It is a nightmare, just as expected. The bill itself is actually not all that long, despite the very complex nature of what it proposes to do. And that, too is a big problem.
Why is that a problem? Because what the bill does is essentially proclaim that there will be a Cap & Trade system to reduce Oregon's carbon dioxide emissions, and empowers the Environmental Quality Commission to design it and implement it by rule.
So we will have a new, unprecedented level of power in an unaccountable bureaucracy. You think the legislature and the lawmaking process is hard to influence? Try stopping an administrative rule promulgated by a team of bureaucrats. I've been through it many times.
Why will this be so bad for Oregon? It will be hugely expensive, directly in a higher cost of energy (with the money going both to the government and to large energy companies who have the political clout to game the system) and in reduced economic growth rates in Oregon.
They are essentially calling for a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions by the year 2020. Which basically means they want Oregon to use 40% less energy. The easy (and only technologically proven) way to make that happen is to be 40% less productive than we are now.
Sounds great.
If you want to really get angry, go take a look at the blizzard of planning documents concocted by the Western Climate Initiative, which is the multi-state group behind this whole thing. Read some of those design drafts to get a sense of the breathtaking scale and scope of the intrusive bureaucracy they plan to foist on us.
And the whole point is to bleed money out of the economy in the form of a hidden energy tax, so the politicians can use it for all their sustainability initiatives.
I will be writing about this issue a lot in the weeks to come, because we can absolutely count on the newspapers in Oregon not bringing a lot of the truth about this to light. So stay tuned - this could be the most harmful initiative ever to come out of our government class in Oregon.
12 comments:
Lets Follow the Money
* The carbon offset trading market is poised to become a TRILLION DOLLAR market, with vast profits to be made.
* The science research community has a financial stake in turning out scary papers because if they say there is no problem, the huge amounts of money funding this will go away.
* Several high profile promoters of CO2 panic are already in the business of making money off of the global warming scare: Al Gore (USA huckseter), Maurice Strong (started IPCC?), Nick Stern (Stern report):
Al Gore
1. Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria. (tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764)
2. Al Gore is a partner in Silicon Valley's preeminent venture capital firm After "a conversation that's gone on for a year and a half," according to Gore, he has decided to join his old pal John Doerr as an active, hands-on partner at Kleiner Perkins, Silicon Valley's preeminent venture firm.
See: http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/11/news/newsmakers/gore_kleiner.fortune/
3. “The investment vehicle headed by Al Gore has closed a new 683m fund to invest in early-stage environmental companies and has mounted a robust defence of green investing.”
“The Climate Solutions Fund will be one of the biggest in the growing market for investment funds with an environmental slant”
“The fund will be focused on equity investments in small companies in four sectors: renewable energy; energy efficiency technologies; energy from biofuels and biomass; and the carbon trading markets”
http://209.157.64.200/%5Ehttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f78fbec2-161b-11dd-880a-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f78fbec2-161b-11dd-880a-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
4. Al Gore appears to get $100,000 for speaking See this for one example (price is on page 5):
http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0717071gore1.html
5. Al Gore is Chairman of Generations Mutual fund see: generationim.com/about/team.html
6. Al Gore’s mutual fund profits from carbon trading as it bought 9.5% stake in CAMCO GLOBAL
see: http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/31/magazines/fortune/gunter_carboncredits.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008110307
7. Al Gore’s mutual fund was a prized Lehman client
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/09/21/do2105.xml)
Jim Hansen (controls NASA’s climate reporting)
1. NASA Goddard Scientist to Receive Heinz Award
“Dr. Jim Hansen Chief of the Goddard Space Flight Center's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, N.Y., and one of this year's recipients of a $250,000 Heinz Award, receives his award tonight at a ceremony at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C.”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20010305/
2. “Hansen was in Wilmington to receive a 50,000 dollar Common Wealth Award for outstanding achievement,” ... “The awards are provided by a trust of the late Ralph Hayes, a former director of Coca Cola and Bank of Delaware, now PNC.”
http://www.terradaily.com/2007/080407011650.dyqm0pmz.html) (AFP) Apr 07, 2008
Maurice Strong
Secretary General of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development -- the so-called Earth Summit -- held in Rio de Janeiro, which gave a significant push to global economic and environmental regulation.
Mr. Strong founded the Earth Council http://www.earthcouncilalliance.org/en/about/maurice-strong.html
Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, described as “the world’s first and North America’s only active voluntary, legally binding integrated trading system to reduce emissions of all six major greenhouse gases (GHGs), with offset projects worldwide.” http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=67 ;
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=821
Sir Nicholas Stern
1. “Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the UK’s Stern report on climate change, will launch a new carbon credit ratings agency on Wednesday, the first to score carbon credits on a similar basis to that used to rate debt.” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/897fc1b4-4219-11dd-a5e8-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1)
“Among our principal guests were Sir Nicholas Stern, who will be joining us as Vice Chairman, IDEAGlobal Group on August 13th 2007” http://www.ideacarbon.com/events_july07.asp)
“The markets for emission reductions under the flexible mechanisms and the EU ETS have increased from small and hesitant trades to a growing market, projected to possibly exceed $10 billion in the CDM alone. In a follow up commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol, projections place a market size at over $100 billion.” (http://www.ideacarbon.com/markets.asp)
BILLIONS in Research Money
“NEW YORK, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Eight scientific organizations urged the next U.S. president to help protect the country from climate change by pushing for increased funding for research and forecasting ... $9 billion in investments between 2010 and 2014 ... The investments would pay for satellite and ground-based instruments that observe the Earth's climate and for computers to help make weather predictions more accurate.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN20412636
If you don't trust a scientist that received a speaking fee from the energy industry, how can you trust any of the above, making millions & possibly BILLIONS from spreading alarm?
Thanks
JK
IMPORTANT: The legislation is not limited to carbon dioxide. We may have to have 6 or more GHG trading markets.
ORS 468A.210: “Greenhouse gas” means any gas that contributes to anthropogenic global warming including, but not limited to, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.
Too much for a comment.
http://tinyurl.com/65lk84
.
jk: I don't necessarily trust them. Fortunately the science behind global warming is not dependent upon the people you have listed. There are quite a few scientists (more than 650) who believe in global warming who aren't making millions.
As for billions in research money.. well, if money, in and of itself, taints scientific research, then all scientific research is suspect.
Question back at you. Why do YOU trust scientists who take money from industry groups? Especially, in the case of Tobacco, an industry that has a proven track record of lying.
R. L. said... Fortunately the science behind global warming is not dependent upon the people you have listed. There are quite a few scientists (more than 650) who believe in global warming who aren't making millions.
JK: There are over 30,000 that signed the petition project AGAINST YOUR POSITION. You conveniently forget them. More are signing daily as they realize how little real data there is behind Al Gore’s lies.
R. L. said... As for billions in research money.. well, if money, in and of itself, taints scientific research, then all scientific research is suspect.
JK: Amazing. We have put up with years of your side dismissing fine scientists because of taking a $100 speaking fee ten years ago. Now it comes out that Al Gore is getting rich and it is all OK. You simply ignore AL Gore’s $100,000 speaking fees and business interests. The hypocrisy of your side is unbelievable.
R. L. said... Question back at you. Why do YOU trust scientists who take money from industry groups? Especially, in the case of Tobacco, an industry that has a proven track record of lying.
JK: Who said I do? I do something that you are apparently too lazy to do: I read the reports, not rehashes from money grubbing multinational corporations like the Sierra Club.
Thanks
JK
Yes, Oregon Guy is being sarcastic!
> JK: Amazing. We have put up
> with years of your side
> dismissing fine
> scientists because of taking a $100
> speaking fee ten years ago. Now it
> comes out that Al Gore is
> getting rich and it is all OK.
Al Gore is an advocate, not a scientist. No scientist takes seriously anything he has to say, except as it has already been vetted by existing science. He often present the best science out there, but in his zeal Gore sometimes goes too far. If he is "getting rich," it is by his business skills. Jim, you are just as free to invest in green technologies as Gore is, just as free to take the same steps and risks he is. Perhaps if you're not doing so it's because you lack personal initiative.
David:
Did scientists "vet" all the scientific errors identified in the British High Court?
You say Al Gore is making millions off his business skill? Nothing could be further from the truth. His whole game is to use political power to mandate CO2 limits, which then increase demand for the offsets he sells.
It is the oldest political game in the world - using political power to enrich oneself by creating economic rents to the business you are in.
JK doesn't do this because he believes stealing is immoral.
David Appell said... No scientist takes seriously anything he has to say, except as it has already been vetted by existing science. He often present the best science out there, but in his zeal Gore sometimes goes too far.
JK: Where is the outcry from “good scientists”. Perhaps jim Hansen? Oh, I almost forgot Hanson said it was OK to lie. And keeps getting caught fudging the data. How about Mann? Maybe he wouldn’t want to accuse a fellow liar.
How about YOU DAVID, you are a “science” WRITER. Where is your article pointing out Al Gore’s lies? You do care about the truth, don’t you?
David Appell said... If he is "getting rich," it is by his business skills.
JK: Amazing!! Simply amazing!! Its OK for Gore to make millions, but skeptics are vermin if they get $100 from an oil company. What hypocrisy!!
David Appell said... Perhaps if you're not doing so it's because you lack personal initiative.
JK: No, David, its because, unlike you, I have ethical standards - I don’t believe in profiting from fraud.
Hey, David! We are still waiting for you to show your previous statements to be true. Your claim that you have answered them is simply false:
1. “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.”
2. CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”
3. “if you're going to damage the climate by burning carbon "
4. “today's CO2 is different – manmade (there's irrefutable proof of this).”
5. “Global warming is, simply, the most serious and most difficult problem ever faced by mankind. . .This is a sound, definite scientific conclusion, no longer in any real doubt”
Where is the evidence? Your silence is ample evidence that you have none.
JK: Lastly, I comment on some of your recent delusions in the “O”:
David: “We must - sans live-altering technological developments -- completely eliminate carbon from our civilization - from our transportation and our method of heating and powering our homes. We must stop destroying trees and stop growing livestock for food. And a hundred other changes.”
JK: There you have it all. Man must go back to living in the stone age. Millions or Billions of people must die to save the Earth. David you are as immoral as Stalin, Mao, Castro or Hitler.
David: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and it causes warming, slowly, calmly, inexorably. See: Venus.
JK: David, see a map of the solar system – Venus is close to the sun!
Still waiting for you to show us that you are more than just hot air.
Thanks
JK
David Appell is an advocate, not a scientist. No scientist takes seriously anything he has to say, except as it has already been said by IPCC scientists. He often presents the the most refuted science out there, and in his zeal Appell always goes too far with his hypocricy and dishonesty.
Perhaps he lacks personal initiative.
JK: There are over 30,000 that signed the petition project AGAINST YOUR POSITION. You conveniently forget them. More are signing daily as they realize how little real data there is behind Al Gore’s lies.
I didn't "conveniently forget about them." I simply didn't know about them. The Petition Project can be found here. A general background to the petition, and a summary of the criticisms of the methodology, can be found on wikipedia
JK - it would be helpful, if you have them, to provide links to some of the information you present.
JK: Amazing. We have put up with years of your side dismissing fine scientists because of taking a $100 speaking fee ten years ago. Now it comes out that Al Gore is getting rich and it is all OK. You simply ignore AL Gore’s $100,000 speaking fees and business interests. The hypocrisy of your side is unbelievable.
I'm not sure who you are talking about. A little background would be helpful.
I was addressing your comment about how can we trust scientists who receive millions, or billions, in research monies. Not Gore. You side-stepped that completely.
I think it is fair to question the relationship between money and advocacy. No hypocrisy here. And, for the record, I do not hold myself accountable to the actions of others - whether I agree with them or not.
JK: Who said I do? I do something that you are apparently too lazy to do: I read the reports, not rehashes from money grubbing multinational corporations like the Sierra Club.
In an earlier post on this blog, when the issue of Engstrom and Singer taking money from the tobacco and oil industries was broached, you completely dismissed the concern. It left me with the impression that you're willing to attack those you disagree with and don't apply that same standard to scientists you like.
RL
This play about skpetics taking money from tobacco and oil is nothing but political hackery and an effort to discount the extensive science they have provided.
Tobacco and oil have neither contributed to or fabricated any of the extensive science which refutes AGW.
Your first step should be to dump that phony stunt.
And grasp that there is real outside influence, money, power and policy making objectives which drive the AGW alarmists.
I wonder how it is that you only now have discovered the petition.
This demonstrates the obscuring and obstruction from the truth people such as you have been affected by.
I wonder how much, or how little of the greater skpetic's case and support you are aware of.
I'll charge that it has grown to far exceed the IPCC consensus which still includeds those who have departed and rejected AGW.
Furhtermore, the IPCC consensus is a product not of the supporting work by it's many scienctists but rather in the conveniently interpretive summaries by very few IPCC folks.
Post a Comment