based, will the Board demand that those carbon based folks in congress be efficinet too? this could die a slow death when the rest of the folks find out that elected officials DON'T need to be efficient - sorry, dream state is now over.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
It just pisses me off that
July 25, 2007 - 23:29 ET by jdhawkIt just pisses me off that there are two RHINOs proposing this nonsense.
Nevertheless, here is something to celebrate: our legislators will be on their summer vacations er . . . district work periods beginning Saturday, 4 August through 2 September. Where mercifully they can't pass any legislation.
By the way, does your boss give you off an entire month every summer? Are you exempt from Social Security taxes? When you retire, will you have a lifetime pension and free healthcare? Your legislators will. Try and offset that!
What a bunch of WHOI!
July 26, 2007 - 00:25 ET by lostincyberspaceThis post almost throws me over the edge of reality since this is the government regulation of CO2 I’ve been dreading for a long time. To boot, I have just now been watching a show I DVRed last night called Mega Disasters : Mega Freeze. Scroll down a bit for History Channel show description if you missed this jewel.
I wanted to ask if anyone had seen this show, or the other History Channel show Little Ice Age: Big Chill that I briefly watched a couple days ago.
These shows both spout the WHOI - Abrupt Climate Change scare tactics, with an "Ice Age" twist due to man. I'm basically speechless at the hypocrisy and blatant logic crossing they spew. These shows are dangerous and in my view, help move ordinary logical people to support the type of legislation that Noel’s post highlights.
When I can regain my senses I'll send THC a nice email stating my displeasure(s) in these two shows.
Thanks for this post Noel, without folks like you important information like this might not be disseminated.
Credits! Credits for sale!
July 26, 2007 - 00:39 ET by Mike Bratton(A recycled post, even.)
I'm certainly not the first person to have the idea, but I will soon be setting up credit-sale infrastructure
For example: I'm completely faithful to my wife. As a result, I will shortly be selling Adultery Credits as offsets for those men who need to, um, balance out that portion of their lives.
Do you drink? I don't. At all. So the next time you're tempted to make an inebriated scene at a party, or perhaps drink and drive, just have a sober friend of yours contact me. The Sobriety Credits you'll get will certainly impress the other party guests, a highway patrol officer, a judge, anyone you injure, or the family of anyone you kill as a result of your large "alcohol footprint."
Get the picture? It's a gold mine, I tell you! And as soon as I figure out how to transfer Handsome and Witty Credits to those poor souls in need, I'm on my way...
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
}}}----> Ironic Bratton
July 26, 2007 - 00:48 ET by Cool ArrowBut the offset for adultery (Diamonds) consists of 100% carbon.
Diamonds aren't a girl's only friend
July 26, 2007 - 08:54 ET by Mike BrattonMy wife enjoys various semi-precious stones, so diamonds don't have to be the only option.
And if I can get a federal contract to do this... oh, my!
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
I'd like get some offsets . .
July 26, 2007 - 08:53 ET by FastEdfor my non-smoking for collectibles - coins, stamps and baseball cards or NASCAR cards - got those credits/offsets 4 sale?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Bring it on!
July 26, 2007 - 08:56 ET by Mike BrattonI can handle that! And even if I don't fit a category, I'll hire someone (at the new, luxurious minimum wage) who does!
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Do you actually consider
July 26, 2007 - 08:59 ET by LeonDo you actually consider $5.85 an hour to be luxurious or were you just being facetious?
}}}----> A luxury
July 26, 2007 - 09:10 ET by Cool ArrowI'm fairly certain I could get a job in an unrelated field within a couple of weeks that pays substantially more than $5.85 per hour.
Why am I wrong in using this as a defense?
You're not, and that's why
July 26, 2007 - 09:15 ET by LeonYou're not, and that's why you don't make minimum wage.
Unfortunately, not everybody has that same opportunity.
Anyways, that wasn't my question. I want to know if he relaly thinks 5.85 is luxorious. B/c I don't see how earning $48 pre-tax per day can be seen as luxorious in any light.
}}}----> Exactly the point
July 26, 2007 - 09:28 ET by Cool ArrowOK, it's not a luxury.
The fact that employers will hire X% fewer employees as a result of a higher mandate somewhat crimps the demand for laborers.
I'd rather have a job at 4.85 than no job at 5.85. I was a kid once. And minimum wage is aimed at few else than kids.
Were in the hell is the
July 26, 2007 - 00:55 ET by oorampWere in the hell is the woodshed? I have to share this with everybody cause I'm so pissed: e-mail I just sent to my sen. grahamnasty I want to know how much money you have cost me since you would not back your fellow republicans and president Bush's reform plan that would have put four percent of my own money in the stock market before it exploded.14,000 would have made my retirement come a couple of months earlier. So now I have to work harder and longer because of you. You cost me real dollars and time off my retirement years. I can't tell you the pleasure it is going to give me to vote against you, but the true pleasure gonna come when you hang your head at your
conceding ceremony. Why don't you just quit now? cross posted at www.newsbusters.org
We have alot of trans-planted northerners here now so believe it or not, he might make it again. If the political make-up of your area is not changing, consider yourself lucky. Outlandish rules and taxes that would never even seen the light of day a few years ago have begun to pass here. I would bet my new truck that this global warming bill is aimed directly at getting the new South Carolinians to vote for him. They move here and taste the heat and tell me its getting hotter, when as a outside worker, I can tell you that this is the best year outside in a long time. One word: mild!!!
please visit : www.changethemedia.com
}}}----> Too good
July 26, 2007 - 01:03 ET by Cool ArrowNow that is a rant if ever there was a rant.
I'd hate to be Senator Grinnsey Lamb in the same room with you.
Most of us would be comfortably retired were it not for the Social Security suckers bet.
cool, I feel the pain
July 26, 2007 - 01:28 ET by oorampI pay the whole twelve percent too! That would really let me retire earlier too. But what are you going to do? My own mother lives on socail security, she believed hook, line and sinker. But not to improve the system when it's obvious to do so is just stupid. To me four percent leaving a wacked out system and coming back to me is better than gambling 12%, with the only pay back coming if I live long enough. No more off-topic, now I know were to go.
please visit : www.changethemedia.com
}}}----> No More off topic?
July 26, 2007 - 01:34 ET by Cool ArrowSome of the best bits of info come in while we're focused in on minutia.
cool, two in the morning who cares , so here it is
July 26, 2007 - 01:45 ET by oorampThe movie"Running man" is on "TBS", It surely reminds me of todays newscast, with all the edited ****. And the fake broadcast with chopped up video is close to home with the msm.
please visit : www.changethemedia.com
They are ripping in to the
July 26, 2007 - 01:54 ET by oorampThey are ripping in to the gorgeous babe in the movie now.
Made-up stories, fake videos, fake charges, stories that fit the "templates", incredible & entirely accurate.
}}}----> Thanks ooramp
July 26, 2007 - 01:57 ET by Cool ArrowI'm tuned in now too.
Two other movies I think tell the story better.
Network (William Holden, Faye Dunaway) I'm mad as hell, and I*'m not going to take it anymore) Whole world turns into a giant Jerry Springer show.
The Little Murders (Elliott Gould, Donald Sutherland)
I'll take your word for
July 26, 2007 - 02:12 ET by oorampI'll take your word for it on the other movies, but this one is like watching whats going on from the outside or I guess seeing both sides, the truth and the bull****. Hey even the audience reminds me of the media fooled today.
How about last years winners being skeletons, while they show fake video of them living it up.
I quit watching movie a long time ago so I don't know much about them since the early nineties.
}}}----> Original Rollerball James Cahn
July 26, 2007 - 02:21 ET by Cool Arrow"This was never meant to be a game"
Go to the Newsbusters
July 26, 2007 - 01:04 ET by Free StinkerGo to the Newsbusters Banner at top and click on Forums. You should see it in there.
Thanks, Free, I did so.
July 26, 2007 - 01:48 ET by oorampThanks, Free, I did so.
Looking on the bright side.
July 26, 2007 - 12:25 ET by Dave in TexasThere is some positive spin on this new legislation:
"It offers two measures to relieve excessively high costs that would indicate a scarcity of low-carbon options.
The first measure is to expand companies’ ability to borrow permits against future year reductions.
The second measure, to be used if high prices are not relieved by
the first measure, is to add a slightly larger number of permits to the
market. This temporary increase would be compensated by reducing
available permits in a later year, when more options have been
developed."
This shows that congress is starting to realize just how expensive and damaging carbon reduction legislation will be to the economy. They want a safety valve built in that will let them defer the pain to future sessions. You know, just like our so-called "budget".
It doesn't change the fact this legislation is idiotic and deserves a quick death though.
Bureaucracy's highest achievment
July 26, 2007 - 14:28 ET by Galvanic. . . Inhofe cited Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate scientist Richard Lindzen, who said in March, "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life."
Lindzen, as usual, is correct. And just imagine the government setting the price of carbon-offsets, with tax-write offs for special interests.
The whole concept is absurd on its face.
Just a Question
July 26, 2007 - 22:32 ET by SPRENIt's funny but I never hear any mention of where in Article I, Section VIII of the US Constitution Congress is given authority to control the production in peoples' lives. Or for that matter manage our health care, mandate our paying for a retirement program that none of us own as our own property, or how many miles per gallon our cars get, or............
Only because of the failures of our education system have we reached the point where people seem to think the Constitution is designed to manage the civilian population rather than to serve as the rule book for government, defining and limiting what IT can do. People now believe that if something isn't prohibited in the Constitution for the government then that means government can do it rather than understanding the opposite is true. If government isn't specifically, and explicitly, given the power to do something, that power remains within the province of the states and the people.
We are in much greater trouble than many of us realize.