by Marlo Lewis
November 05, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
In recent testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, energy secretary Steven Chu makes a convoluted case for S. 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, a.k.a. the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill.
Chu argues roughly as follows. Global investment in wind turbines and solar panels could reach $3.6 trillion by 2030. China is investing heavily. If we don’t ramp up our investment in “clean tech” products, we’ll be left behind, become increasingly dependent on foreign producers, and China will eat our…
Read the full story
by Marlo Lewis
October 27, 2009 @ 11:34 am
Today, on MasterResource.Org, the free-market energy blog, I examine the Kerry-Boxer bill’s not-so-hidden fangs.
Like its House companion bill, Waxman-Markey, Title VII, Part A of Kerry-Boxer contains language that will:
encourage CO2 tort litigation against businesses smaller than those subject to the cap-and-trade program, and
pressure policymakers to “move the goal posts” (amend the legislation to tighten the caps).
Bottom Line: The costs of climate legislation may greatly exceed the most pessimistic estimates of recent modeling studies. Those looking for “regulatory certainty”…
Read the full story
by Marlo Lewis
October 15, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
Updated 10/16/09
Over the weekend, Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) co-authored an oped in the New York Times titled, “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation).”
On Tuesday, my colleague Myron Ebell responded with “Yes We Can (Raise Your Energy Prices and Send Jobs Abroad).”
On Wednesday, the Washington Examiner scorned “Lindsay Graham’s costly collegiality.”
Thursday, on MasterResource.Org, the free-market energy blog, I posted “Sen. Lindsey Graham’s Me-Too Kyotoism (will he snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?)”
In the Washington Examiner, Mark Tapscott concludes that “Lindsey…
Read the full story
by Marlo Lewis
September 21, 2009 @ 10:28 am
Last week, on the free-market energy blog MasterResource.Org, I posted a two-part column on climate change and national security. In a nutshell, I argued that global warming is likely not an important geopolitical or military “threat multiplier,” and that the national security risks of climate change policies likely outweigh those of climate change itself.
One of the great things about “publishing” on the Internet is that readers can quickly and easily share other insights and information the author had not considered.
Climate scientist and fellow blogger Chip Knappenberger called my…
Read the full story
by Marlo Lewis
September 16, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
The global warming scare campaign goes through phases. Warmists are collectivists, and they buzz like a hive. The overall narrative of doom does not change, but every couple of months or so the hive settles on a different scare to buzz about most loudly.
That’s the best way to get media and public attention, after all. Single out one alleged global warming terror, publicize the heck out of it until ”everybody knows” the “crisis” is “even worse than scientists previously believed,” and then move on to the next scare-of-the-month. The intended effect, as H.L. Mencken put it, “is…
Read the full story
by Marlo Lewis
August 07, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Today’s excerpt from CEI’s film, Policy Peril: Why Global Warming Policies Are More Dangerous Than Global Warming Itself, is on cap-and-trade.
What is cap and trade?
Cap-and-trade is Al Gore’s (and the environmental community’s) leading “solution” to the alleged “climate crisis”–the centerpiece, for example, of the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty.
There are many technical issues in the design and implementation of a cap-and-trade program, but the basic idea is as follows.
The government establishes a legal limit–a “cap”–on the total quantity of greenhouse gases that regulated (”covered”) entities may emit. Each covered entity must acquire one federally-created or -certified allowance (permit,…
Read the full story
by Marlo Lewis
July 24, 2009 @ 11:19 am
Is the science debate on global warming “over”? Politicians, pundits, and academics never tire of repeating “the debate is over” mantra. They could not be more wrong.
As I explain today on MasterResource.Org, all the basic science issues in the global warming debate–attribution, sensitivity, and even detection–are unsettled and more so now than at any time in the past decade.
For those who want to delve more deeply into these and other fascinating issues, check out the marvelous Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change…
Read the full story
by William Yeatman
February 24, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
“A Matter of Fact,” a new report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, challenges the Washington Post to correct George F. Will’s “Dark Green Doomsayers” column, published February 15th. The report, by CAP’s Brad Johnson, asserts that George Will made three factual errors:
Current “global sea ice levels” equals those of 1979
There hasn’t been warming in “more than a decade”
“Global cooling” joins a list of well publicized “planetary calamities that did not happen.”
Will’s column is not perfect,…
Read the full story
by Marlo Lewis
February 23, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
Yes, for three reasons.
(1) Companies in carbon-constrained countries will demand carbon tariffs to “level the playing field” vis-a-vis firms in non-carbon constrained countries.
(2) Cheating will be rampant unless deterred and punished by credible trade sanctions.
(3) The EU-IPCC-Al Gore goal of achieving a 50% reduction in global emissions by mid-century is impossible absent deep emission cuts in developing countries, which in turn won’t happen unless developing countries are bullied into limiting their consumption of coal and oil.
For further discussion, see my…
Read the full story
Loading ...
