AGW Today: Losers, Compromise, And Censored EPA Report

Who were the losers in the cap and tax bill?

Anyone who pays an electric bill would likely feel the impact of climate legislation. Utilities will try to raise rates as they invest in cleaner-yet-more-expensive energy sources. Some have already announced plans to do so. Petroleum companies also may try to import more of their refined gas and heating oil from countries with no carbon law, which will raise costs.

So, everyone. Good to know. As for compromise

In mid-spring, when the prospect of a global warming bill passing Congress seemed like an Al Gore pipe dream, President Obama invited Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) down to the Oval Office. “He realized that this was a very tough bill to get through,” Waxman remembers.

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

At a time when some still saw Obama as too inexperienced to adapt to Washington’s backroom ways, Waxman found the president perfectly ready to accept the only strategy that offered hope of success: Sitting down with each group affected by the bill and trading concessions for support.

That strategy yielded a narrow victory in the House on Friday. The question was, did Obama, Waxman and other supporters give away so much in the process that the benefits to the environment ended up being slim to none — especially since the bill now goes to the even less sympathetic Senate?

Horse trading has always been a part of politics, but, if the science was so settled, then why was it necessary to bribe so many to vote “Aye”? What is never answered is “will it work?” Kyoto didn’t. Most of what the United Nations is pushing will not accomplish the goals. So, other than raising the cost of everything, what will this accomplish? Ask your Representative that question, if they voted “Aye,” along with the question “Did you read it?”

On to the censored EPA CO2 endangerment report by Alan Carlin, which Anthony Watts has gotten a hold of

I’m pleased to say that we have the final report exclusively available here, courtesy of our verified contact at the EPA, who shall remain anonymous. For some background on this contact, developed with the help of Tom Fuller at the San Francisco Environmental Policy Examiner, please read the WUWT story below. The download link is also below.

Watts Up With That? has the copy here, want to give him the traffic for finding it. I have also uploaded it to Scibd. It’s 100 pages and 4mb.

It is of great importance that the Agency recognize the difference between an effort that has consumed tens of billions of dollars by the IPCC, the CCSP, and some additional European, particularly British, funding over a period of at least 15 years with what I have been able to pull together in less than a week. Obviously the number of peer reviewed papers that exist and the polish of the summary reports cannot be compared. What is actually noteworthy about this effort is not the relative apparent scientific shine of the two sides but rather the relative ease with which major holes have been found in the GHG/CO2/AGW argument. In many cases the most important arguments are based not on multi-million dollar research efforts but by simple observation of available data which has surprisingly received so little scrutiny. The best example of this is the MSU satellite data on global temperatures. Simple scrutiny of this data yields what to me are stunning observations. Yet this has received surprisingly little study or at least publicity. In the end it must be emphasized that the issue is not which side has spent the most money or published the most peer-reviewed papers, or been supported by more scientific organizations. The issue is rather whether the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis meets the ultimate scientific test–conformance with real world data. What these comments show is that it is this ultimate test that the hypothesis fails; this is why EPA needs to carefully reexamine the science behind global warming before proposing an endangerment finding. This will take more than four days but is the most important thing I can do right now and in the coming weeks and months and possibly years.

Simple observation. Instead of relying on computer models that tend to ignore the Sun, water vapor, and other natural processes, those who push AGW should take a look at real world data. Oh, and give up their cars and everything else that they say is causing global warming, if they really believe in it.

BTW, I did a big data dump after skimming through the majority of the cap and tax bill, which I did not cross post here, since Saturday is a day for others. I’m going to drop it in to the extended portion, it is rather long, or, you can pop over to my post on it here.


(a) Immunity From Impairment, Limitation, or Restriction-

(1) IN GENERAL- All rights and remedies of the Administration (including any rights and remedies of the Administration on, under, or with respect to any mortgage or any obligation secured by a mortgage) shall be immune from impairment, limitation, or restriction by or under–

(A) any law (other than a law enacted by Congress expressly in limitation of this paragraph) that becomes effective after the acquisition by the Administration of the subject or property on, under, or with respect to which the right or remedy arises or exists or would so arise or exist in the absence of the law; or

(B) any administrative or other action that becomes effective after the acquisition.

(2) STATE LAW- The Administrator of the Administration may conduct the business of the Administration without regard to any qualification or law of any State relating to incorporation.

I’m giving you the whole section to understand how this unknown “Administrator” can completely ignored the 10th Amendment.


(a) Findings- The Congress finds that–

(1) the utility sector is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States today, producing approximately one-third of the country’s emissions;

(2) heating and cooling homes accounts for nearly 60 percent of residential electricity usage in the United States;

(3) shade trees planted in strategic locations can reduce residential cooling costs by as much as 30 percent;

(4) shade trees have significant clean-air benefits associated with them;

(5) every 100 healthy large trees removes about 300 pounds of air pollution (including particulate matter and ozone) and about 15 tons of carbon dioxide from the air each year;

(6) tree cover on private property and on newly-developed land has declined since the 1970s, even while emissions from transportation and industry have been rising; and

(7) in over a dozen test cities across the United States, increasing urban tree cover has generated between two and five dollars in savings for every dollar invested in such tree planting.

(b) Definitions- As used in this section:

(1) The term `Secretary’ refers to the Secretary of Energy.

(2) The term `retail power provider’ means any entity authorized under applicable State or Federal law to generate, distribute, or provide retail electricity, natural gas, or fuel oil service.

(3) The term `tree-planting organization’ means any nonprofit or not-for-profit group which exists, in whole or in part, to–

(A) expand urban and residential tree cover;

(B) distribute trees for planting;

(C) increase awareness of the environmental and energy-related benefits of trees;

(D) educate the public about proper tree planting, care, and maintenance strategies; or

(E) carry out any combination of the foregoing activities.

(4) The term `tree-siting guidelines’ means a comprehensive list of science-based measurements outlining the species and minimum distance required between trees planted pursuant to this section, in addition to the minimum required distance to be maintained between such trees and

(A) building foundations;

(B) air conditioning units;

(C) driveways and walkways;

(D) property fences;

(E) preexisting utility infrastructure;

(F) septic systems;

(G) swimming pools; and

(H) other infrastructure as deemed appropriate.

Very long section that tells us trees ROCK! And they do. And the Congress of the United States of America has its collective minds. Because trees rock, they have now given the Secretary of Energy the power, and mandate, to create tree planting and public education programs, not to mention federal jobs for people to go around and plant them, as well as maintain them. Oh, and jobs for people to go around and make sure, look at (4) in bold, that trees are in certain places. Nanny State, anyone? If only they were as worried about temperature monitoring stations being far enough away for objects that cause their data to be skewed to the high side. Want to plant a tree on your property? The Government will tell you where you may put it. Or you will be fined.




(h) Inclusion of Carbon Output on Appliance `Energyguide’ Labels

They’re coming after your TVs, your furnaces, your blenders, you name it. And there is a requirement that CO2 output be part of the labels on appliances. More cost.


`(a) Jurisdiction- The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction to restrain–

`(1) any violation of section 332; and

`(2) any person from distributing in commerce any covered product which does not comply with an applicable rule under section 324 or 325.

`(b) Authority- Any action referred to in subsection (a) shall be brought by the Commission or by the attorney general of a State in the name of the State, except that–

`(1) any such action to restrain any violation of section 332(a)(3) which relates to requirements prescribed by the Secretary or any violation of section 332(a)(4) which relates to request of the Secretary under section 326(b)(2) shall be brought by the Secretary; and

`(2) any violation of section 332(a)(5) or 332(a)(7) shall be brought by the Secretary or by the attorney general of a State in the name of the State.

Los Nanny Staters can come after you legally, and supersede all State law while doing it. Section 332 is about hydrofluorocarbons. There doesn’t seem to be a section 324 or 325 that I can find.


(a) In General- There is established within the Environmental Protection Agency a WaterSense program to identify and promote water efficient products, buildings and landscapes, and services in order–

(1) to reduce water use;

(2) to reduce the strain on water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure;

(3) to conserve energy used to pump, heat, transport, and treat water; and

(4) to preserve water resources for future generations,

through voluntary labeling of, or other forms of communications about, products, buildings and landscapes, and services that meet the highest water efficiency and performance standards.

(b) Duties- The Administrator shall–

(1) promote WaterSense labeled products, buildings and landscapes, and services in the market place as the preferred technologies and services for–

(A) reducing water use; and

(B) ensuring product and service performance;

(2) work to enhance public awareness of the WaterSense label through public outreach, education, and other means;

(3) establish and maintain performance standards so that products, buildings and landscapes, and services labeled with the WaterSense label perform as well or better than their less efficient counterparts;

(4) publicize the need for proper installation and maintenance of WaterSense products by a licensed, and where certification guidelines exist, WaterSense-certified professional to ensure optimal performance;

They’re coming after your water usage. They’ll bombard you with Nanny State ads about your water usage. They’re coming after your dishwashers and washing machines, your faucets, your toilets, vis a vis “performance standards.” They will also push to make sure that only professionally liscensed people work on everything water. Costs go up.


(a) Definitions- In this section:

(1) AGENCY- The term `Agency’ means the Environmental Protection Agency.

(2) WOOD STOVE OR PELLET STOVE- The term `wood stove or pellet stove’ means a wood stove, pellet stove, or fireplace insert that uses wood or pellets for fuel.

They’re coming after your fireplaces.


`(a) Greenhouse Gases- For purposes of this title, the following are greenhouse gases:

`(1) Carbon dioxide.

`(2) Methane.

`(3) Nitrous oxide.

`(4) Sulfur hexafluoride.

`(5) Hydrofluorocarbons from a chemical manufacturing process at an industrial stationary source.

`(6) Any perfluorocarbon.

`(7) Nitrogen trifluoride.

`(8) Any other anthropogenic gas designated as a greenhouse gas by the Administrator under this section.

Trips to the dentists will be more expensive if you want Nitrous Oxide, or, maybe dentists will just do away with it, due to the certain coming cost of maintaining the paperwork. If Los Federales allow dentists to even keep it. And notice that last part. the Administrator can designate whatever he wants as a bad gas. Sulfer hexafluoride has many applications, and regulation will drive your costs up. Nitrogen trifluoride is used in flat screen displays. Perfluorocarbon’s have many medical uses, as well as in electrical devices and cosmetics. Cost. Go. Up.


That part is simply assumed to be in regards to the cap and trade licenses, but, it does not specifically say it, so, Government could restrict your “emissions.” Disturbing, since it is followed by

Part H sections 783-787 coming after electricity, natural gas, home heating oil and propage, refineries

$$$$$$$$ goes up.


`Notwithstanding section 116, no State or political subdivision thereof shall implement or enforce a cap and trade program that covers any capped emissions emitted during the years 2012 through 2017. For purposes of this section, the term `cap and trade program’ means a system of greenhouse gas regulation under which a State or political subdivision issues a limited number of tradable instruments in the nature of emission allowances and requires that sources within its jurisdiction surrender such tradeable instruments for each unit of greenhouse gases emitted during a compliance period. For purposes of this section, a `cap-and-trade program’ does not include a target or limit on greenhouse gas emissions adopted by a State or political subdivision that is implemented other than through the issuance and surrender of a limited number of tradable instruments in the nature of emission allowances, nor does it include any other standard, limit, regulation, or program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that is not implemented through the issuance and surrender of a limited number of tradeable instruments in the nature of emission allowances. For purposes of this section, the term `cap and trade program’ does not include, among other things, fleet-wide motor vehicle emission requirements that allow greater emissions with increased vehicle production, or requirements that fuels, or other products, meet an average pollution emission rate or lifecycle greenhouse gas standard.

Yet another part which supersedes the 10th Amendment.


Somewhere, they are going to find money to give out tons more tax credits, supposedly to offset the massively higher costs to you, the American consumer, but, only if you do what they want you to do, buy what they want you to buy. Even more control of your lives.

Subtitle D–Exporting Clean Technology

Oh, good, you and I are going to be paying for the rest of the world now, too.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!