Thursday, October 29, 2009

"California's Going to Make Out Like a Bandit With This Legislation"

...so says Ohio Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) regarding the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, referring to $385 billion in transfers the bill requires some states (including Ohio) send to others (such as California).

Senator Voinovich's presentation includes a map comparing the states slated to receive funds with the votes cast in the House in favor of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. (Let's just say he finds some similarities.)

During his presentation, Senator Voinovich asks Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara "Don't Call Me Ma'am" Boxer (D-CA), "Does your definition of bipartisan mean someone who agrees with you?"

The video clip above includes Senator (please note, Senator) Boxer's response.

Hat tip: Senator Jim Inhofe's Press Office's YouTube Channel.

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:46 PM

Friday, October 16, 2009

What's Happening Now

Bob Moffit on a new way the Senate leadership is trying to deceive you.

Roundup of black conservative opinion of NFL-thinks-it-is-too-good-for-Rush-Limbaugh dustup.

Judge tosses out yet another lawsuit trying to set global warming policy in the courts instead of the legislatures.

Is the Honduran constitution negotiable?

Snow in New Jersey on October 15 does not disprove the global warming theory.

Daniel Henninger: Donald Rumsfeld was right.

Obama says the damage from Katrina was caused in part by a "breakdown of government." If gov't came make a hurricane worse, why would we want it to run health care?

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Business, Climate, Courts, Environment, Project 21, Race, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:51 AM

Thursday, October 08, 2009

The Next Big Cure for Global Warming: Condoms!

Image by Erik Cleves Kristensen via Flickr

Stop the presses! Stop the presses! The London School of Economics has discovered the solution to global warming: Condoms!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, birth control will save us all from the hypothesized temperature increase, sea level rise, polar bear demise, and the need for extra interns at the World Meteorological Organization (which is tasked with finding unique names for hurricanes) resulting from greenhouse gas emissions.

Last month the School released a study sponsored by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) titled, "Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost." Its report concluded that "family planning methods should be a primary tool in the optimum strategy for reducing carbon emissions." The authors' reasoning is sound - if not ominously Malthusian - namely, they argue that the more children mankind produces, the more people there are to engage in carbon emitting activities. Further, using condoms is an easier and cheaper method of carbon abstention than, say, using solar-powered vehicles.

The chairman of OPT, Roger Martin, was thrilled the study validated his think tank's mission: to save the planet via a decrease in the human population "It's always been obvious that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can't shoot down, as we want, while the population keeps shooting up." He and his group have since called on international leaders to include population control mechanisms as part of the negotiations at the Copenhagen climate change summit in December.

While it is amusing to poke fun at the premise's simplicity and overt sexual overtones, the London School's conclusions are profoundly disturbing. They highlight the truly ant-ihuman approach to environmental policies some anthropogenic global warming crusaders advocate. Indeed, if a catastrophe caused by manmade global warming is truly imminent, using their logic, the most effective remedy would be the mass extinction of that evil, omnivorous, environment altering, CO2 breathing species: humanity.

Ironically, quite chilling.

Written by Caroline May, policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Labels: Climate, Environment, Liberals

Posted by Caroline May at 6:20 PM

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

What's Happening Now

If All Nippon airways really wanted to reduce carbon emissions, it wouldn't ask its customers to pee; it would ask them to stay home.

Here's hoping the idiotic sports reporters who attacked Rush Limbaugh over his perfectly-appropriate Donovan McNabb comment in '03 gag on this news.

Which health insurer denies the most claims? Find out here.

Tell me again why the USA gives one penny to the United Nations.

Labels: Business, Climate, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, United Nations

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:01 AM

Friday, October 02, 2009

Boxer-Kerry Cap-and Trade Bill Puts Corporate Interests Over National Interest

Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli has been closely monitoring the corporations who lobby for cap-and-trade.

Tom issued a statement Friday on the ways the new Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade bill (or perhaps I should say, bill framework, because it appears to be out of fashion these days for legislators to actually finish drafting their proposed bills before introducing them):

Senate Cap-and-Trade Bill Favors Corporate interests Over National Interest

The "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act" introduced by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) favors corporate interests over our national interest, says the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research. The bill calls for a 20% reduction in emissions, exceeding the 17% target in the House Waxman-Markey legislation passed in May.

Boxer-Kerry lacks many important details, including a disclosure of which industries will benefit from free emissions credits.

"In the rush to legislate, the Boxer-Kerry bill is silent on key elements, such as how the government will hand out free emissions allowances that are worth billions of dollars. With that amount of money left on the table it opens the door for a behind-the-scenes lobbying fest that will reward well connected companies while looting taxpayers," said Tom Borelli, PhD, director of the Free Enterprise Project.

Waxman-Markey awards most of the estimated $777.6 billion of free allowances to industry between 2012-2020. Utilities were the biggest winner in the "House bill lottery," receiving 35% of allowances.

President Obama originally wanted to auction all the emission credits with the revenue going to reduce the budget deficit.

In addition to the allowance windfall, a few select companies will benefit from specific provisions. Caterpillar would gain from sales of its newly-developed hybrid bulldozer, because the bill empowers the EPA to issue new emissions standards for "new heavy-duty vehicles and engines and for nonroad vehicles and engines."

The Caterpillar hybrid bulldozer is priced about $100,000 more than conventional bulldozers – an added cost that will be passed on to construction projects.

The Boxer gift to Caterpillar may be a reward for CEO Jim Owens. Under Owens, Caterpillar is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) – a coalition of corporate and environmental special interest groups lobbying for cap-and-trade. Owens is a member of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

"Owens is putting his personal short-term interest over our national interest. He has previously acknowledged that cap-and-trade can harm the competitiveness of our manufacturing industries, yet he remains a member of USCAP," added Borelli. "Owens' thirty pieces of silver is a hybrid bulldozer."

"It's clear the only winners with cap-and-trade will be the lobbyists, CEOs and their environmental allies. The bill represents a huge transfer of wealth in the amount of hundreds of billions of dollars to industry. While the Washington elite benefit, the rest of America will end up paying the cost through higher energy prices, slower economic growth and sending jobs overseas," said Borelli.

Visit the Free Enterprise Project online at http://www.freeenterpriser.com.

###

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Economics, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:35 PM

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

David Ridenour Appearing on WBAL Baltimore

If you are in the Baltimore/DC area or on your computer now, you you can tune in to WBAL 1090 AM to hear David Ridenour discussing his latest paper, which is on how 820,000 people a year will lose health insurance if the Obama-supported Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill goes through.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Health Care, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:39 PM

Thursday, September 17, 2009

What's Happening Now

Even the anecdotes are lies. (Does this White House vet anything?)

Would you support a sex tax to pay for Obama's health care reform?

When a health care system has other priorities: "We were told to wrap him in a blanket and let him die."

How the poor cheat the IRS.

Scott Johnson: Who is lower, ACORN or the New York Times?

538: Baucus compromise draws enthusiastic support of Senator Max Baucus.

Obama Treasury Department admits: Cap-and-trade a huge energy tax.

This time, it's caribou: The left is trying to regulate energy using the Endangered Species Act again.

David Harsanyi: Conservatives have never opposed a president before. (So it must be racism.)

Congratulations to Mark Levin. (I'm one of the million.)

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Project 21, Race, Taxes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:46 AM

Sunday, September 13, 2009

AP Quotes Deneen Borelli's Tea Party Speech

Deneen Borelli's Tea Party speech begins at 3:30 on this video

An Associated Press story has quoted the Washington DC Tea Party speech of Deneen Borelli, who is a full-time Fellow of the Project 21 black leadership network.

Said the AP:

...Race also became an issue when a black Republican leader denounced African-American politicians that she said had an "affinity" for socialism.

"I'm outraged prominent black politicians use the race card" to cover up their failed policies, said Deneen Borelli of New York...

I have no clue why the AP referred to Deneen as a "Republican leader." Project 21 is completely non-partisan. I've worked with Deneen for years, and I don't even know if she is a Republican.

Some of my favorite lines from Deneen's remarks:

...I will not sit silently and allow our critics to say our cause is about race and that we are a bunch of rednecks.

Hey, Janeane Garofalo, my neck isn't red!

Speaking of race, I am outraged that prominent black politicians are using the race card to deflect attention from their failed policies and leadership. I’m also stunned that black politicians have an affinity for socialism....

...The goal of cap-and-tax is to force Americans to use less energy by making it more expensive. The consequences of higher energy prices will be devastating: it will reduce our disposable income and our standard of living; it will lead to jobs loses when manufacturing jobs move overseas [and] it will reduce economic growth. That's why cap-and-tax is a ball and chain for all Americans, but especially for low-income households. It’s an energy policy that will enslave all of us...

The complete AP story can be read here.

Labels: Climate, Media, Project 21, Protests, Race, Socialism

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:26 AM

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Steve Milloy on O'Reilly Factor Discussing Relationship Between GE, NBC and White House

Steve Milloy, author of the 2009 book Green Hell, proprietor of the Green Hell and Junk Science websites and co-director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, was the first guest on the O'Reilly Factor Monday evening.

The topic: The mutual support system between General Electric, NBC News, the left-wing environmental movement and the Obama Administration.

The discussion included an August 19 email by a GE vice chairman saying "The intersection between GE's interests and government action is clearer than ever," among other things. The e-mail made it clear GE supports climate legislation for its own financial benefit, and is working hard to see it enacted.

The August 19 email also makes clear that the company is making campaign contributions as part of its strategy to see the enactment of legislation from which it can benefit financially.

For more information on the August 19 email, see Timothy Carner's article in the Washington Examiner, "Leaked E-mail Shows How GE Puts the Government to Work for GE."

Hat tip to ConservativeNewMedia for posting the video on YouTube.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject, Media, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:34 AM

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Tom and Deneen Borelli to Speak on Global Warming Alarmism at Independence Mall in Philadelphia

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli and Tom Borelli, director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project, will speak at Americans for Prosperity's rally "Hot Air Tour Global Warming Alarmism: Lost Jobs, Higher Taxes, Less Freedom," on Wednesday, September 9th at Independence Mall in Philadelphia (rain or shine) from 4:30 pm to
6:30 pm.

Deneen will focus on the negative economic consequences of cap-and-trade legislation and Tom will urge concerned citizens to "vote with their wallet" and not purchase products from companies that are actively lobbying Congress to impose climate change-related economic restrictions.

You can keep up with Tom by reading his FreeEnterpriser blog. Deneen's most recent nationally-distributed op-ed, "Cap-and-Trade is a Ball-and-Chain for Poor Americans," can be read here.

Labels: Business, Climate, FreeEnterpriseProject, Project 21, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:48 PM

Thursday, August 27, 2009

What's Happening Now

Here are one million British National Health Service patients who don't use the Twitter hashtag #welovethenhs.

Fire extinguishers are dangerous -- people might use them.

Public health care is SO reliable. </sarcasm>

Making Dan Rather look good: Swedish newspaper admits it had no evidence when it claimed Jews steal organs from Palestinian children, then defends article making the claim.

Cap-and-trade a ball-and-chain.

Unions get a handout in the health care bill. Cheer up: Only $10 billion. (H/T @BridgettWagner)

Betsy McCaughey on Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, friend of 15-to 40-year-olds everywhere.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Regulation, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:02 AM

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

What's Happening Now

6,000 surgical operations may be cut to make up for budgetary shortfall in Vancouver. Would 6,000 Canadians trade health insurance for health care? (Let's ask when some of them visit.)

Via Twitter, @ruffedge asks: USA or USSR?

How much would you spend to apply a solution that doesn't work to a problem that doesn't exist? Me: Not so much. Congress: $8 billion. (H/T Celebrity Paycut)

Media Matters lied? Say it ain't so!

The Cash for Clunkers program's rules say dealers will be reimbursed within ten days, but dealers have found themselves on waiting lists. Reminds me of this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this. You can't make government efficient by passing a law saying it has to be.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:39 AM

What's Happening Now

Why hasn't David Axelrod recused himself from ObamaCare lobbying?

No sunlight in Sunny California: Touchy agency trying to force someone to surrender video he shot of it.

The left told a lie? Say it ain't so!

Who said it? Climate bill out of control.

U.S. vs. Europe: Life Expectancy and Cancer Survival. (H/T Coyote Blog)

From Newt to Barack: Some good advice the President won't take.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Europe, Government Health Care, Health Care, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:06 AM

Friday, August 14, 2009

What's Happening Now

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions way down in '08.

If PhRMA doesn't want America to think it was bribed by the White House not to oppose government-run health care, it could oppose government-run health care.

Still deadly after all these years.

"Evil mongers"? But this is worse.

Father of cap-and-trade says there's a better way to regulate carbon (if you must). We agree.

Another one bites the dust.

ACLU movie: Big brother looking out for you.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Government Health Care, Health Care, History, Liberals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:31 AM

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

If You Don't Care Enough About Policy to Know Better Than This, Why Didn't You Go Into Another Line of Work?

Picked up by the Detroit News, and then the Heritage Foundation, is this nearly-unbelievably ignorant statement by Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan:

Climate change is very real. Global warming creates volatility and I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are more volatile.

Few readers of this blog would be caught dead saying something this stupid:

...this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air that we breathe.

That one, of course, can be credited to the President of the United States.

It is, a disgrace that people run for high office without caring enough to familiarize themselves with multi-billion-dollar issues (the official price tag for the ghastly Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill alone nears a trillion dollars). Although I can think of a couple of exceptions, on the whole, the American people do not deserve to be governed by ignoramuses.

So please, elected officials: crack a book once in a while, okay?

Hat tip: The Foundry.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:18 PM

Saturday, August 08, 2009

What's Happening Now

Who says the Fifth Amendment is dead? A woman set fire to a man's genitals and is charged with endangering private property.

Your Grandpa is the mob. Funny pics. (H/T The American Catholic)

How Cash for Clunkers hurts charities.

More scurrilous allegations that if you disagree with big spending, racism may be the reason. Cynthia Tucker this time.

It can hurt to be a redhead -- literally.

More global warming hypocrites. Again.

Other than the ones in Congress, what is a pantywaist, anyway?

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Race, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:45 PM

What's Happening Now

Eight-year-old sets up lemonade stand to earn money for trip to Disneyland; California city shuts it down.

No increase in flooding due to global warming. Sorry, alarmists!

Ten 'teachable' race summits in search of a beer.

Don Surber found the swastikas.

If you want to win the heart of the president, put the Palin girls in the ad.

The ten most historically-inaccurate movies? You be the judge.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:53 AM

Friday, August 07, 2009

Not All Senators Are Treated Alike

The Environmental Protection Agency has told Republican Senators Jim Inhofe (OK) and George Voinovich (OH) that it will not provide the analysis they sought of the House cap-and-trade bill, but it will provide an analysis (pdf) for a bill it expects Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to introduce in September.

Among other things, the Senators sought (pdf) a "cost analysis of the Waxman-Markey provisions on households and energy-intensive, trade exposed industries."

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:35 AM

Bill O'Reilly Covers National Center Free Enterprise Project's Call on Obama to Dismiss Jeffrey Immelt

The National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project has called on President Obama to dismiss General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt from his Economic Recovery Advisory Board following findings from the Security and Exchange Commission that "GE bent the accounting rules beyond the breaking point" to "avoid missing analysts' final consensus EPS expectations."

You can read the Free Enterprise Project's complete press release here.

In the video above, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly covers the Free Enterprise Project's call in this nightly "Talking Points Memo" and adds commentary of his own. He then is joined by political strategist Dick Morris, who continues the Immelt-GE-Obama discussion.

Hat tip: To NewsPoliticsNews for posting the video on YouTube.com.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Climate, Corruption, Energy, FreeEnterpriseProject, Media, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:17 AM

Thursday, August 06, 2009

What's Happening Now

Here's who voted which way when the Senate voted to renew Cash for Clunkers. Only 37 Americans in the Senate.

Here's who voted which way when the Senate voted to table Tom Harkin's amendment to limit the car welfare program to individuals earning under $50,000 and couples earning under $75,000. 65 Senators support welfare for the rich. Zero Dems for means testing.

Washington Independent: Cash for Clunkers "steals its funding from a Department of Energy program encouraging the development of renewable energy technologies." Someone thought this bill was about the environment?

John McCain calls Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill "a farce," saying "they bought every industry off - steel mills, agriculture, utilities." More welfare for the rich.

President of the United States or Captain Queeg with his strawberries? Seemingly both.

Searching for swastikas.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Environment, Government Spending, History, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:33 PM

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

What's Happening Now

It's Obama v. Obama, as Obama White House unleashes ex-ABCer Linda Douglas to rebut a video of Barack Obama.

The British government spends $12 million a year lobbying itself on global warming, but it won't buy Mrs. Fletcher Lucentis.

The White House is looking for some snitches. Michelle Malkin asks: How much is the snitch effort costing us?

The Obama administration is refusing to release government records on Cash for Clunkers, even as it asks the Senate to renew it.

Russian subs have begun patrolling our east coast. Resetting our foreign policy indeed.

John Stossel blogs about Cash for Clunkers. Not a fan.

10 reasons the government should take over health care (NOT).

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Climate, Environment, Government Health Care, Government Power, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:11 AM

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Washington Post: Obama Has a "Ready Command of Facts"

In "Polling Helps Obama Frame Message in Health-Care Debate" in Friday's Washington Post, reporter Michael D. Shear writes, "Obama is known for his soaring speeches and his ready command of facts..."

Ready command of facts?

Is he talking about the same President who admitted he was unfamiliar with a critical provision in his own trillion+ dollar health care plan?

Who thinks one of the functions of a living will is to stop extraordinary measures if "brain waves are no longer functioning"?

Who believes carbon dioxide emissions "contaminate the water we drink"?

Who says 14,000 people "every single day" will lose their health insurance unless we follow his advice on health care policy?

Who believes pediatricians remove tonsils?

Who says the health care plan he is backing will "keep government out of health care decisions"?

Who was under the impression that Austrians speak "Austrian"?

Who says with a straight face that his health care plan "will be paid for"?

Who keeps saying the U.S. is importing more oil today than ever before?

Who thought Emperor Hirohito personally surrendered to General MacArthur?

Who says the $1 trillion price tag on his health care bill is less than what we have spent on the war in Iraq?

Who repeatedly asserts that if his health care plan passes, "if you like your health plan, you can keep it, the only thing that will change is that you'll pay less."

The article in which this appeared, by the way, is about how the White House staff uses polls to determine what to put in the President's teleprompter. As one "top advisor" (evidently, his name is top secret), told the Post: "I mean, I'm looking at polling, like, all the time."

Right, dude.

Cross-posted at Newsbusters.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Culture, Energy, Government Health Care, Health Care, History, Media, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:22 PM

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

What's Happening Now

If you like Fanny Mae, you'll love Fanny Med.

What is "de-developing" and why does President Obama's science advisor want to do it to the United States?

Vote for the most ridiculous lawsuit of the month. (I voted for the Katy Perry lawsuit; but was tempted by the Jose Canseco lawsuit.)

California's yearly pension fund contribution rose from $321 million to $7.3 billion in 8 years. The state pays over 5,000 people more than $100,000 annually in pensions.

Parody: "Nothing irritates me more than the pitter-patter of little carbon footprints."

Obama, Democrat leadership blame the GOP for good done by Dem Blue Dogs in stopping health care bill. Accidental compliment?

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Climate, Government Health Care, Health Care, Labor Unions, Legal Reform, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:06 PM

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Quote of Note: Climate Change is Yesterday's News

"...regarding climate change, the U.S. government, rushing to impose unilateral cap-and-trade burdens on the sagging U.S. economy, looks increasingly like someone who bought a closetful of platform shoes and bell-bottom slacks just as disco was dying."

-George F. Will, "Climate Fixers' Hard Sell," Washington Post, July 23, 2009

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:19 AM

Sunday, July 26, 2009

What's Happening Now

If the Congressional Budget Office keeps delivering news like this, will Pelosi and Reid try to shut it down?

Poor Bigfoot.

Is this a lie, or does President Obama just not know any better?

If we create more public health care, we will get more stories like this.

In the housing crisis, who does Thomas Sowell feel most sorry for?

Why do politicians with no business experience think they can run 15 percent of the economy? John Stossel doesn't know.

Just for fun: Nicholas Wade is a "denier."

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Conservatives, Economics, Government Health Care, Health Care, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:09 AM

Saturday, July 25, 2009

What's Happening Now

Under the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill, the taxpayers have to give General Electric $200 every time it sells a refrigerator.

Government medicine won't work for little Gunner.

Can you picture in your mind's eye the scene on the Battleship Missouri as Imperial Japan surrendered to the Allied Powers? Apparently, President Obama can't.

Who's uninsured -- in pictures.

India questions the science behind the global warming theory. Would James Hansen try the Indian government "for high crimes against humanity and nature"?

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, History, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:30 AM

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

NAACP Endorsement of Climate Legislation Puts It at Odds With Views of Black Americans

Project 21 says the NAACP's apparent search for purpose is leading it down the wrong road:

NAACP Endorsement of Climate Legislation Puts It at Odds With Views of Black Americans

For Release: July 22, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Struggling for purpose in light of the election of the first black president, the NAACP moves in the wrong direction, says a group of black conservatives, when it endorses a climate policy in tandem with the World Wildlife Federation that is opposed by a majority of black Americans.

"I'm all in favor of the nation's oldest civil rights group redefining its mission and agenda; however this indicates that the NAACP continues to struggle with current realities that face the nation's black communities by promoting policies they are opposed to," said Project 21’s Joe Hicks, who is also a PajamasTV commentator. "If this group simply wants to be defined as another left-wing organization touting the weak science on climate change, then it is destined to face ever-growing irrelevancy."

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli added: "It's outrageous for the NAACP to place liberal ideology over the welfare of the nation. By aligning with the environmental activist lobby, the NAACP is now an official member of 'Club Green' - the exclusive club of elites waging war against fossil fuels. Tragically, the cover charge for their membership - job losses, reduced standard of living and high energy costs - will be borne disproportionately by the very people the NAACP claims to represent."

The NAACP's zeal for regulation is opposed by most black Americans. A recent poll of 800 black Americans found 76 percent believe Congress should make economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority. 56 percent believe policymakers do not adequately consider the quality of life of black Americans when addressing climate policy. When asked how much they would pay for gas and electricity to reduce greenhouse emissions, 76 percent said they would be unwilling to pay more than $50 a year while 52 percent were unwilling to pay anything at all.

Hicks added: "The NAACP shows how out of touch it has become by advocating Obama Administration policies on so-called climate change that impact the very population that claim to represent - poor, black Americans. Adding an increased burden of higher coast for essential things like gasoline and electricity at a time of economic hardship demonstrates that they have no independent course of leadership, but instead is blindly following this administration's disastrous lead."

The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies for The National Center for Public Policy Research, which sponsors Project 21, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. It can be viewed at: http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html.

- 30 -

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Economics, Energy, Environment, Environmental Justice, Liberals, Project 21, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:01 AM

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Video of Project 21's Mychal Massie on the O'Reilly Factor

Here's a video of Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie (right), guest host Laura Ingraham and Mark Sawyer, Ph.D. of UCLA on Friday's Fox News O'Reilly Factor.

They discussed President Obama's speech at the NAACP convention (including the President's curiously changed accent) and Senator Barbara Boxer's patronizing comments this week to a witness from the Black Chamber of Commerce at a recent hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mychal also mentioned the National Center for Public Policy Research's recent poll of African-Americans on cap and trade.

Hat tip to AmericasNewsToday1 for posting the video on YouTube.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Culture, Environmental Justice, Media, Project 21, Race, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:00 AM

Friday, July 17, 2009

Project 21's Massie Critiques Obama NAACP Speech On Tonight's "O'Reilly Factor"

Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie is scheduled to appear on the Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" program on Friday, July 17 at 8:00 PM eastern. Laura Ingraham is guest-hosting. Also on with Mychal will be Professor Mark Sawyer of UCLA.

Mychal has been invited to discuss President Obama's remarks last night to the NAACP convention in New York City. Along with praising the group on its centennial, Obama specifically promoted his vision for education reform.

Fellow Project 21 member Kevin Martin made the following remarks following the President's remarks to the NAACP:

President Obama may believe his speech before the bobbing heads of the NAACP won him some points in the black community, but the reality is that it is the past and present actions of elected officials such as Obama that are responsible for the current state of education in our community. Obama and his liberal allies on Capitol Hill have sought to crush any alternative to our failed public education system - such as public charter schools, vouchers and increased parental involvement - most likely because it would ultimately make the teacher unions and elected officials have to become more accountable.

Expect Mychal to echo Kevin's feelings as well as discuss how Obama's plan to institute new energy taxes is also against the best interests and will of black Americans.

This post was written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Labels: Climate, Education, Energy, Media, Project 21, Race, White House

Posted by David W. Almasi at 1:36 PM

Quote of the Day: Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) on Waxman-Markey from The Foundry

Looks like cap-and-trade's potential to create yet another wealth-killing bubble is receiving at least some attention from Senate Democrats.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Economics, Liberals, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:11 AM

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Rolling Stone: Cap and Trade is a Carbon Tax Structured So Private Interests Collect the Revenues

Tom Borelli of our Free Enterprise Project has repeatedly warned Americans that passage of cap-and-trade will lead to the creation of a new economic bubble (see here, here or here).

Now Rolling Stone magazine is getting into the act, and it's not pulling any punches.

A sample paragraph to whet your appetite:

...cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman [Sachs], is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it's even collected. [Emphasis in the original]

"If it's going to be a tax, I would prefer that Washington set the tax and collect it," says Michael Masters, the hedge fund director who spoke out against oil futures speculation. "But we're saying that Wall Street can set the tax, and Wall Street can collect the tax. That's the last thing in the world I want. It's just asinine."

Read Rolling Stone's "The Great American Bubble Machine" by Matt Taibbi for the rest of the story.

We've said all along that if you actually believe human beings are causing dangerous global warming, and you honestly believe that this global warming must be fought by suppressing energy use, the only approach that has any hope of not being corrupt is increasing energy taxes. We do oppose increasing energy taxes, but would prefer that by far to cap-and-trade.

I did not expect to see this sentiment in Rolling Stone, but we welcome it to the club.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Corruption, Economics, Regulation, Scandals, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:17 PM

Monday, July 13, 2009

Video of Tom Borelli on Obama's Corporatism Strategy on Glenn Beck

Here's the video of Monday's broadcast of the Glenn Beck Show on the Fox News channel in which Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project and Wall Street analyst/Fox Business News commentator Charles Payne talk about GE's quasi-merger with the Obama Administration, GE's hiring of Linda Daschle as a lobbyist, the recent appointment of a GE executive to a top Obama Administration post at the EPA and how, as Glenn Beck put it in the segment, "the little guy gets screwed."

Hat tip to America's News Today for putting the video on YouTube.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Corruption, FreeEnterpriseProject, Government Power, Government Spending, Liberals, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:10 PM

Tom Borelli to be on Glenn Beck Today

I've just received word that Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, will be a guest on Glenn Beck's Fox TV show today.

The video above is from Tom's last appearance, on July 1. In it, Tom and David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation discuss cap and trade, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, corporations doing the bidding of the left and the use of last minute amendments filled with payoffs to get the the Waxman-Markey global warming legislation approved by the House.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:42 PM

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Carol Browner's Hijinks: They Call This Open Government?

Mark Tapscott is on the case of White House "climate czar" Carol Browner, who appears to be continuing her wily Clinton Administration pattern of dodging and weaving whenever legal niceties interfere with her left-wing agenda.

As Mark writes in his piece entitled "'Put Nothing In Writing,' Browner Told Auto Execs on Secret White House CAFE Talks; Sensenbrenner Wants Investigation":

Carol Browner, former Clinton administration EPA head and current Obama White House climate czar, instructed auto industry execs "to put nothing in writing, ever" regarding secret negotiations she orchestrated regarding a deal to increase federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-WI, is demanding a congressional investigation of Browner's conduct in the CAFE talks, saying in a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, that Browner "intended to leave little or no documentation of the deliberations that lead to stringent new CAFE standards."

Federal law requires officials to preserve documents concerning significant policy decisions, so instructing participants in a policy negotation concerning a major federal policy change could be viewed as a criminal act...

Browner should answer these charges and very specifically, too, but President Obama must be held to account as well. It's not as though he didn't know what he was getting when he appointed Browner. As my husband David Ridenour pointed out in an op-ed published around the U.S. early this year, when Browner was head of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton Administration, it made a practice of skirting the law.

David wrote, in part:

Throughout [Carol Browner's] years as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration, EPA officials routinely violated the Anti-Lobbying Act - a law prohibiting federal employees from using agency money for 'telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress.'

In 1995, the EPA flagrantly violated that law when it lobbied against the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act, a bill that would have curbed some of the EPA's worst abuses.

As James Hinchman, comptroller general of the United States, noted, EPA officials 'distributed EPA fact sheets to various organizations' and 'directly lobbied the Congress.' Not only that, but an EPA regional administrator wrote a strong op-ed designed to stop the bill's passage.

Four years later, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., accused the EPA of violating the Anti-Lobbying Act again. Byrd - who has made a career of steering pork to his state - complained that the EPA's Transportation Partners Program was coordinating and funding anti-road lobbyists against the law and his state's interests. Browner was forced to terminate the program.
The following year, Browner was at it yet again. This time, her agency was accused of allowing special interests to improperly influence last-minute - so-called midnight - environmental regulations.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the EPA to preserve communications with such groups. Instead, Browner had her computer hard drive re-initialized, wiping it clean. Lamberth then held the EPA in contempt for 'contumacious conduct.'
As little respect as she's shown for the law, Browner has shown even less for science. During her years at the EPA, agency scientists who didn't toe the party line were subjected to relentless harassment.

David Lewis, an EPA Science Achievement Award recipient, publicly criticized the quality of science used in crafting regulations. In response, the EPA charged Lewis with ethics violations and repeatedly denied him promotion. Although he won whistle-blower judgments against the EPA, he was eventually forced into retirement.

I recommend reading both Mark's full editorial on Browner's CAFE shenanigans and David's full op-ed on Carol Browner's ideology and ethics, as well as a second commentary by Mark, "Browner Has History of Deceit on Government Files" in today's Washington Examiner.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Corruption, Energy, Environment, Government Power, Regulation, Scandals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:47 AM

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

If The Average of 25 and 75 Is 50, Does That Make Us All Middle-Aged?'

Would you buy a used climate model from a man who could say this?

The average age of scientists in the space center control room was 26, which means they were 18 when they heard President Kennedy say he wanted to put a man on the Moon in ten years.

P.S. The high temperature yesterday in the Oxford, England area, where Al Gore spoke, was 64 degrees F. According to weather.com, the average high for that date is 8 degrees F higher.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:41 PM

Friday, July 03, 2009

Climate Policy: No Gain, No Pain

Thanks to a head's up from Climate Depot, I read with interest the following on the weakness of the computer models used to predict climate from the Britsh Number Watch website:

Most computer models are nonsense. This does not include those used by engineers in designing airplanes, bridges etc., which are based on detailed experiments on the systems involved and tested in a variety of real conditions before being used.

The reason they are nonsense is that they tend to be based on guesses of the value of coefficients assumed, particularly and disastrously feedback coefficients. There are few, however, that are quite as bad as climate models, where the physics of the interactions between variables and parameters is virtually unknown to mankind.

...Imagine you settled down in your seat in a jumbo jet and noticed a plaque on the back of the seat in front which reads 'This machine was designed with the aid of a super-computer. We did not know the values of all the parameters, so had to guess most of them.' You would get off in a hurry. Yet the world's political and media establishment are asking you to gamble the economic future of yourself and your descendants on just such a proposition.

Yes, that really is what the global warming debate comes down to. Shall we believe computer models that are at best based on educated guesses (and which disagree with one another), and enact policies that significantly harm the economy based upon them, even knowing that the policies themselves wouldn't affect the climate noticeably?

I say no; it's wrong to hurt people based on a theory you have no idea is correct, especially if you know the solution won't fix the problem even if your theory IS correct.

You've heard of "no pain, no gain" with regard to weight training? The cap-and-trade climate debate is the reverse: "no gain, no pain." That is, as there isn't going to be any noticeable gain from Waxman-Markey and its ilk, why inflict the pain?

Hat tip: Climate Depot.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:43 AM

Thursday, July 02, 2009

National Center's Tom Borelli Discusses Cap-and-Trade on Glenn Beck

In case you missed it, here's the segment of Glenn Beck's Fox TV show from Wednesday night featuring Tom Borelli of the National Center for Public Policy Research and David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation.

The topic is cap and trade, USCAP, corporations doing the bidding of the left, the Waxman-Markey global warming bill and the use of last minute amendments filled with goodies (amendments Congress wasn't given time to read, of course) by the House leadership to get the legislation approved by the House.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Energy, Liberals, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:11 AM

Naughty Conservatives Shouldn't Mind Votes for Waxman-Markey (Or So We're Told)

In an error-riddled column posted Wednesday on TownHall.com, the supposedly conservative Michael Gerson has a novel take on the Republican Congressmen who voted for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill: He blames conservatives for minding.

One of his reasons: "It is typical that we praise independent judgment and political nerve in our elected officials -- until they actually show those qualities."

If any conservatives and/or others dedicated to limiting government called on our elected representatives to show "independent judgement and political nerve" in service of anything other than principle, they were wrong to do so.

Gerson doesn't quote anybody, though, and I can see why: There are a lot more quotes available of conservatives calling upon their elected representatives to govern conservatively.

Gerson's try to tar the conservative movement with a hypocrisy tag doesn't work.

Gerson is honest, though, in saying he likes the bill (I find it difficult to believe this man is a conservative).

He likes it because, he says, the global warming theory is the dominant view of the "scientific community" (a brush broad enough to include gynecologists), because "some scientists" warn of "possible 'tipping points'," and because, supposedly, mankind's carbon dioxide emissions have reduced crop yields and driven some species to extinction. How he could possibly know this is not mentioned, possibly because what he claims is beyond the current ability of modern science to prove or disprove.

Gerson says "global warming since the 19th century is undeniable," which is another way of saying the planet warmed as the Little Ice Age ended, though Gerson does not mention that there even was a Little Ice Age (and before it, warmer temperatures, though no SUVs).

Gerson doesn't mention, either, that if concern for crop yields is paramount, a little more CO2 in the atmosphere might be just the thing.

And then there's his comment that warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is "closely correlated with increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide," which by itself would prove nothing if it were true, but it isn't.

There's more, such as Gerson's ludicrious comment that in failing to appreciate cap-and-trade, "conservatives seem strangely intent on ignoring the power of markets to encourage... innovation," as if Waxman-Markey had anything whatsoever to do with free markets (oops, Gerson left the word "free" out, so there goes the innovation).

I could go on, but there's really no need. I linked to the version of this column on TownHall with comments. The column is impossible to appreciate, but some of the comments are superlative.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Liberals, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:16 AM

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

We're Not Traitors, But Is Paul Krugman?

Many readers will be aware that New York Times opinion writer Paul Krugman wrote in his Monday column that individuals who did not support the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill when it came up in the House for a vote last Friday are guilty of "a form of treason" against the planet.

A thought experiment: If two doctors were to disagree on a patient's diagnosis, and Krugman agreed with one of them, would the one Krugman disagrees with be guilty of a form of treason?

Even that analogy is too generous to Krugman, as doctors take an oath to (essentially) be loyal to their patients' welfare, but it is not at all common for people with opinions (of any kind) on cap-and-trade or even global warming to first take an oath of loyalty to the planet.

What many of us have done is take oaths of loyalty to the United States. The Waxman-Markey bill would ship American jobs overseas, raise energy prices, shovel money to special interests corruptly, drag down economic growth and impose regressive regulatory taxes on consumers. It would not have a measurable effect on temperature. As it does bad without doing good, the Waxman-Markey bill is bad for the United States of America.

Thus, by Paul Krugman's definition, anyone who supports Waxman-Markey is guilty of "a form of treason" against the United States.

Fortunately for Krugman, his definition of treason is even more silly than it is offensive, which is saying a great deal.

P.S. Climate Skeptic has very good commentary about Krugman's treason charge, going into different areas than I did. (I read it after seeing a link on Coyote Blog.) Interesting that neither Krugman nor his editors knew that you can't write "degrees" with meaning without specifying the temperature scale being used.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Liberals, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:55 AM

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Quote of Note: CBS Anchor Osgood on Global Warming

"The sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity—and last year, it was supposed to have heated up—and at its peak would have a tumultuous, boiling atmosphere, spitting out flares and huge chunks of superhot gas. Instead, it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity. Right now, the sun is the dimmest it’s been in nearly a century.

In the mid-seventeenth century, there was a quiet spell on the sun, known as the Maunder Minimum, which lasted 70 years and led to a mini-Ice Age here on Earth. Right now, global warming is a given to so many, it raises the question: Could another minimum activity period on the sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming?

Hush, child! You’re not even supposed to suggest that."

-CBS's Charles Osgood, April 21, 2009, as cited by Krystle Russin, "CBS Anchor Osgood Takes Skeptical Stand, Environment & Climate News, July 2009

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:57 AM

There's Money to Be Made

Al Gore reportedly has billions of reasons to be glad the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill was approved by the House in a squeaker Friday.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:26 AM

Saturday, June 27, 2009

American Spectator Covers African-American Energy Poll

Thanks to W. James Antle for his story "Lights Out," in the American Spectator, which mentioned The National Center's poll of the African-American community on energy issues.

The article appeared on Rush Limbaugh's "Stack of Stuff" Thursday.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Media, Polls, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:46 PM

Friday, June 26, 2009

Examiner Coverage of Poll

Mark Tapscott, Editorial Page Editor of the Washington Examiner, covered our poll today in his editorial, "Survey Finds Three-Fourths of African-Americans Have Big Worries About Obama-Waxman-Markey."

Many thanks to Mark, whose editorial page is a must-read. If you aren't reading daily now, try it for a week -- heck, try it for a day -- and you will be hooked.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Media, Polls, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:23 PM

Truth in Labelling

David Ridenour calls the Waxman-Markey bill the "Waxman-Markey Economic Climate Change" bill, because the only climate Waxman-Markey has a prayer of changing is our economic one.

And prospects for that, if it passes, are very good indeed.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Economics

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:03 PM

Understatement of the Day

The New York Times, referring to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill: "The bill has shortcomings."

Ya think?

P.S. Apologies. I forgot to add that, except for the sentence quoted above, the NY Times editorial is also one of the most dishonest bits of writing you'll ever come across. To name just one example, it ends on an implied claim that Waxman-Markey will prevent "drought, famine, [and] coastal devastation."

In fact, Waxman-Markey, if adopted, will have an impact on the environment that is too scant to measure even if human beings are causing global warming through CO2 emissions.

As the headline of far, far wiser Orange County Register editorial put it, "Climate change bill all pain, no gain."

Even environmentalists should oppose hurting people for no reason -- and some of them, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, do oppose Waxman-Markey.

The rest have no excuse.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:44 AM

I Don't Recommend...

...looking for a job in Scotland anytime soon.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:41 AM

National Review Online Coverage of Our Poll

National Review Online has covered our poll on African-Americans and climate policy -- twice.

On The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez contributed "Blacks vs. Cap and Trade," and at Planet Gore, Edward John Craig wrote "More Opposition to the Obama Energy Tax."

Much appreciated!

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Media, Polls, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:21 AM

House Leadership Takes Suicidal Stand Against Its African-American Base - Townhall.com

David Ridenour has a new column published on TownHall.com examining the Democratic Congressional leadership's seemingly suicidal lack of concern for the wishes of its most loyal core constituency, African-Americans.

It begins:

Overly influenced by certain big-name green groups, misled by their own ideology and perhaps also a bit dazzled by the unlikely stardom of failed-politician-turned-climate-hero Al Gore, Democrats on Capitol Hill seem bent on self-destruction when it comes to climate change...

Go here to read the rest.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Polls, Race

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:52 AM

Politico Coverage of Our Poll

Cesar Conda has covered our energy and climate poll of African-Americans in his blog on Politico.

Thanks to Cesar for the coverage!

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Media, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:14 AM

Poll Shows: Black Americans Prefer Delaying Action on Climate Change; Want Economy Fixed First

76% of African-Americans want Congress to make economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority, says a poll just released by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The U.S. House of Representatives is planning a vote today on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill.

The legislation, if adopted, is expected to reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion in an effort to reduce global warming, based on a Heritage Foundation analysis.

The survey of 800 African-Americans, 80% of which were self-identified Democrats and 4% self-identified Republicans, found significant concern that government action on climate change would have a harmful and disproportionately negative impact on the African-American community.

Among the key findings:

* 38% believe job losses from climate change legislation would be felt most strongly in the black community. 7% believe job losses would fall most on Hispanics and 2% on whites;

* 56% believe Washington policymakers have failed to adequately consider economic and quality of life concerns of the black community when addressing climate issues;

* 52% of respondents don't want to pay more for gasoline or electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 73% are unwilling to pay more than 50 cents more for a gallon of gas; 76% are unwilling to pay more than $50 more per year for electricity;

* Black Americans are virtually deadlocked on plans to reduce emissions if it would increase prices and unemployment. 44% opposed reductions under these circumstances, 45% supported them.

* 76% want Congress to make economic recovery the top priority.

The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. The questions we asked, plus summary materials, can be viewed at: http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Polls, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:29 AM

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Tom Borelli to Tackle Cap and Trade on Fox Thursday

Tom Borelli of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project is scheduled to appear on the Fox News Channel's online "Strategy Room" program on Thursday, June 25 between 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM eastern.

Tom is planning to talk about the Waxman-Markey "cap-and-trade" legislation that could come up for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives as early as this Friday. This bill would regulate the emissions of American businesses, inevitably raising consumer prices for what is predicted as a negligible effect on climate change.

A recent poll commissioned by the National Center's Public Opinion and Policy Center found that black Americans in particular are opposed to such new regulation while the economy is under strain. Of 800 black Americans polled, 76% want economic recovery to be the top priority of lawmakers and 52% do not favor paying even a single penny in higher gas and electricity prices to promote liberal climate change policy.

A press release summarizing the results of the POP Center poll can be found here.

To access the live Internet broadcast on Thursday, click here and then click the "STREAM THIS NOW" headline in the center or the page under the photo.

Labels: Business, Climate, Conservatives, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by David W. Almasi at 7:23 PM

Friday, June 19, 2009

Chaos on Capitol Hill

Roll Call reports that negotiations over climate legislation among Democrats on Capitol Hill blew up last night.

This mimics the disorder among members of the Congressional majority on health care. CNN reported today that that the Democrats' plans to advance government's role in health care may be "on the rocks"; that's our sense of things as well.

Believers in a free market should not become overconfident, however; the left still holds most of the cards, and it has shown in the past that it is willing to pass nearly anything, as long as it is left-wing and/or shovels tax money to groups and individuals allied with the left. The Congressional majority will gladly pass bad, even horrendous, bills on climate and health care (indeed, from what I can see, they are only considering horrendous bills), so the odds against our team remain high.

That said, I'm amazed at the incompetence and lack of discipline going on in leftist ranks on the Hill. Congressional liberals were mostly out of power from 1995-2007 (House liberals were the entire time). They wanted to curb our use of energy and increase government's role in health care decisionmaking during that entire period, so why did they not get together and make plans? Work out drafts and get those drafts scored?

The Republican majority in Congress had its problems, but it sure hit the ground running in 1995.

This makes no sense to me.

P.S. One possibility just occurred to me. Possibly the environmental groups, with their hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, did not expend enough effort to get folks together on their version of climate heaven because they figure, if a climate bill passes, they wouldn't be able to do fundraising on global warming anymore. That's just a guess on my part, though. Could be they've just been incompetent.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:46 PM

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Regarding Cap and Trade, Is Caterpillar CEO in Over His Head?

Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner has taken a look at our Tom Borelli's question to Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens last week.

Carney believes Owens may be in over this head.

Read it for yourself here.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:33 PM

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Game, Set and Match to the Heritage Foundation

The National Resources Defense Council has attempted to undermine the credibility of the Heritage Foundation's analysis on the cost of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade global warming bill.

The NRDC would have done itself a favor to stay home from work that day. Heritage's response to the critique so thoroughly nails the NRDC that all the NRDC has done is give the Heritage study more publicity.

For instance, in the second paragraph of its critique, the NRDC complains that the Heritage Foundation analysis of the cost of the Waxman-markey cap-and-trade bill fails to take into account the "cost of inaction," that is, the cost of the bad stuff that would happen if Waxman-Markey is not adopted.

HEL-LO! Anybody home, NRDC? Waxman-Markey, even in a best-case scenario, would have negligible, if any, impact on the climate. And the Heritage Foundation DID mention this, to whit, in the original study:

The impact of Waxman-Markey on the next generation of families is thousands of dollars per year in higher energy costs, over $100,000 of additional federal debt (above and beyond the unconscionable increases already scheduled), a weaker economy, and more unemployment. And all for a change in world temperature that might not be noticeable [emphasis added].

You don't need to take Heritage's word for it, or mine. Even prominent environmental organizations that agree with the NRDC about the global warming theory say Waxman-Markey would not (to their way of thinking) sufficiently affect the climate.

Optimists are saying Waxman-Markey might (believe me, nobody knows) lower world temperatures by half a degree celsius over 40 years or so.

If spending all that money isn't going to solve the alleged problem, then what's the point of spending the money?

By way of congratulations to Heritage, let's recap Heritage's conclusions...

If Waxman-Markey is adopted, by 2035:

The typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year.

Pain at the electric meter causes consumers to reduce electricity consumption by 36 percent. Even with this cutback, the electric bill for a family of four will be $754 more that year and $12,933 more in total from 2012 to 2035.

The higher gasoline prices will have forced households to cut consumption by 15 percent, but a family of four will still pay $596 more that year and $8,000 more between 2012 and 2035.

In total, for the years 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $24,000. These inflation-adjusted numbers do not include the indirect energy costs consumers will pay as producers are forced to raise the price of their products to reflect the higher costs of production. Nor does the $24,000 include the higher expenditure for such things as more energy-efficient cars and appliances or the disutility of driving smaller, less safe vehicles or the discomfort of using less heating and cooling.

As the economy adjusts to shrinking GDP and rising energy prices, employment takes a big hit. On average, employment is lower by 844,000 jobs. In some years cap and trade reduces employment by more than 1.9 million jobs.

The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. Waxman-Markey drives up the national debt 29 percent by 2035. This is 29 percent above what it would be without the legislation and represents an additional $33,400 per person, or more than $133,000 for a family of four. To reiterate, these burdens come after adjusting for inflation and are in addition to the $450,000 per family of federal debt that will accrue over this period even without cap and trade.

No wonder the NRDC was so desperate to try to undermine Heritage's credibility.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Energy, Environment, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:20 AM

Saturday, June 06, 2009

A Somewhat Happy Ending to the Latest Death Threat Story...

...first covered in Climate Depot about the global warming believer and blog writer at the prominent liberal blog Talking Points Memo who asked: "at what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?"

The gentleman appears contrite.

"The Insolent Braggart," as the anonymous blogger is known, isn't the first to wish death upon those of us who aren't convinced that human beings are causing soon-to-be-catastrophic global warming. (My own e-mail in-box is proof of that.) Over the years, I've reached the conclusion that most of these folks have stopped thinking of their political opposition as human beings, so when they express death wishes or grotesque threats, it doesn't seem real to them.

Until somebody who hasn't drunk the Kool-aid notices, that is.

Ironically, given how he got his 15 minutes of fame, "The Insolent Braggart" is probably a perfectly nice, if occasionally misguided, fellow.

Here's predicting that one day he'll feel about the global warming theory the same way he now feels about writing blog posts about executions.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Liberals, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:14 AM

Thursday, May 28, 2009

"Airy Fairy Thinking"

Our sister blog, the Free Enterpriser, has a two minute and 41 second really great video take-down of cap-and-trade.

Take less than three minutes for a fast-paced tutorial by Karry Kudlow of CNBC's Kudlow Report.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Regulation, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:26 AM

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Ban Ki-moon Rejects Waxman-Markey as Insufficient

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade global warming bill would "reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion, kill 844,00 jobs and raise the energy bill paid by a typical family by about $1,500 annually" (based on a study by the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis).

Is UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon concerned about the impact this supposedly anti-global warming legislation* would have on working Americans?

No, he says working Americans aren't being hurt enough.

* The bill, if adopted and if it worked perfectly -- both very large assumptions -- would have negligible impact upon the climate, if any.

Hat tip: Dr. Benny Peiser.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Economics, Environment, United Nations

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:23 AM

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

I Don't Watch Chris Matthews, But...

...based on this Jeff Poor post over at Newsbusters, I'm guessing that he's never studied the global warming issue well though to engage a guest in a serious conversation about it.

There's a great deal that's interesting to discuss about global warming, even (perhaps, especially) among two people who disagree about it. Asking a guest if they are a "Luddite, a troglodyte" because of the are skeptical that humankind is causing severe global warming isn't one of them.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:55 PM

Outrage of the Day: Congressmen and Businesses Supporting Economic Suicide Pact

In a press release today, the National Center for Public Policy Research makes the point that the Waxman-Markey "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" (HR 2454) is akin to an economic suicide pact:

Cap and Trade Bill Economic Suicide for Taxpayers and Businesses, says National Center for Public Policy Research

Contact: Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or jkent@nationalcenter.org

Get ready to be taxed even more, America!

Memorial Day is the target date set by Democrats Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) for passage of a cap-and-trade bill that promises economic hardship for all. The Waxman-Markey "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" (HR 2454) would raise taxes on American families by nearly $3,100 a year, lead to huge job losses, and dramatically raise the energy expenditures of American households.

Under a cap-and-trade policy, companies would be forced to raise energy prices. This would unleash a series of adverse economic consequences and hardships for Americans, as numerous studies dictate.
* The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis determined that Waxman-Markey would reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion, kill 844,00 jobs and raise the energy bill paid by a typical family by about $1,500 annually.

* A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps, similar to those previously rejected by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63% cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce GDP by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs.

* A study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology determined the restrictions could raise gasoline prices by 29%, electricity prices by 55% and natural gas prices by 15% by 2015.

* A 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office examining the costs of cutting carbon emissions just 15% noted that customers "would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would."
Given these dire consequences, some may be surprised that some of the nation's largest corporations are lobbying for this bill. Companies participating in the United States Climate Action Partnership, a lobbying group of over thirty corporations and environmental activist organizations, are trying to profit from a government-mandated "cap and trade" anti-global warming policy by selling so-called carbon credits from reductions in greenhouse gases.

During last week's ConocoPhillips shareholders meeting, Tom Borelli, Ph.D, director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research confronted ConocoPhillips Chairman James Mulva about ConocoPhillips' involvement in the USCAP. Mulva responded by saying he wanted to be at the table when energy policy decisions were being made. [An audio recording of the exchange is available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uZVcyBfi2M ].

"ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva has also not done his homework," said Borelli. ConocoPhillips has made a significant investment in Canadian oil sands, which release about three times the amount of carbon dioxide as traditional oil. Since cap-and-trade will increase the cost of carbon emissions, Mulva is lobbying to increase the cost of his investment. In addition, his USCAP partner the Natural Resources Defense Council is taking legal action to block the processing of the oil sands at a ConocoPhillips refinery."

"Pursuing legislation that will raise energy prices in the middle of a recession is economic suicide. It exposes the inability of these CEOs to connect the dots between economic growth and their future earnings," Borelli warns. He told Mulva that ConocoPhillips has done a poor job of promoting the "social good" the Company has done in terms of jobs, tax revenues and energy production.

Instead, "USCAP's support of President Obama's energy policy for what they deem as the 'social good,' illustrates the perils of corporatism - and is eerily similar of the warning in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, which described the unraveling of capitalism," says Deneen Borelli, a full-time Fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research-sponsored African-American leadership network Project 21.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a free-market communications and research foundation established in 1982 and located on Capitol Hill. It receives support from over 80,000 individual contributors. Under 2 percent of its revenue is received from corporations.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject, Outrage, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:00 AM

And We're Supposed to Believe Their Positions are Based on Principle?

Ross Kaminsky, writing for the National Taxpayers Union Government Bytes blog, laughingly notes which eight corporate members of the pro-cap-and-trade U.S. Climate Action Partnership once were members of the anti-global warming-regulation Global Climate Coalition.

The Government Bytes post is an excellent resource in other ways as well.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:42 AM

Monday, May 18, 2009

The Extremely Cold Conditions Are Due to Global Warming

The I Hate the Media blog covers the amusing story of the "ecological explorers" who had to give up their expedition to the North Pole intended to draw attention to global warming, due to unexpectedly cold temperatures.

Richard Henry Lee at American Thinker has a good story on this, too.

I hope activists stop these ill-fated treks. It's amusing to laugh about them after everyone is safe and warm, but these trips are not safe.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:11 PM

Ridiculous

Peter Roff's May 18 U.S. News & World Report blog post about President Obama's speech at Notre Dame quotes the President saying the following about global warming:

Your generation must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it [emphasis added].

Ridiculous lines such as this should never emerge from a professional speechwriting shop, let alone a presidential one.

If the global warming alarmists ever wonder why polls show declining public concern about global warming, they would do well to consider their use of unbelievable, over-the-top rhetoric as one of the culprits.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Environment, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:23 PM

Friday, May 15, 2009

The Folly of Cap and Trade

Tom Borelli of our Free Enterprise Project is warning against the folly of adopting cap and trade in a column in the recent issue of Power magazine:

When the housing bubble burst, it exposed an unseemly alliance between special interests and the financial sector. Activists wanted homes for all at any cost, and lenders were happy to oblige despite the inherent risk.

Although the economic devastation this bubble wrought is still not under control, a similar toxic alliance is working on the next one: The green bubble.

Failing companies such as AIG, General Electric, and General Motors, already propped up by tax dollars, have partnered with radical environmentalists in a scheme their CEOs believe will allow them to profit on fears about global warming...

Read it all here.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:09 AM

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Quote of Note

"For liberal elites, belief in gun control and global warming has taken on the character of religious faith. We have sinned (by hoarding guns or driving sport utility vehicles), we must atone (by turning in our guns or recycling), we must repent (by supporting gun control or cap-and-trade schemes). You may notice that the 'we' in question is usually the great mass of ordinary American citizens."

-Michael Barone, "On Guns and Climate, the Elites are Out of Touch," Washington Examiner, May 10, 2009

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Environment, Guns, Quotes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:17 AM

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Tom Borelli to Appear on Fox Business Network 8 AM Monday

Tom Borelli, co-director (with Steve Milloy) of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, will appear on the Fox Business Network at 8 AM Monday, May 11.

The topics will include executive compensation and shareholder activism.

Video above is taken from a prior appearance by Tom on the Fox Business Network, discussing shareholder activism and proposed legislation to deal with alleged global warming.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:49 PM

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Top Myths About Global Warming

Andrew Bolt's 10 Top Myths About Global Warming is an enjoyable read if you are sick of people trying to scare you.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:48 AM

Monday, May 04, 2009

Supporting Cap-and-Trade "Almost Demented"

"Charlie Munger, the second in command behind Warren Buffet at Berkshire Hathaway, says in an interview on CNBC that it's 'almost demented' to pass cap-and-trade given the state of our economy."

So reports Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, on our sister blog, the Free Enterpriser.

For more, including a link to the video, read Tom's "Berkshire's Munger: Cap & Trade Won't Work," here.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Energy, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:36 PM

Sunday, April 26, 2009

And the Left Claims the Skeptics are in the Global Warming Debate for the Money

Pro Patria has the story: Al Gore's net worth went from the $1-$2 million range in 2000 to about $100 million now.

To be fair, Al Gore isn't in the global warming debate exclusively for the money.

He got the Nobel Prize, too.

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:10 PM

Quote of Note

"'Well, as you just heard Lisa [Sylvester] report, the former vice president claimed that this climate change legislation has the moral significance or equivalence of the civil rights legislation of the '60s and the Marshall Plans,' Dobbs said. 'Well, an interesting note -- Gore's father, Senator Al Gore, Sr., like many southern Democrats at the time voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.'"
-CNN's Lou Dobbs, as quoted by Ed Poor on NewsBusters.org.

Hat tip: CFACT's Climate Depot.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, History, Liberals, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:37 PM

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Not "Nobody," Rep. Dingell, But We Appreciate You Saying It Anyway

"Nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax -- and it's a great big one."
-Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), April 24,2009

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:16 AM

Friday, April 24, 2009

Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly Report the Alleged GE Corruption Story

Here's Bill O'Reilly being interviewed by Glenn Beck, April 23, 2009, to tease the GE cap-and-trade story O'Reilly would present later that evening on the O'Reilly Factor.

Here's the actual report by Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor, April 23, including his conversation with nationally-syndicated talk radio host Laura Ingraham.

Here's the portion of Tom Borelli's audio tape of the GE stockholders' meeting's Q&A covering Jesse Watters' question to GE CEO Jeff Immelt about MSNBC, as run by Fox News, including the O'Reilly Factor, on April 23.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, FreeEnterpriseProject, Media, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:35 AM

Thursday, April 23, 2009

GE-Owned Networks' Media Bias, Conflicts-of-Interest Remain Focus Day After Stockholder Meeting

As readers here know, at yesterday's annual GE shareholder meeting, CEO Jeffrey Immelt was challenged on the subject of media bias at GE-owned NBC, CNBC and MSNBC.

The story is far from over. I encourage those interested in it to watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight for additional in-depth reporting, including the airing at least part of an audio recording of the Q&A session inside the stockholders' meeting made by Tom Borelli. (As of this writing, Fox has also made a tiny portion of the tape, the part featuring Fox reporter Jesse Watters asking about about Keith Olbermann's handling of the recent infamous Janeane Garofalo interview, and the shareholders booing when GE cut off Jesse Watters' mike, available on its website now here, and it has been linked to by Drudge.)

Borelli is co-director (with Steve Milloy) of the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research, and, independently, a long-time shareholder activist with the Free Enterprise Action Fund pro-free enterprise mutual fund.

Leading the questioning about media bias at the shareholder meeting (the unidentified woman whose microphone was cut off by GE in Noel Sheppard's report) was Deneen Borelli, Tom's wife and full-time fellow at the conservative African-American group Project 21.

Here's how Tom described events on the Free Enterprise Project's Free Enterpriser blog:

The Hollywood Reporter described the events at yesterday's GE shareholder meeting in its story Drama at GE Shareholder Meeting

In addition, here is our first hand account from yesterday's meeting. Deneen is my wife.

Censorship and limited government was a theme at the General Electric (GE) shareholder meeting in Orlando, FL.

Deneen had the opportunity to ask the first question, directed at GE CEO Jeff Immelt. She inquired whether he tried to silence anti-Obama criticism on CNBC as it was reported in the media. The New York Post reported that GE executives were concerned that CNBC was perceived as too critical of President Obama. Immelt responded that he does not interfere with the opinions of his networks even though he doesn't necessarily agree with them.

Deneen's concern is Immelt will do anything to preserve a favorable relationship with Obama in order to sell GE's green technologies. At some point in Deneen's dialogue with Immelt, Deneen's microphone was shut off.

I told Immelt he was not only a threat to shareholders but also to liberty and limited government. I reminded Immelt that the company's stock was underperforming the stock market before the economic crisis.

I advised Immelt that we have an online petition that encourages GE never to trade with enemies, to stop pursuing cap-and-trade legislation that would raise energy prices, and that he uses his media empire to advance his agenda.

I also told Immelt that "We surround you" and that it was time for a "GE Tea Party" to reign in this out of control corporation.

In cutting off Deneen's microphone when she asked about media bias at CNBC (GE restored the mike when Deneen kept talking anyway), and then that of Fox producer Jesse Watters, when he asked about Keith Olbermann's handling of the Janeane Garofalo interview, GE showed itself to be defensive. (It also showed itself to be ineffective, as the next person up at a microphone was Tom Borelli, who asked Immelt about GE's business with Iran; GE's lobbying for cap-and-trade, and GE's double-hit on senior citizen stockholders [by cutting dividends after saying it wouldn't while lobbying for cap-and-trade regulations that will dramatically raise consumer energy prices].)

It's no wonder GE is defensive, however. As Tom's pointed questions, and Bill O'Reilly's comments tonight on the Glenn Beck TV show ("We're in an area right now that makes Watergate look like a Shirley Temple movie.") illustrate, the best that can be said about General Electric is that it is hip deep in conflict of interest. It's running TV networks that prop up liberalism, the global warming issue and Obama, while privately lobbying hard for cap-and-trade, from which it intends to profit heavily.

It is that last angle we can expect O'Reilly to illuminate tonight.

Meantime, in an apparent counterattack against Tom Borelli for his long-time free-market activism against GE's left-wing activism, media allegations are being made that Tom is employed by or is on the payroll of Fox News. This allegation is incorrect. Tom is not now nor has he ever been employed, paid or funded by Fox News. He is employed by the National Center for Public Policy Research to co-direct its Free Enterprise Project and, separately, he is co-director of the Free Enterprise Action Fund mutual fund. In these capacities Tom attends many shareholder meetings (such as one in March in which Disney CEO Robert Iger swore at him), including each of the last four GE shareholder meetings.

Arguments that the Borellis are agents of Fox News are a diversion intended to take interest away from GE's use of media outlets it owns to promote global warming policies from which it can handsomely profit. We shouldn't let the diversion succeed.

Cross-posted at Newsbusters.

Addendum: Jeff Poor, writing for Newsbusters, has a good write-up of the O'Reilly broadcast on this tonight.

Addendum 2: Moonbattery does, too.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Foreign Policy, FreeEnterpriseProject, Project 21, Race, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:50 PM

Monday, April 06, 2009

Outrage of the Day: The Costly Waxman-Markey Global Warming Tax

Last Tuesday, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) unveiled proposed legislation that, if adopted, would kill (at best) hundreds of thousands, more likely, millions of jobs and put a substantial and highly-regressive global warming tax on every American even as Congressional leaders wring their hands and bemoan the state of our economy.

Adding insult to injury, Waxman made the outlandish claim the monstrosity "will create millions of clean energy jobs," though, admittedly, there are few liberal politicians who have not made the moronic claim that raising the cost of energy will be a net job-creator.

If there is any educated person left who doubts that environmentalists care little about the welfare of ordinary people, even a brief review of this bill should permanently prevent a reoccurrence of that particular hallucination.

Lest I be thought the only one who thinks it would be idiotic for the Congressional majority to nearly bankrupt the nation via a trillion-dollar "stimulus" bill only to immediately intentionally shoot the economy in the proverbial head with a cap-and-trade-plus global warming tax, here are a few other opinions expressed following the release of the Waxman-Markey draft:

"Since 85 percent of U.S. energy demand is met by fossil fuels, taxing the lifeblood of the American economy would have disastrous consequences. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis' study of the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill found aggregate real GDP losses (adjusted for inflation) of nearly $5 trillion -- for comparison, this is equivalent to the economic damage done by over 600 hurricanes. The bill would've also destroyed between 400,000 and 800,000 jobs each year. It should be noted that the targets and timetables in the discussion draft are considerably more stringent than those in Lieberman-Warner and thus would be costlier."
-Nick Loris, The Heritage Foundation's The Foundry Blog, March 31, 2009

Add together NASA since its inception, the cost of Hurricane Katrina and spending on the New Deal. Adjust for inflation. What do you get? Not quite the amount of money a cap and trade program would generate in energy taxes on consumers. The $1.9 trillion generated over eight years from a cap-and-trade bill would still be larger than the $1.5 trillion from NASA, the New Deal, and Hurricane Katrina.
-Nick Loris, The Heritage Foundation's The Foundry Blog, April 2, 2009

"Many U.S. lawmakers view cap and trade as a politically superior non-tax approach to climate policy. However, cap and trade imposes identical economic burdens on households to a similarly designed carbon tax. ...we present new estimates of the distributional impact of a typical cap and-trade system by income, age, U.S. region and family type. In total, households would face an annual burden of roughly $144.8 billion per year with costs disproportionately borne by low-income households, those under age 25 and over 75 years, those in Southern states, and single parents with dependent children."
-Andrew Chamberlain, "Who Pays for Climate Policy? New Estimates of the Household Burden and Economic Impact of a U.S. Cap-and-Trade System," (pdf) Tax Foundation Working Paper No. 6, March 2009

"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."
-Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute, March 31, 2009

"Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said cap and trade systems would be devastating to coal manufacturing states like Illinois and West Virginia and proposed cap and trade legislation could kill the entire coal mining industry.

'This cap-and-trade scheme may not just reduce Illinois coal jobs further -- it is my worry that this legislation aims to kill the entire coal industry,' Shimkus told CNSNews.com.

Shimkus and Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) held a press conference Wednesday to rally support opposing the cap and trade proposals, which they said would lead to both higher energy costs and severe job loss in the coal mining industry..."
-Ryan Byrnes, "Cap and Trade Legislation Would Kill Coal Industry, Congressman Says," CNSNews.com, April 2, 2009

"Until recently, much of the debate on climate change focused on the extent of the threat. But now that House Democratic leaders are planning to take up legislation to set up a mandatory cap-and-trade system for greenhouse emissions sometime this summer, opponents are focusing on the cost.

'They seem to give people the impression that it's going to be a huge environmentally friendly free lunch,' said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. 'This lunch is not free.'"
-Jim Angle/AP, "Republicans Criticize Cost of Cap-and-Trade Emissions Plan," FoxNews.com, April 2, 2009

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Energy, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:42 PM

Friday, April 03, 2009

The New Byrd-Hagel

The Senate has voted 89-8 to oppose cap-and-trade if it raises electricity or gasoline prices.

Of course, cap-and-trade would raise electricity and gasoline prices, so the Senate has effectively just gone on record 89-8 against cap-and-trade.

In 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which opposed the adoption of any climate treaty that exempted developing nations. As the Kyoto global warming treaty exempted developing nations, Byrd-Hagel was seen as a signal that the Senate would not ratify Kyoto. As a result, though then-Vice President Al Gore signed the Kyoto Treaty on behalf of the United States, the Clinton-Gore Administration never submitted it to the Senate for ratification.

Will Senator John Thune (R-SD)'s amendment be the new Byrd-Hagel? Not without continuing hard work by those of us who don't want electricity and gasoline prices to rise in a wasteful and expensive effort to enrich a handful of businesses and wage a futile effort to control the planet's climate...

...but it definitely has possibilities.

Hat tip: Roger Pielke, Jr. on Prometheus.

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:56 AM

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

The California Drought's Congressional "Kangaroo Court"

The kangaroo waits for the hearing to begin.

The kangaroo listens attentively to hearing proceedings. The National Center for Public Policy Research's Jeff Temple and Devon Carlin are seated to the kangaroo's left.

Devon Carlin provides a report on the U.S. House Resources Committee hearing Monday -- the one to which the National Center for Public Policy Research sent a "kangaroo" (actually, an undercover operative in a kangaroo suit).

By Devon Carlin:

Rural Californians are in their third year of a severe drought, but Congressional leaders seem more fixated on finding a "comprehensive" solution that accommodates endangered species and adheres to the belief in catastrophic man-made global warming than in dealing with very real human suffering.

This was our observation during a March 31 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources hearing, titled "The California Drought: Actions by Federal and State Agencies to Address Impacts on Lands, Fisheries, and Water Users."

According to the hearing's initial announcement, the hearing was to feature only one panel of witnesses - one overwhelmingly comprised of federal bureaucrats.

To some, this was seen as a "kangaroo court" that would promote the global warming and endangered species gospel with little or no opposition. It seemed to lack everything but an actual kangaroo. But the National Center for Public Policy Research was more than happy to provide one!

As the overflow crowd lined up for entry into the hearing room, the National Center's kangaroo stepped out of a nearby elevator. As participating members of Congress arrived, they certainly noticed the large, brown kangaroo. When acting Committee Chairwoman Grace Napolitano (D-CA) gaveled the hearing to order, our kangaroo was prominently seated in the audience.

As National Center Senior Fellow R.J. Smith pointed out in a press release that was handed out at the hearing:
At the height of a California drought and during a serious recession with massive unemployment in California's Central Valley, one would hope that the Committee cared enough about agricultural workers and minorities to invite as witnesses actual unemployed farm workers from the scores of communities closing down. Let's have an open Committee hearing and hear real people discussing the impacts on their lives from government regulations and massive job losses - instead of more government bureaucrats who are only causing the problem.
The furry, National Center-provided visual reminder - and some last-minute intervention from a bipartisan delegation of Congressmen from districts affected by the drought - helped to provide balance.

While it seemed the Committee's leaders had already made up their minds, they and the witnesses they selected nevertheless ended up receiving an earful about the human suffering brought about by poorly-applied government regulations and what could be done to alleviate the distress.

It was originally announced that testimony would be given exclusively by the panel of representatives of government agencies. Invited agency representatives were Mary M. Glackin of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; J. William McDonald of the Bureau of Reclamation; Candy Thompson of the Farm Service Agency and California Secretary of Natural Resources Mike Chrisman. The lone critic was to be Allen Ishida, a Tulare County Supervisor and farmer.

Things changed due to the last-minute inclusion of a bipartisan panel of Congressmen representing the region worst hit by the drought. This panel was comprised of Representatives Mike Thompson (D-CA), Dennis A. Cardoza (D-CA), George Radanovich (R-CA), Devin Nunes (R-CA), Wally Herger (R-CA) and Ken Calvert (R- CA).

This new panel, unanticipated at the time the hearing was announced (and the kangaroo was called) brought much-needed balance.

All participants appeared to agree that California is in bad shape. The lack of an adequate supply of water in affected areas is putting farmers and ranchers out of work. Their crops aren't growing and livestock are going thirsty. Employment rates in affected areas range from 20 to over 40 percent, and job losses could rise to nearly 80,000. Families are flocking to food lines. Depleted food bank pantries reflect the state's shortage of produce. Incredible numbers of acres are left even more vulnerable to the type of brush fires that consumed more than one million acres last year. Agricultural economic losses are projected to exceed $3 billion by year-end.

What people want to know is what the government is going to do to help. The representatives of the government, and their liberal supporters among the Committee majority, seem committed to a "comprehensive" solution that protect the environment first and merely seeks to aid the afflicted human population. Conservatives, however, offered concrete plans to alleviate human suffering and increase agricultural productivity while minimizing environmental impact.

Congressmen from the affected areas - both on the Committee and on the testifying panel - noted that, despite California's historic familiarity with natural drought conditions, the problem this time is man-made. With rainfall and snow-pack totals nearing the average when compared to recent years, neither nature nor global warming can be blamed for the water shortage.

One of the many regulatory culprits is the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The Delta Smelt, for example, is a three-inch long fish that has been declared "threatened" under the ESA. Federal water officials reallocated a substantial amount of the water supply to flow out to sea in order to help protect the Delta Smelt. In the process, it recklessly slashed water deliveries to agricultural areas of California.

The local Congressman pointed out factors in the Smelt's population decline that are not man-made, such as larger predatory fish. Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA), who represents the region and is a member of the Committee, noted from the dais that more water diverted for the good of the Delta Smelt has not helped its recovery.

When queried, the government officials, who gave very dry presentations about "comprehensive" relief strategies, offered no precise ways to bring about an end to the human suffering in the region.

Conversely, the lawmakers whose constituents were affected and have a sense of the needs of the region proposed multiple relief plans and suggested reform of the ESA that would bring water back to residents in need and pose a minimal threat to the Delta Smelt population.

In the short history of the Obama Administration, conservatives have been cast as obstructionist and lacking ideas by their liberal counterparts. At this hearing, exactly the opposite was the case.

One proposed idea, known as the "Two-Gates" project, involves the installation of two temporary gates in the central Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. These gates would reduce the number of smelt removed from the Delta, thus permitting water export restrictions to be minimized.

Another proposal was to reform the ESA to overcome an ESA-based lawsuit that forced the Red Bluff Diversion Dam ("RBDD") to cease operating. Prior to the lawsuit, the RBDD performed as an efficient, gravity-fed water diversion. Shutting the existing diversion down has created the need for a comparable alternative. A popular pitch for its replacement is a power-driven, screened pumping plant that would supply 150,000 acres of agricultural land with irrigation water.

These and other relief proposals were called "shovel-ready" and within the scope of projects that could be funded by the recently-passed "stimulus" bill. The committee liberals' response? Representative George Miller (D-CA) mocked members of the Congressional panel who voted against the "stimulus." As for human suffering at the hands of government regulation, he considered that "cherry-picking history." He passed off any blame to a judge, whose decision set the policy.

This liberal disdain is surprising when the drought was called the "Katrina of California" by both panelists and members of the committee alike.

Near the end of the hearing, freshman Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) came right out and asked the direct and nearly rhetorical question that was surely on the minds of many in attendance: "What's more important - people or fish?"

This post was written by Research Associate Devon Carlin. To send comments to the author, write her at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Endangered Species, Environment, Land, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:28 PM

Do They Just Make These Deadlines Up Out of Thin Air?

"We have less than 100 months to alter our behavior before we risk catastrophic climate change, and the unimaginable horrors that this would bring."

-Climate scientist Prince Charles, March 2009

"We cannot afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."

- Celebrity Dr. James Hansen, Goddard Institute of Space Studies, January 2009

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.

Labels: Climate, Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:23 AM

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

NY Times Magazine's Sympathetic Portrait of a Global Warming "Skeptic"

Despite an occasional line likely to raise a conservative's eyebrow ("Dyson may be an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources, but he brooks no ideology," for example) writer Nicholas Dawidoff's 8,200-word March 29 New York Times magazine feature, "The Civil Heretic," on world-renowned physicist, Iraq-protesting liberal and "global warming skeptic" Freeman Dyson will be appreciated by many readers of this blog.

Using a comfortable, storytelling style, Dawidoff immediately sets the scene:

For more than half a century the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson has quietly resided in Princeton, N.J., on the wooded former farmland that is home to his employer, the Institute for Advanced Study, this country's most rarefied community of scholars. Lately, however, since coming "out of the closet as far as global warming is concerned," as Dyson sometimes puts it, there has been noise all around him. Chat rooms, Web threads, editors' letter boxes and Dyson's own e-mail queue resonate with a thermal current of invective in which Dyson has discovered himself variously described as "a pompous twit," "a blowhard," "a cesspool of misinformation," "an old coot riding into the sunset" and, perhaps inevitably, "a mad scientist." ...Dyson's son, George, a technology historian, says his father's views have cooled friendships, while many others have concluded that time has cost Dyson something else. There is the suspicion that, at age 85, a great scientist of the 20th century is no longer just far out, he is far gone - out of his beautiful mind...

From there Dawidoff tells the story of Dyson's life, intermittently returning to, and ultimately concluding on, the subject of global warming.

Some brief excerpts, not complete, of the global warming sections, as they are likely to be of interest to this blog's readers:

...Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, whom Dyson calls climate change's "chief propagandist," and James Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and an adviser to Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth." Dyson accuses them of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models...

...Climate models, he says, take into account atmospheric motion and water levels but have no feeling for the chemistry and biology of sky, soil and trees. "The biologists have essentially been pushed aside," he continues. "Al Gore's just an opportunist. The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers."

Dyson agrees with the prevailing view that there are rapidly rising carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere caused by human activity. To the planet, he suggests, the rising carbon may well be a MacGuffin, a striking yet ultimately benign occurrence in what Dyson says is still "a relatively cool period in the earth's history." The warming, he says, is not global but local, "making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter." Far from expecting any drastic harmful consequences from these increased temperatures, he says the carbon may well be salubrious - a sign that "the climate is actually improving rather than getting worse," because carbon acts as an ideal fertilizer promoting forest growth and crop yields. "Most of the evolution of life occurred on a planet substantially warmer than it is now," he contends, "and substantially richer in carbon dioxide." Dyson calls ocean acidification, which many scientists say is destroying the saltwater food chain, a genuine but probably exaggerated problem. Sea levels, he says, are rising steadily, but why this is and what dangers it might portend "cannot be predicted until we know much more about its causes."...

... Beyond the specific points of factual dispute, Dyson has said that it all boils down to "a deeper disagreement about values" between those who think "nature knows best" and that "any gross human disruption of the natural environment is evil," and "humanists," like himself, who contend that protecting the existing biosphere is not as important as fighting more repugnant evils like war, poverty and unemployment...

... Climate-change specialists often speak of global warming as a matter of moral conscience. Dyson says he thinks they sound presumptuous. As he warned that day four years ago at Boston University, the history of science is filled with those "who make confident predictions about the future and end up believing their predictions," and he cites examples of things people anticipated to the point of terrified certainty that never actually occurred, ranging from hellfire, to Hitler's atomic bomb, to the Y2K millennium bug. "It's always possible Hansen could turn out to be right," he says of the climate scientist. "If what he says were obviously wrong, he wouldn't have achieved what he has. But Hansen has turned his science into ideology. He's a very persuasive fellow and has the air of knowing everything. He has all the credentials. I have none. I don't have a Ph.D. He's published hundreds of papers on climate. I haven't. By the public standard he's qualified to talk and I'm not. But I do because I think I'm right. I think I have a broad view of the subject, which Hansen does not. I think it's true my career doesn't depend on it, whereas his does. I never claim to be an expert on climate. I think it's more a matter of judgement than knowledge."

Reached by telephone, Hansen sounds annoyed as he says, "There are bigger fish to fry than Freeman Dyson," who "doesn't know what he's talking about." In an e-mail message, he adds that his own concern about global warming is not based only on models, and that while he respects the "open-mindedness" of Dyson, "if he is going to wander into something with major consequences for humanity and other life on the planet, then he should first do his homework - which he obviously has not done on global warming."...

... But one evening last month they sat down in a living room filled with [Dyson's wife] Imme's running trophies and photographs of their children to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" again. There was a print of Einstein above the television. And then there was Al Gore below him, telling of the late Roger Revelle, a Harvard scientist who first alerted the undergraduate Gore to how severe the climate's problems would become. Gore warned of the melting snows of Kilimanjaro, the vanishing glaciers of Peru and "off the charts" carbon levels in the air. "The so-called skeptics" say this "seems perfectly O.K.," Gore said, and Imme looked at her husband. She is even slighter than he is, a pretty wood sprite in running shoes. "How far do you allow the oceans to rise before you say, This is no good?" she asked Dyson.

"When I see clear evidence of harm," he said.

"Then it's too late," she replied. "Shouldn't we not add to what nature's doing?"

"The costs of what Gore tells us to do would be extremely large," Dyson said. "By restricting CO2 you make life more expensive and hurt the poor. I'm concerned about the Chinese."

"They're the biggest polluters," Imme replied.

"They're also changing their standard of living the most, going from poor to middle class. To me that's very precious."

The film continued with Gore predicting violent hurricanes, typhoons and tornados. "How in God's name could that happen here?" Gore said, talking about Hurricane Katrina. "Nature's been going crazy."

"That is of course just nonsense," Dyson said calmly. "With Katrina, all the damage was due to the fact that nobody had taken the trouble to build adequate dikes. To point to Katrina and make any clear connection to global warming is very misleading."

Now came Arctic scenes, with Gore telling of disappearing ice, drunken trees and drowning polar bears. "Most of the time in history the Arctic has been free of ice," Dyson said. "A year ago when we went to Greenland where warming is the strongest, the people loved it."

"They were so proud," Imme agreed. "They could grow their own cabbage."

The film ended. "I think Gore does a brilliant job," Dyson said. "For most people I'd think this would be quite effective. But I knew Roger Revelle. He was definitely a skeptic. He's not alive to defend himself..."

These excerpts don't do justice to Nicholas Dawidoff's entire piece; I recommend that readers here take the time to read the whole thing.

Kudos to the New York Times Magazine for publishing it.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org

Addendum: The Center for American Progress Action Fund's Climate progress blog has lost its mind over Nicholas Dawidoff's Freeman Dyson profile, calling Dyson's relatively tame comments about James Hansen (certainly, by the standards of Hansen, who has called for the jailing of certain global warming skeptics) "slander."

Climate Progress also blasts the New York Times' Andrew Revkin for mentioning the Dyson profile on Revkin's Dot Earth Blog, demanding that Revkin "retract his absurdly indefensible assertion that 'On climate, Mr. Dyson may be right…,'" which actually was written by Revkin as "On climate, Mr. Dyson may be right or wrong...," which is rather different, though either version is perfectly defensible.

Everybody who hasn't lost his mind knows perfectly well that climate science isn't settled; even the global warming theory proponents don't agree with one another, which is enough right there to prove that whatever the truth turns out to be (and I doubt very much anyone alive on this Earth today will live long enough to know it), the science isn't settled. If the Center for American Progress thinks the New York Times is too skeptical on global warming and that it's wrong for the Times to write of one of our nation's most prominent physicists that he "may be either right or wrong," then the Center for American Progress has pretty much gone out to lunch, having exited through the door at the far, far left.

_____________________________

Labels: Climate, Environment, Liberals, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:58 PM

Enriching a Handful of Portly Middlemen

Ask one of your friends who believes in the adoption of cap-and-trade to read just one sentence against it. If they agree, send them to this Nick Loris post on the Foundry.

(By the way, the "honorable House" referred to at the beginning is our House of Representatives, believe it or not.)

___________________

Labels: Climate, Congress, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:36 PM

Monday, March 09, 2009

Congress Blowing Its Next Bubble

Senior Fellow Tom Borelli has an op-ed in the D.C. Examiner: "Congress, corporate lobbyists creating Green Bubble."

It begins:

With President Barack Obama and his allies in Congress pushing for a cap-and-trade regulatory program to reduce greenhouse gases, the future of American energy is at a crossroads — and the creation of an economic “Green Bubble” is in the works.

It’s not surprising that liberal politicians embrace the cap-and-trade cause, but to many it is shocking and surprising to see corporate CEOs joining the crusade. The 21st century business model of these CEOs seems to be: “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.”

But their capitulation is likely to lead to history repeating itself, and not in a good way.

If there’s one lesson we all can take from the housing bubble, it’s this: The pursuit of liberal policy goals is not a sustainable business strategy.

The housing crisis developed after businesses yielded to social activism and the seduction of politically-driven and unsustainable economic incentives. It started with the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977, which encouraged banks to lend in poor neighborhoods. The Clinton administration later lowered credit standards, and set subprime lending quotas for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the leftist advocacy group, also pressured banks to make loans, and Congress skewed laws to encourage lenders to give mortgages to buyers with poor prospects for ever repaying them.

With the game rigged to make unsound lending practices profitable over the short-term, Wall Street was happy to play in this government-constructed casino. For a time, it was a win-win situation.

Profits were made, ACORN was pacified and lawmakers deemed lenders “responsible” for providing loans to low-income households with nary an eye cast to the soundness of it all. But when the over-inflated housing market collapsed, all the fun came to a crashing halt.

Yet, like hard-core gambling addicts, some CEOs haven’t learned their lesson. Instead of returning to selling good products at market prices, they want to go back to the craps table. They’re lobbying Congress to create yet another “bubble” in which government regulatory policy creates artificial value, this time in a ubiquitous gas, carbon dioxide.

Call this forthcoming disaster the “Green Bubble,” for it’s based on the notion that fortunes can be made buying and selling something for which there is no real-world market, greenhouse gas emissions credits...

Read the rest here.

___________________

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Economics, Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:14 PM

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Al Gore Claims Global Warming Theory is Not a Theory

Al Gore on the global warming theory not being a theory:

"The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a 'on the one hand, on the other hand' issue. It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake."

-Keith Johnson, "A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critic(s)", Wall Street Journal Environmental Capital Blog, March 5, 2009

Comment: We all know Al Gore is too attracted to the politics of control and his own celebrity status to accurately report facts about global warming, but it he could at least get the definition of "theory" right.

And sorry, Al. Just because you appear to believe in it with all your heart doesn't mean it's been proven. Even Albert Einstein was satisfied to have developed the Theory of General Relativity. If Einstein could live with the word "theory," you should be able to manage it as well, Al.

___________________

Labels: Climate, Environment, Liberals, Outrage

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:09 PM

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Carol Browner: Dictating Climate Policy Like Caesar of Old

An op-ed by David Ridenour on President Obama's choice of Carol Browner to serve as a so-called "climate czar" has appeared in newspapers nationwide, including this version from Investor's Business Daily:

Climate Czar Will Reign Like Caesar Of Old

By David A. Ridenour

President Obama vowed to set a new direction of ethics and transparency in government and with his selection of Carol Browner as climate control czar. Unfortunately, her steadfast belief in the far-left policies of extreme environmentalism make that vow impossible to achieve.

An environmental zealot, Browner has so much baggage she could be an airline. But then, maybe not. For despite Browner's best efforts, some of her baggage simply won't stay lost.

Carol Browner is the right person to drive expansion of the state under Barack Obama.

The Washington Examiner recently discovered that she was one of 15 original members of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society, a branch of the Socialist International, an organization linking socialist and labor parties throughout the world.

Among other things, its Declaration of Principles 'demands compensation for . . . social inequities.' That's another way of saying that if you've prospered because of ingenuity or hard work, be prepared to give a lot of it away to those who haven't.

The issue isn't that Browner is a socialist. We crossed the socialism bridge — a real bridge to nowhere — when we sent a man to the White House who promised to spread our wealth around.

The real issue is the attempt to hide this fact from the public. Browner's photograph, which once appeared alongside that of close Vladimir Putin ally Sergei Mironov, was quietly removed from the Socialist International's Web site after the Examiner's story broke. Much like the trillions of dollars in bailouts and economic stimulus, it's as though Browner never existed.

This isn't transparent government, but all-too-transparent politics. Browner has a lot more baggage, too.

Throughout her years as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration, EPA officials routinely violated the Anti-Lobbying Act — a law prohibiting federal employees from using agency money for 'telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress.'
In 1995, the EPA flagrantly violated that law when it lobbied against the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act, a bill that would have curbed some of the EPA's worst abuses.

As James Hinchman, comptroller general of the United States, noted, EPA officials 'distributed EPA fact sheets to various organizations' and 'directly lobbied the Congress.' Not only that, but an EPA regional administrator wrote a strong op-ed designed to stop the bill's passage.

Four years later, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., accused the EPA of violating the Anti-Lobbying Act again. Byrd — who has made a career of steering pork to his state — complained that the EPA's Transportation Partners Program was coordinating and funding anti-road lobbyists against the law and his state's interests. Browner was forced to terminate the program.
The following year, Browner was at it yet again. This time, her agency was accused of allowing special interests to improperly influence last-minute — so-called midnight — environmental regulations.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the EPA to preserve communications with such groups. Instead, Browner had her computer hard drive re-initialized, wiping it clean. Lamberth then held the EPA in contempt for 'contumacious conduct.'
As little respect as she's shown for the law, Browner has shown even less for science. During her years at the EPA, agency scientists who didn't toe the party line were subjected to relentless harassment.

David Lewis, an EPA Science Achievement Award recipient, publicly criticized the quality of science used in crafting regulations. In response, the EPA charged Lewis with ethics violations and repeatedly denied him promotion. Although he won whistle-blower judgments against the EPA, he was eventually forced into retirement.

The term 'czar' comes from the Latin word caesar — as in Julius Caesar, the Roman leader who proclaimed himself dictator perpetuo (dictator in perpetuity) and oversaw massive expansion of government bureaucracy.

If a czar is actually what President Obama was looking for, Carol Browner may have been the perfect choice, after all.

Ridenour is vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, nonpartisan think tank.

____

Labels: Climate, Environment, Government Power, Liberals, Regulation, Scandals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:44 PM

Monday, March 02, 2009

No Coal! No Oil! No Power! No Heat!

Anti-global warming protester uses a "Stop Global Warming" sign as an ice scraper at rally at the U.S. Capitol coal-fired power plant Monday

"We don't want the world to boil, no coal, no oil!"

There was no chance, despite the warning of this protest chant, of anything boiling outside in Washington, D.C. today. Global warming activists who threatened "mass civil disobedience" in the nation's capitol Monday probably never expected to be competing with the biggest snowfall of the season.

Not going to get much power from this snowy solar panel...

Yet this seems to happen every time the global warming activists plan a major event to talk about how hot our planet is going to get. (For more information about this practice, see the children's story "Chicken Little.")

...as the non-functioning light bulbs supposedly powered by that solar panel demonstrate.

Hundreds of activists - mostly students, from the looks of it - were protesting Nancy Pelosi's private coal-fired power plant. It's the plant that powers the Capitol complex. Until recently, Pelosi and company pretended to have a carbon-neutral Congress by using taxpayer dollars to buy "carbon offsets" that essentially gave them little more than peace of mind. This practice has since been discontinued. An analysis found it might not be doing any good, and they no longer have faith in throwing money at their embarrassment (now, if we can get them to expand this line of thinking to their spend-and-tax agenda).

David Almasi and Devon Carlin of the National Center for Public Policy Research

Anyway, the Competitive Enterprise Institute enlisted the help of The National Center for Public Policy Research, FreedomWorks and other groups to point out that coal and oil provide plentiful and affordable energy to average Americans. Energy bills are up this year, and there is no way wind and solar - the darling energy-generation methods of today's protestors - are going to provide people with the amount of energy they need at the prices they can afford.

Where's James Hansen?

No one is against new and alternative sources of energy, but it's their way or the highway in the minds of these protestors. If they are successful, expect bigger bills and energy shortages in the future.

This blog post was compiled largely from notes compiled by David Almasi.
_________________________

Labels: Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Energy, Environment, Environmental Justice, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:34 PM

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Government Agency Head to Get Arrested by the Government in Order to Protest Government Policy?

Snapshot of Hansen video at capitolclimateaction.org, 2/25/09

Note in this blog post by environmentalist Bill McKibben the announcement that James Hansen, who directs an agency of the U.S. government, is planning to get arrested in order "to give [Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress] the political space they need to act on their convictions."

McKibben believes those convictions include banning the burning of coal, which provides about half of our electricity, and other radical acts related to combatting the alleged threat of human-caused global warming. Evidently, these guys believe that a few radicals getting arrested will convince Congress to wreck what's left of the economy on purpose.

My sense is that, despite a fairly high percentage of duffuses among Congressional Democrats, they aren't dumb enough to intentionally sabotage economic recovery while spending hundreds of billions that they told the public are being spent to "stimulate" the economy.

There's a reason, you know, that President Obama has signaled to Congress that he will be perfectly happy to wait until 2010 for an anti-global warming bill. My guess is that perfect timing for him is soon enough to appease the left in the 2012 Democrat primary, and late enough that the economic pain of such legislation won't be felt until after the November 2012 election.

But somehow, all that seems almost a side issue, compared to the spectacle that is a government agency head getting arrested by government employees in order to pressure the government to do something it supposedly wants to do anyway.

I'm not sure this really is a government. It looks more like a bad circus.

Hat tip: Prometheus.

Addendum, 2/25/09: See Hansen, on videotape, inviting the public to participate in what organizers apparently hope will be the "largest mass civil disobedience for the climate in U.S. history." [Snapshot shown above]

Hansen doesn't claim to be speaking for NASA's Goddard Institute in this video, but it seems inappropriate at best for a government agency head to urge his fellow citizens to break the law. If federal agency heads don't respect the law, why should the rest of us?

Possibly old-fashioned concepts like obeying the law, along with paying for our own mortgages, went out with the Bush Administration.

___________________

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:45 AM

Friday, February 20, 2009

Egg on Faces of Al Gore and Ban Ki-Moon

Roger Pielke, Jr. of the Promethus Blog spotted a little egg on the faces of ex-V.P. Al Gore and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon the other day.

I wouldn't be surprised if he noticed before they did.

It seems the esteemed gentlemen submitted an op-ed to Britain's Financial Times without fact-checking it first (or, more likely, telling the lackey who fact-checks to fact-check the lackey who writes).

The op-ed claims: "In the US, there are now more jobs in the wind industry than in the entire coal industry."

Roger asked:

First, is this in fact true?

Second, if it is true, how can it be that wind can ever be cost competitive with coal? Consider that coal, according to the US EIA was responsible for generating 155,000 thousand megawatt-hours of energy production in November, 2008. Wind was responsible for 1,300 thousand megawatt hours. This means that the US saw about 120 times as much energy produced from coal as wind. If it takes more employees to generate 0.8% of the energy as coal produces, how can it ever be cost competitive?

Something does not add up. Someone please explain this.

Somebody did.

It seems that, for the wind industry totals, the esteemed gentlemen counted every job involved in supplying equipment to the wind industry, including component manufacturing, legal services, marketing, etc., and for the coal industry, the men counted only miners.

So if you hear this shibboleth, beware.

____________________

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Environment, Health Care, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:47 PM

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Profiting from Global Warming

Don't miss Senior Fellow Tom Borelli's op-ed in today's Washington Examiner. It begins:

When the housing bubble burst, it exposed an unseemly alliance between special interests and the financial sector. Activists wanted homes for all at any cost, and lenders were happy to oblige despite the inherent risk.

Although the economic devastation this bubble wrought is still not under control, a similar toxic alliance is working on the next one: The green bubble.

Failing companies such as AIG, General Electric and General Motors, already propped up with tax dollars, have partnered with radical environmentalists in a scheme their CEOs believe will allow them to profit on fears about global warming...

Read the rest here.
____

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:57 AM

Watch the Borellis Live Online on Fox's "Strategy Room" Wednesday

By David Almasi:

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli is scheduled to discuss ACORN and the so-called "stimulus" bill and other current events as part of the group discussion on the Fox News Channel's online "Strategy Room" program on Wednesday, February 18 between 9:00 am and 10:00 am eastern.

Tom Borelli, the director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project, is set to be participating in the"Strategy Room" discussion later on the same day - 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm eastern - to discuss the detrimental economic effects of "cap-and-trade" regulatory policy and breaking news.

To access the live Internet broadcast, click here and then click the "STREAM THIS NOW" headline in the center or the page under the photo.

To learn more about Fox's "Strategy Room" Internet talk show, click here to see an article about the program that appeared in this past Monday's New York Times.

This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.

_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Environment, Government Spending, Project 21, Race, Regulation, Social Welfare

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:34 AM

Saturday, February 07, 2009

How the Media Covers Global Warming: A Case Study

Image by Lyubov via Flickr

When University of Washington Professor Eric Steig announced in a news conference and paper published in the January 22 edition of the journal Nature that he and several colleagues had removed one of many thorns in the sides of climate alarmists -- in this case, evidence that Antarctica is cooling -- he received extensive worldwide attention in the mainstream press.

But when a noteworthy error was found in Stieg's research less than two weeks after it's publication, of the mainstream press, only an opinion column in the London Telegraph and a blog associated with the Australian Herald Sun carried the news.

The Stieg paper's release was covered by 27 newspapers, including the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times, by CNN, by the Associated Press, by NPR and quite a few others (see reviews of the coverage at the end of this post).

After independent analyst Steve McIntyre discovered a noteworthy error in the data, and released his results on his influential blog Climate Audit beginning on February 1, based on a Nexis search I conducted February 6, none of these outlets chose to inform their readers.

Here's how the Stieg research showing supposed warming was received by the mainstream press:

NPR covered it twice (a January 21 package by Richard Harris and a January 23 Ira Flatow interview of Steig), with no hard questions either time (Flatow called Steig's paper "probably historic").

A January 22 piece in the Seattle Times by science reporter Sandi Doughton contained this little editorial:

By bringing Antarctica in from the cold, the new study could undermine the small cadre of global-warming skeptics who still argue that the planet is not getting hotter, or that humans are not to blame. Many have used the apparent cooling in Antarctica to attack global climate models and point out perceived weaknesses in the scientific consensus that emissions from automobiles and factories are beginning to change global climate.

A January 22 New York Times piece by Kenneth Chang presented the report along with quotes from scientists who thought it by and large likely accurate. One scientist was quoted saying, "But the idea of a long-term cooling is pretty clearly debunked." No one urging caution about Stieg's results was quoted.

CNN.com's report began:

Antarctica is warming in line with the rest of the world, according to a new study on climate change in Antarctica.

Rather than being the last bastion to resist global warming, U.S. research has found that for the past 50 years much of the continent of Antarctica has been getting warmer.

For years common belief among scientists studying climate change was that a large part of Antarctica, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, has been getting colder while the rest of the world has warmed.

However the new research from the University of Washington has found that warming in West Antarctica exceeded one-tenth of a degree Celsius per decade for the past 50 years, which more than offsets the cooling in East Antarctica...

The CNN.com piece ended with quotes from Stieg.

The AP's Seth Borenstein's January 21 wire report began "Antarctica, the only place that had oddly seemed immune from climate change, is warming after all, according to a new study," and included a quote from global warming activist scientist and study co-author Michael Mann, saying the study refuted the views of climate "contrarians." Borenstein did, however, include two quotes from other scientists who raised questions about the study.

The Los Angeles Times' Thomas H. Maugh II began with an editorial:

Scientists have long believed that Antarctica has been bucking the global warming trend, but that is not the case, new research shows.

East Antarctica, as assorted studies have shown, has been cooling recently, but the remainder of the continent is warming at a rate that offsets the cooling, according to satellite and ground data.

Global-warming skeptics have pointed to the presumed cooling of the continent as evidence that researchers' computer projections of climate change are in error, but the new findings reported Thursday appear to refute their criticisms...

Maugh's readers weren't told that any scientists had doubts.

The San Francisco Chronicle went still further into alarmism. Science editor David Perlman told his readers flatly that "the issue [of Antarctic warming] has apparently been resolved." The piece was headlined: "All of Antarctica Appears to Be Warming."

The Guardian titled its piece, "Scientists Solve Enigma of Antarctic 'Cooling,'" summarized it by claiming "Research 'kills off' climate skeptic argument by showing average temperature across the continent has risen over the last 50 years." The Guardian included no alternative points of view.

Co-authors of Stieg's paper included David Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Scott Rutherford of Roger Williams University, Michael Mann of Penn State, Josefino Comiso of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Followers of the global warming issue will easily recognize Michael Mann as the proponent of the since-disgraced "hockey stick" global warming graph and an activist global warming activist and the Goddard Institute as run by one of the world's most infamous global warming alarmists, James Hansen. Stieg himself is a contributor to the ardently pro-alarmist and environmentalist-supported PR blog RealClimate. Despite this, none of the mainstream press stories I reviewed mentioned the activism activities of authors.

On the other side of the question, here are samples from Andrew Booker's op-ed column in the UK Telegraph critical of Stieg:

...So it predictably made headlines across the world last week when a new study, from a team led by Professor Eric Steig, claimed to prove that the Antarctic has been heating up after all. As on similar occasions in the past, all the usual supporters of the cause were called in to whoop up its historic importance. The paper was published in Nature and heavily promoted by the BBC. This, crowed journalists such as Newsweek's Sharon Begley, would really be one in the eye for the "deniers" and "contrarians."

and

One of the first to express astonishment [about the Stieg paper] was Dr Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a convinced believer in global warming, who wryly observed "it is hard to make data where none exists." A disbelieving Ross Hayes, an atmospheric scientist who has often visited the Antarctic for NASA, sent Professor Steig a caustic email ending: "with statistics you can make numbers go to any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage."

As Noel Sheppard reports on NewsBusters.org, 54% of American voters say the media makes global warming appear worse than it really is. Who can be surprised?

Cross-posted at Newsbusters.

_____

Labels: Climate, Environment, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:03 AM

Friday, February 06, 2009

Tom Borelli on Fox News Channel's "Glenn Beck" Discussing GE

Image via Wikipedia

By David Almasi:

Tom Borelli, PhD, director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project, appeared on the Fox News Channel's "Glenn Beck" program today at 5:00 pm eastern to discuss the appointment of General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt to a new presidential advisory panel.

President Barack Obama today announced members of his new Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Immelt is one of the members. Tom has been a leading critic of Immelt's corporate advocacy for environmental causes at the peril of consumers, stockholders and employees.

In 2007, Tom named Immelt one of the top five worst corporate CEOs, noting:
...Immelt's global warming strategy is causing a series of unintended consequences. For example, the incandescent light bulb - a GE product and invention of its founder Thomas Edison - will be phased out by federal law.

Over the past year, GE lobbyists had to fight hard to defeat outright bans of incandescent bulbs and buy time to restructure its lighting business that currently relies more on traditional bulbs.

GE's coal business is also feeling the heat from concerns over global warming. While it has invested heavily in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), a technology that captures carbon dioxide from coal-fired electricity plants, environmentalists have another plan - just ban the use of coal.

This year, environmental activists have been successful in blocking the construction of a number of coal-fired power plants including 8 of 11 plants in Texas. The termination of the Texas power plants resulted in the cancellation of orders for GE's steam turbines worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Tom's full commentary can be found here.

_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Energy, Environment, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:27 PM

Tom Borelli is on Glenn Beck Right Now

Senior Fellow Tom Borelli is a guest on the Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck program right now, talking about the GE corporation's left-wing activities.

Catch him on Fox now, if you can.

Labels: Business, Climate, Conservatives, Government Power, Government Spending, Liberals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:12 PM

Monday, February 02, 2009

Hundreds Gather for Global Warming Protest

Save us! Save us! they cried.
____

Labels: Climate

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:35 AM

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Global Warming News Roundup

A British government environmental minister is warning that recycling "could be adding to global warming."

Furthermore, this Daily Telegraph article notes that some local governments in Britain have "admitted using anti-terrorism legislation to snoop on householders who fail to recycle properly."

And then there's the report that Britain's National Health Service (socialized medicine system) is going to cut back on serving meat to patients in order to help combat global warming. That's the rationale, anyway, but the NHS is always looking for ways to save money, and it often comes at the cost of patient welfare.

Another British National Health Service recommendation is that patients be encouraged to get diagnoses from their doctors by telephone consultation instead of by in-person examination. This too is being sold as an effort to combat global warming.

Finally, in other global warming-related news, James Hansen's former supervisor at NASA has told Marc Morano of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that James Hansen "violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting" because the agency "did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it." He also says Hansen "embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress." Read all about it here.

____

Labels: Climate, Government Power, Government Spending, Health Care, Social Welfare

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:12 PM

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Very Good Point

Kudos to Rep. Joe Barton and to Iain Murray for drawing attention to this question.
____

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Corruption, Energy, Environment, Government Power, Liberals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:09 PM

Tom Borelli on G. Gordon Liddy

As a followup to this press release, Tom Borelli will be a guest on the G. Gordon Liddy national radio broadcast on Friday, January 16, at 10:30 AM Eastern.
_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Government Power, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:49 PM

So Was Barbarossa, Buddy, But It Doesn't Mean We Approve of It

"'The fact that we got this coalition to coalesce around a set of choices I think is impressive,'" said Jeffrey R. Immelt, chief executive of General Electric."
-Coalition Agrees on Emissions Cuts, Steven Mufson, Washington Post, January 15, 2009

More on our take on rich executives lobbying Congress to raise energy prices on poorer people so they can get richer still here.
____

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Environmental Justice

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:44 PM

At Energy and Commerce Hearing, House Conservatives Call CEOs to Account

Looks like conservatives on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee are calling turncoat corporate CEOs to account on the Hill today:

From Stephen Power's account on the Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog, as posted there by Keith Johnson:

The Waxman era begins: The first congressional hearing of 2009 on climate change got off to an acrimonious start Thursday, as House Republicans blasted a group of corporate CEOs and environmental groups for staging a press conference instead of appearing before the House Ènergy and Commerce Committee to answer lawmakers’ questions about their ideas for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Republicans also vowed to hold members of the US Climate Action Partnership accountable for their own use of fossil fuels, by demanding they explain to the committee whether they traveled to Washington by corporate aircraft and how much fuel they used.

“Be prepared for a battle,” Illinois Republican John Shimkus said at the start of the hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Shimkus vowed to “hold accountable” any Democrats from coal-abundant and petroleum-producing states who vote in favor of legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions and set up an emissions trading system in which companies would have to buy permits allowing them to pollute.

Mr. Shimkus and other Republicans called such legislation, which is favored by President-elect Barack Obama, “a shell game designed to hide” the true costs of regulation from consumers...

Good, good, good.

Using Congress for profiteering is reprehensible; doing it in the name of conservation while flying in on corporate jets to lobby for disproportionately-higher energy costs on lower-income and minority populations makes it doubly so.

I'm not at the hearing, but who wants to bet they have it heated nice and toasty on this bitterly cold global warmy January day?

The only creature comfort the conspirators will be missing is a collection of puppies for the CEOs and the liberal Congressmen to kick on their way out of the hearing room (or so I assume).

We issued a press release on this expensive nonsense earlier this morning:

Energy Bubble, Anyone?

Henry Waxman Gives Public a Look at the Corporate-Congressional Alliance that Threatens to Raise Energy Prices in Pursuit of Private Profit

Thursday's first hearing of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee since Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) ousted Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) as chairman is drawing criticism from the National Center for Public Policy Research, which says the hearing illustrates how powerful corporate interests are working with influential special interests and with the liberal majority in Congress to use government to enhance private profits at great cost to economic growth and liberty.

The hearing will, according to the committee's announcement, "present the perspectives of members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership ('USCAP'), a coalition of over 30 businesses and nongovernmental organizations that has called for Congress to pass legislation to address the climate change threat."

"Today's hearing on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership exposes the dangers posed by the new political economy," said Tom Borelli PhD, director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research. "The alignment of corporations, special interest groups and liberal members of Congress aiming for this legislative goal is frightening. The housing bubble was born from an alliance of similar interest groups and now we are about to repeat the same mistake with energy policy."

Corporate members of USCAP are trying to profit from a government-mandated "cap and trade" anti-global warming policy by selling so called carbon credits from reductions in greenhouse gases. Under cap-and-trade, emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, would be limited by the federal government. Companies that are over their emission allotment will be forced to purchase credits from another company that is below its allowance.

Under a cap-and-trade policy, companies would be forced to raise energy prices to reduce their emissions. This would unleash a series of adverse economic consequences and hardships for Americans, as the National Center's Vice President David Ridenour noted in a recent article in Investor's Business Daily:
* A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps, similar to those rejected earlier this year by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63% cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs by 2014.

* According to a study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the restrictions could raise gasoline prices by 29%, electricity prices by 55% and natural gas prices by 15% by 2015.

* A 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office, examining the costs of cutting carbon emissions just 15%, noted that customers "would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would."
"The alignment of corporate and government agendas for the so called "social good" is eerily similar of the warnings in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged which described the unraveling of capitalism" said Deneen Borelli, a full-time Fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research-sponsored African-American leadership network Project 21.

"Pursuing legislation that will raise energy prices in the middle of a recession is economic suicide. It exposes the inability of these CEOs to connect the dots between economic growth and their future earnings," added Tom Borelli. "Let's not forget USCAP corporate membership reads like a who's who list of corporate losers; AIG and Lehman Brothers were founding members and General Electric stock is trading at multiyear lows. Ford, Chrysler and GM are also members -- need I say more?" said Tom Borelli.

"Unfortunately for shareholders, the USCAP CEOs, like their banking industry colleagues, have executed poor risk management regarding the impact of cap-and-trade on their businesses. While banking CEOs thought real estate prices could only go up, USCAP CEOs somehow think there is no downside risk to high energy prices and handing over more power to government bureaucrats. They also think the environmental special interest groups are their friends. That's incredibly naïve," Tom Borelli said.

"We know for a fact that some USCAP CEOs have not analyzed the impact of cap-and-trade on their business. In response to my question about the company's participation in USCAP at the Caterpillar shareholder meeting in 2007, CEO James Owens admitted he did not conduct a cost benefit analysis of cap-and-trade on his business. Shareholders should be outraged over such incompetence," said Deneen Borelli.

"ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva has also not done his homework," said Tom Borelli. "ConocoPhillips has made a significant investment in Canadian oil sands, which release about three times the amount of carbon dioxide than traditional oil. Since cap-and-trade will increase the cost of carbon emissions, Mulva is lobbying to increase the cost of his investment. In addition, his USCAP partner Natural Resources Defense Council is taking legal action to block the processing of the oil sands at a ConocoPhillips refinery."

"Finally, if General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt is so concerned about the state of the planet," Tom Borelli Continued, "why was he selling electricity infrastructure equipment to Iran? Nuclear Iran poses a much greater threat than carbon emissions."

America doesn't need cap and trade and it doesn't need a carbon tax. Any look at the sorry state at the USCAP portion of America's business community, however, makes clear that of the two, cap and trade is worse, because it pits the profit interests of big business directly against the pocketbook interests of the little guy.
____

Labels: Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Energy, Environment, Environmental Justice, Government Power, Liberals, Project 21, Race, Regulation, Taxes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:55 AM

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Will Economic Crisis Make Obama Think Twice About Global Warming Regulation?

Senior Fellow Tom Borelli's latest Townhall.com column examines President-elect Obama's attitude toward global warming regulation.

He asks, "Will the economic crisis make Obama think twice about cap-and-trade?, and answers: "There’s no sign yet that it will."

Read it all here.
____

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Liberals, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:16 PM

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

What Greenhouse Gas Restrictions Could Do to Our Economy

Writing in Investor's Business Daily today, David Ridenour says, "When our economic bus is teetering at the edge of a cliff, it's a bad time to throw on some extra weight."

He's talking about government-mandated restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and what they could do to our economy.

Read the entire piece here.

____

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Energy, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:08 AM

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Prince Charles: Cutting Carbon a Priority; Economy Comes Second

I wonder if he flew to Toyko.
____

Labels: Climate, Economics, Energy, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:39 PM

Monday, October 20, 2008

Is there Global Warming?

Columnist Lorne Gunter doubts it.

Hat tip: Drudge Report.
____

Labels: Climate, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:48 PM

Monday, September 08, 2008

Project 21 in Washington Times

Project 21 members and staff have been published in the Washington Times' op-ed page several times recently. Fans of the group may wish to click on one or more of the following:

"Speed-Limit Myths" - Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie takes on Senator John Warner of Virginia's trial balloon favoring a federal mandate to lower speed limits. After explaining who/what really would benefit from such a policy (hint: not the environment, but it involves something green), Massie suggests that "it might be better if Mr. Warner just drove off into the sunset.

Important Links

About Amy Ridenour

About the National Center

Featured from our Blogroll

Historic Documents

Archives

Highlighted Project

Fine print

Thursday, October 29, 2009

"California's Going to Make Out Like a Bandit With This Legislation"

Friday, October 16, 2009

What's Happening Now

Thursday, October 08, 2009

The Next Big Cure for Global Warming: Condoms!

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

What's Happening Now

Friday, October 02, 2009

Boxer-Kerry Cap-and Trade Bill Puts Corporate Interests Over National Interest

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

David Ridenour Appearing on WBAL Baltimore

Thursday, September 17, 2009

What's Happening Now

Sunday, September 13, 2009

AP Quotes Deneen Borelli's Tea Party Speech

Deneen Borelli's Tea Party speech begins at 3:30 on this video

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Steve Milloy on O'Reilly Factor Discussing Relationship Between GE, NBC and White House

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Tom and Deneen Borelli to Speak on Global Warming Alarmism at Independence Mall in Philadelphia

Thursday, August 27, 2009

What's Happening Now

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

What's Happening Now

What's Happening Now

Friday, August 14, 2009

What's Happening Now

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

If You Don't Care Enough About Policy to Know Better Than This, Why Didn't You Go Into Another Line of Work?

Saturday, August 08, 2009

What's Happening Now

What's Happening Now

Friday, August 07, 2009

Not All Senators Are Treated Alike

Bill O'Reilly Covers National Center Free Enterprise Project's Call on Obama to Dismiss Jeffrey Immelt

Thursday, August 06, 2009

What's Happening Now

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

What's Happening Now

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Washington Post: Obama Has a "Ready Command of Facts"

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

What's Happening Now

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Quote of Note: Climate Change is Yesterday's News

Sunday, July 26, 2009

What's Happening Now

Saturday, July 25, 2009

What's Happening Now

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

NAACP Endorsement of Climate Legislation Puts It at Odds With Views of Black Americans

For Release: July 22, 2009Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Video of Project 21's Mychal Massie on the O'Reilly Factor

Friday, July 17, 2009

Project 21's Massie Critiques Obama NAACP Speech On Tonight's "O'Reilly Factor"

Quote of the Day: Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) on Waxman-Markey from The Foundry

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Rolling Stone: Cap and Trade is a Carbon Tax Structured So Private Interests Collect the Revenues

Monday, July 13, 2009

Video of Tom Borelli on Obama's Corporatism Strategy on Glenn Beck

Tom Borelli to be on Glenn Beck Today

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Carol Browner's Hijinks: They Call This Open Government?

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

If The Average of 25 and 75 Is 50, Does That Make Us All Middle-Aged?'

Friday, July 03, 2009

Climate Policy: No Gain, No Pain

Thursday, July 02, 2009

National Center's Tom Borelli Discusses Cap-and-Trade on Glenn Beck

Naughty Conservatives Shouldn't Mind Votes for Waxman-Markey (Or So We're Told)

For Release: July 22, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org