What is in the Clean Energy Act passed by the House?

Read Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's summary

Most disturbing to me is the politicians once again choosing winners and losers. Which category is your state in?

No doubt I am over-simplifying this but....

The EPA has declared that CO2 is a pollutant. (So is sea water and plastic, but let's not go there.)
While they have not determined how they are going to regulate it, because of their authority (the clean air act), their power is pretty much limited to setting a cap on CO2 production.

There is some debate about whether the clean air act gives them the necessary authority, and so any regulation they come up with will likely be the subject of years of legal maneuvering. The Supreme Court has already determined that the Clean Air Act is broad enough to include greenhouse gasses and that EPA is required to regulate it. This has nothing to do with scientific study, fact or climate fanatic (for or against control) opinion. It is determined based only on the clean air statute.

The House proposal is known as cap and trade. Trade in this context means trade for money. The EPA proposal would be cap and penalize. Between the two, I think cap by itself is a fairer action. But then, congress would not be calling the shots and we know how they feel about that. In the end, the government is going to get a lot of money from industries that exceed their CO2 limits.

Settled science?

First of all, scientific theory is not proven through a ballot. It is proven through empirical processes. It is not settled by what could happen until it really happens. And even then, a better model may come along to explain what happened.

Having said that,
17,200 scientists dispute global warming
(3,000 UN politicians disagree)

2nd CNN meteorologist challenges manmade global warming theory

Over 30,000 scientists sign a petition against the man-made theory
Even climate extremists are having a bit of trouble with the data

NASA can't make up its mind

Brit's Met Office revisiting data

Answers explanation of atmospheric composition and what contributes

updated with this source from Science Daily, which doesn't appear to have any particular bias:
No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years

Here is a detailed discussion of factors besides anthropomorphic CO2 that affect temperatures and an explanation of the actual values instead of just percentages. Takes some time to digest. 

Climate Change - observations

13 reasons and counting for questioning Al Gore and company. (Not counting all of the political and financial motivations.)

1) The climate changes all on its own. This can be shown with data - lots of data.

2) CO2 (carbon dioxide) is emitted by all animals and is food for plants. It is not a bad thing anymore than oxygen is. (Oxygen is actually a bad thing - it causes most things to oxidize or burn. That is a destructive process, but it does release energy, which is why we use it to live.)

3) CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere. Nitrogen is by far the most prevalent gas. Depending on which parts of the atmosphere you want to include, nitrogen plus oxygen represent 99% of the atmosphere. Water vapor and argon are next, making up most of the last 1%. CO2 represents less than .03% or .0003 or 3 parts per 10,000.

4) CO2 concentrations go up and down for natural reasons like volcanos. Volcanos, the director of Goddard Space Center says, produce the most CO2 of anything. Since plant life contributes a lot to the reduction in CO2, why not blame plants? Those bad plants just haven't been busy enough, time for some genetic engineering. Of course cutting down trees doesn't help the situation, but most plant life is oceanic.

5) How many measurements does it take to find the difference that man makes in that .03%? Statistically, way more than we have available. If CO2 is such a small component, think how serious a minor error in the measuring equipment would make. Let's say I am measuring the atmospheric content and I make a .001% error (pretty small error). If that error is in measuring CO2, whoa, that's like plus or minus 1/3! Like um, the temperature is 100 plus or minus 33 degrees. Quite a variation. I hope a pigeon didn't sneeze on your probe.

6) The period in which actual temperature measurements are available starts in 1850. Everything that went on before is conjecture. And as the now revealed hoax shows, if the conjecture did not fit the desired result, they simply changed the basis for conjecture until it did. That conjecture is consistent with the desired outcome until about 1980. After that, it no longer supports the predetermined conclusion. So, they just stop using it and substitute real temperature data instead. And when real temperature data doesn't support the predetermined conclusion (which it doesn't), then they fake it some more.

Interest payments in the future

Look, the fact that the national debt has gone from 2tri to 12tri is worrisome just because it grew so fast. We never really think about paying down the principle on the debt, it just keeps inching up, right? As long as GDP goes up, we can afford the incremental increase in interest payments, right?

Interest payments alone are going more than triple in 10 years. Like think of it this way. You are paying $200 on your credit card now. In 2019, if you do nothing to pay down the principle, you are going to be paying $700 per month. It's just money going out the door (to China) without earning anything or doing anything productive (like build roads or schools). Yep, just money out the door before it even lands in the wallet. Consequence? Read on... (hint: health care ain't got nuthin on this problem, at least paying for health care contributes to the economy).

(Talk about your hockey stick graph.)

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.

In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

CNBC from the NYTimes

Dear Senator Mark Warner

I am writing to say that I agree, the issue with health care is cost. In my opinion, government insurance programs (medicare, medicaid, CHIP) have largely removed cost-based market competition, resulting in the current complete disconnect between the price charged and the cost of the service performed. The market motive right now is get the most possible out of the government program. Given the percentage of Americans that use these programs, the private insurance companies are seriously constrained by having to play in the same market.

For example, for routine blood tests (the usual annual panel) a lab submits charges of $150.00 to BCBS. The allowance is $25.75. Neither of these amounts have anything to do with the actual cost for performing the service. When I negotiated prices for surgery, lab and xray for my (uninsured) son's surgery, I could get reductions of 35-50% for cash in advance. This was for professional services as well as facility costs. (Always get it in writing before paying.)

I do not see how a federal program covering even more people is going to change that market dynamic. I believe consumers are far more effective in driving the cost of service down. Currently, they have no influence in the process, let alone motive. Most people have very few choices for providers (under private or government programs) and little knowledge about service costs because the bill goes to the insurance company. They have no way to make any decision about the price of the service before it is performed.

If consumers have choices and incentive to choose lower cost alternatives among service providers, not insurance policies, costs will go down. As long as the government is getting the bill, it's just a game managed by lobbyists and law makers, who despite what they say, aren't concerned about the price. It always comes back to political motives which is how we got in this situation in the first place.

Results count

To the Congress:

The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.

The "War on Poverty" started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked and our entire country is broke.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get it right; they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.

Trillions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called TARP, the "Stimulus", the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009... none show any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new source: the American taxpayer.

And finally, to set a new record:
"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress' generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that "services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?

20% of our entire economy?

With all due respect,

Are you crazy?

1948 cartoon extension dept., Harding College

This is a fascinating perspective. You can see how far we have come - or how far gone we are.
National Juggernaut