US climate madness
But the best part, by far, is the hyperbole, the misrepresentations and the spin that the Dems are pushing:
The Bill “will create millions of new clean energy jobs, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, promote America's energy independence and security, and cut global warming pollution,” said [Henry] Waxman [chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee].
Translation: the bill will cost millions of jobs, punish consumers through higher energy costs and do nothing for global warming "pollution", and wreck our economy (and thereby our security) into the bargain. Next:
“This Bill marks the dawn of the clean energy age,” said Democratic Representative Ed Markey, who chairs the panel's subcommittee on energy and the environment, co-author with Waxman of the sweeping Bill.
It's incredible that elected officials of the worlds only remaining superpower can spout such utter nonsense, and not be laughed out of the room. Such is the power and influence of the AGW religion. Fortunately, however, the bill has virtually zero chance of ever making it into law - the Republicans and a significant number of Democrats who can see through this charade will see to that.
Bjorn Lomborg, in The Australian yesterday spelled out some home truths about reducing reliance on fossil fuels:
There are two fundamental reasons a focus on reducing carbon emissions is the wrong response to global warming.
First, using fossil fuels remains the only way out of poverty for developing countries. Coal provides half of the world's energy. In China and India, it accounts for about 80 per cent of power generation and is helping labourers in those countries enjoy a quality of life that their parents could barely imagine.
Capping emissions means, effectively, ending this success story for hundreds of millions of people. There is no green energy source that is affordable enough to replace coal in the near future. Instead, our increased research will make green energy cheaper than fossil fuels by mid-century.
Second, immediate carbon cuts are expensive and the cost significantly outweighs the benefits. If the Kyoto agreement had been fully implemented throughout this century, it would have cut temperatures by only an insignificant 0.2C, at a cost of $180 billion every year. In economic terms, Kyoto does only about 30c worth of good for each dollar spent.
Deeper emissions cuts such as those proposed by the European Union - 20per cent below 1990 levels within 12 years - would reduce global temperatures by only 1/60th of 1C by 2100, at a cost of $10 trillion.
For every dollar spent, we would do just 4c worth of good.
Read it here and here.