January 2012

What would it take to reduce CO2 levels to 350 ppm?

by Marlo Lewis on April 2, 2009 · 1 comment

in Global Warming

“Climate 350″–for 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere–is fast becoming the new mantra of Gorethodox believers in climate doom and coercive energy rationing. Columbia University will host a conference on the topic next month, featuring NASA scientist James Hansen as the keynote speaker.

But as Newsweekreporter Sharon Begley points out, just to limit atmospheric concentrations to 450 ppm, nations would have to build 10,000 new nuclear power plants–one every other day from now until 2050–plus a mind boggling 1 million solar roof top panels per day from now until 2050. Even then, 450 ppm is attainable only if global energy efficiency improves by a whopping 500%, population grows only to 9 billion (instead of 10 billion or 11 billion), and global GDP grows at an anemic (near recession) rate of 1.6% per year.

What would it take to lower CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm? According to Begley’s source, Cal Tech chemist Nathan Lewis, global CO2 emissions would have to drop to zero by 2050.

Absent revolutionary changes in energy production, distribution, conversion, and storage–Nobel-caliber breakthroughs that nobody can plan or predict–lowering CO2 emissions to 350 ppm is impossible without draconian cutbacks in population, economic output, or both. Whether they realize it or not, the Climate 350 Club is asking us to go back to the caves.

For additional discussion, see my post on Masterresource.org.

Senate votes to kill cap-and-trade?

by Marlo Lewis on April 2, 2009 · 1 comment

in Global Warming

Well, not overtly, but the Senate voted 89-8 for an amendment to the Fiscal year 2010 budget resolution (S. Con Res. 13), introduced by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), which would prohibit any future greenhouse gas cap-and-trade initiative from increasing gasoline prices and electricity rates for U.S. households and businesses.  

As University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke, Jr. points out, “The entire purpose of cap and trade is in fact to increase the costs of carbon-emitting sources of energy, which dominate US energy consumption. The Thune Amendment thus undercuts the entire purpose of cap and trade.” In other words, it is impossible to vote for the Thune amendment and support cap-and-trade and be consistent, candid, or straight with the American people.

Who voted for the Thune amendment? A whole bunch of cap-and-traders including Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and John Warner (D-VA).

Boxer tried to square the circle, proposing legislation, adopted 54-43, to compensate consumers for higher energy prices via tax rebates. But rebates after-the-fact are not the same as prohibiting measures that increase energy prices in the first place. Does anyone really believe that if carbon permit auctions under President Obama’s cap-and-trade initiative raise $646 billion or even $1.9 trillion for the Treasury, spendaholics in Congress will not use one dime of the boodle to fund pet projects, “green” jobs, or health-care “reform”?

Pielke, Jr. concludes on a cheery note:

The Thune Amendment effectively kills cap and trade as a mechanism for reducing emissions. I have little doubt that the legislation will go forward, and it likely will pass in some form and do many things. Its just that reducing emissions won’t be among them. Cap and trade is dead, but the charade will go on.

A consumation devoutly to be wished. On the other hand, it ain’t over ’till it’s over. We should not underestimate the capacity of politicians to insist on having their cake and eating it. Again, Boxer pretends to see no contradiction between voting for Thune and supporting Obama’s $646 billion to $1.9 trillion energy tax. The Thune amendment could also be jettisoned or vitiated by House-Senate conferees.

Nonetheless, the Thune amendment shows the path to victory. Cap-and-traders fear public retribution over high electricity and gasoline prices more than they fear the alleged horrors of global warming. Our task is obvious–keep calling cap-and-trade an energy tax, because that is what it is.

Obama Follows in Hoover’s Footsteps

by Hans Bader on April 1, 2009 · 3 comments

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

During the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover damaged the economy, and impoverished the American people, with costly, artificial attempts to stimulate the economy through increased government spending, financed by heavy taxes like the Revenue Act of 1932.

Obama is now doing the same thing through his proposed $2 trillion cap-and-trade carbon tax. That tax fulfills his prediction in 2008 to the San Francisco Chronicle (which didn’t report it) that “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” As Obama admitted, that cost would be directly passed “on to consumers” — just the way Herbert Hoover’s regressive excise taxes were in 1932. Although the tax’s supporters claim it will cut greenhouse gas emissions, it may perversely increase them and also result in dirtier air.

The $2 trillion that Obama’s proposed “cap-and-trade” carbon tax on energy use and utility bills is expected to raise is far more than the $646 billion the Administration earlier estimated. That’s at least $3,100 per family per year.

Obama is also emulating Herbert Hoover’s protectionism. Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which helped turn a recession into the Great Depression by triggering a trade war with other countries.

Similarly, the bill incorporating Obama’s carbon tax contains protectionist measures that will likely trigger an economically-destructive trade war. Indeed, Obama already started a trade war through a provision in his $800 billion stimulus package that blocked a measley 97 Mexican truckers from U.S. roads. That minor NAFTA violation “caused Mexico to retaliate with tariffs on 90 goods affecting $2.4 billion in U.S. trade,” destroying 40,000 American jobs. (Even before that, the Congressional Budget Office admitted that Obama’s stimulus package would actually shrink the economy in the long run).

The $2 trillion raised by Obama’s cap-and-trade carbon tax may be dwarfed by the money it siphons from consumers to well-connected corporations that have learned how to game cap-and-trade schemes.

In the Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover raised marginal tax rates to 63%, and went on a deficit spending binge. Similarly, Obama has proposed higher marginal tax rates, which will produce another $1.9 trillion in tax increases.

In spite of its massive size, Obama’s carbon tax won’t begin to pay for all his spending increases, such as a budget that will generate $4.8 trillion in increased deficits, Obama’s trillion-dollar toxic-asset program, and his $800 billion, economy-shrinking “stimulus” package, all of which contradict Obama’s campaign pledge of a “net spending cut.”

Obama’s carbon tax, like the tobacco tax increase he already signed into law, is a violation of his campaign promise not to raise taxes in “any form” on anyone making less than $250,000 per year.

LibertyWeek 36: We Go Green

by Richard Morrison on April 1, 2009

in CEI Projects, Podcast

Hosts Richard Morrison and Cord Blomquist join Michelle Minton in welcoming you to LibertyWeek 36: The Green Episode. We begin our environmental adventure with an update on the high cost of renewable energy and the good news from the coal laboratory. We then pass on advice for drinking green in Beer News and celebrate the recent observance of Human Achievement Hour. This brings us to the featured interview with our distinguished colleague and author Steve Milloy – where we explore his new book Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them and its targets, from the Audubon Society to Zero Population Growth. Finally we round out the program with a little Olympic News.

Energy bill — “first shot” in carbon trade war?

by Fran Smith on April 1, 2009 · 2 comments

in Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International, Trade

In the wake of the release of the Waxman-Markey energy bill, many commenters have pointed to the drastic restrictions on domestic energy use to address greenhouse gas emissions, while some, like CEI, have pointed to the huge economic costs that would result — costs that would be paid for by consumers and in terms of reduced manufacturing and jobs.  Few have noted a further economic consequence — the possible disruption of the world trading system because of the bill’s endorsement of carbon border taxes on imports from countries that don’t have an energy-repressive regime.  Here’s what CEI’s Iain Murray has to say about that:

The bill as drafted clears the way for carbon protectionism.  It envisages “rebates” to companies that have to pay higher costs than their international competitors, which amounts to illegal state aid under WTO rules.  Further, it directs the President to institute what is laughably called a ‘border adjustment’ program requiring foreign companies to pay for the cost of carbon.  This is nothing more than a tariff aimed at eliminating the competitive advantage of other nations.  Taken together, these provisions represent the first shot in what is likely to prove a disastrous carbon trade war.

Margo Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation and Bill Kovacs of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce provide hard and realistic criticism of carbon border taxes in National Journal’s Experts Blogs this week.

Bill Giving D.C. a Congressman Is Unconstitutional

by Hans Bader on April 1, 2009 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Legal, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual, Stimulus to Nowhere

A bill that would give residents of Washington, D.C. a Congressman is unconstitutional, lawyers in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded. But politics overrode law as Attorney General Eric Holder, who has a contempt for constitutional safeguards, ignored their conclusion and decided instead to declare it constitutional. The bill was passed in slightly different versions by both Houses of Congress on largely party-line votes, although differences between the two versions have to be ironed out before it can be signed by Obama, who supports the bill (the Senate added a provision protecting gun-rights in the District to the bill, enraging liberal House leaders).

The OLC lawyers who admitted that the bill is unconstitutional were liberal academics appointed by Obama himself. But not even they could argue with a straight face that it was constitutional. For decades, beginning with Robert F. Kennedy, the Justice Department, like the Congressional Research Service, has admitted that giving the District a Congressman is unconstitutional.

The bill is flagrantly, patently unconstitutional, since it violates the constitutional requirement of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution that the “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” Washington, D.C. is not a state. The Founding Fathers specifically intended to limit Washington, D.C.’s influence over Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment likewise states that “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States . . .”

Supporters of the bill argue that the bill is constitutional under the District Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution, which says that Congress has the power of “exclusive Legislation” over the District. They say its language trumps other constitutional provisions. But that argument is frivolous. Allowing grants of power, like the District Clause, to override other provisions of the Constitution, such as the Fourteenth Amendment, is dangerous, since those other provisions also contain crucial civil liberties. Under this logic, Congress could legislatively authorize warrantless searches and seizures in the District, effectively overriding the Fourth Amendment. And it could summarily punish innocent people through “bills of attainder,” which are prohibited in the very same article of the Constitution — Article 1 — as the requirement that only “states” receive Congressman. If that requirement can be overridden by Congress under the District Clause, as bill supporters claim, then why can’t other requirements in the same article, like the ban on bills of attainders?

As George Will has noted, if “Congress’ legislative power trumps the Constitution, . . . Congress could establish religion, abridge freedom of speech and of the press and abolish the right of peaceful assembly in the District.” Obviously, that is not the case, since, as National Review points out, “The grant of exclusive jurisdiction does not permit Congress to do anything that the rest of the Constitution forbids, and the rest of the Constitution clearly forbids it to treat D.C. as a state.”

The courts have always assumed that grants of power to Congress are limited by other constitutional provisions. For example, although the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, the courts have struck down as free-speech violations Congressional laws regulating the publishing industry, interstate advertising, the internet, and other forms of interstate commerce, without anyone suggesting that Congress’s power overrides the First Amendment. Similarly, a federal appeals court struck down the Elizabeth Morgan Act as a bill of attainder in 2003, even though it was Congressional legislation regarding the D.C. courts enacted under the District Clause.

Attorney General Holder’s political meddling is a breach of his promise not to politicize DOJ’s legal positions, and to take legal positions based not on “a political process,” but rather “based solely on our interpretation of the law.” (It is also a breach of his oath of office).

But this shouldn’t be a big surprise, coming from an Administration that has routinely broken campaign promises, such as Obama’s promise of a “net spending cut,” which he broke in myriad ways, such as a budget that will increase projected deficits by $4.8 trillion, and bailouts amounting to $8 trillion (not counting another trillion dollars for the toxic-asset buy-up program and $800 billion for the economy-shrinking “stimulus” package).

Virginia Postrel on Her Own Brush with Cost-Effective Drug Research

by Greg Conko on April 1, 2009

in Healthcare, Insurance, Nanny State, Nano & Biotech, Personal Liberty, Regulation

In the March 2009 issue of the Atlantic, Virginia Postrel recounts her recent successful battle with breast cancer and notes that she may not have had such a happy outcome if she lived in New Zealand. Following surgery to remove several tumors, Postrel’s doctors prescribed the monoclonal antibody Herceptin, which regulates cell division and can keep some cancerous cells from dividing uncontrollably. Herceptin has a 95 percent success rate in early-stage cancers like Postrel’s. And, although it’s been just a short time since her treatment ended, it seems to have worked.

Unfortunately, despite fairly good evidence of Herceptin’s effectiveness in treating early-stage breast cancer, it was not until 2007 that the New Zealand government agency called Pharmac, which determines what medicines will and will not be covered by the country’s national health care system, agreed to cover Herceptin for early-stage cancers. Herceptin is expensive — in the neighborhood of $60,000 US per patient — and Pharmac wasn’t convinced the treatment was worth it. Ironically, Postrel points out, Pharmac had long agreed to cover Herceptin treatment for late-stage cancers, even though the likelihood of success in treating those conditions are much lower.

In part because the Obama Administration and many congressional Democrats have been pushing for a US-equivalent of Pharmac, Postrel’s article generated an overwhelming number of letters to the Atlantic‘s editors. Some will be published in a future edition of the print magazine. But, two days ago, the Atlantic published several of them online, along with a lengthy reply by Postrel. Because her original article is relatively short, Postrel could not fully examine or even touch on many items that she does address in this later response. I recommend that the two items be read together as a two-part essay.

One theme in particular that Postrel develops more fully in part 2, is very important. While it’s true that government run health plans can’t pay for all the treatments every patient would like to have, the problem is that, when a government herds large swaths of its population into public sector health plans with few realistic alternatives, this kind of rationing inevitably means that some patients will not get treatments that could cure them. One letter writer, for example, argues that Herceptin was a poor example for Postrel to highlight because “Multiple cost-effectiveness analyses have shown that, despite its high cost, Herceptin is both effective and cost-effective.” That, of course, was Postrel’s point. She replies, “I used [Herceptin] as an example not only because of my personal story but because its very cost-effectiveness makes it such a striking example. New Zealand chose to ration the drug (and not to cover it at all for early-stage cancer until July 2007) despite its significant benefits.”

Next Entries →