You remember what Obama stated about cap and trade, right?
You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
This is what he wants. You paying out the wazzoo for fanciful climate change (but, the point is not to reverse it, of course.)Â Fortunately for The People of the United States, the Senate has, at least at this time, said “nyet” (h/t Hot Air)
Please pass Al Gore a Valium — and better make it a double — because his cap-and-trade dreams just took a dive in the U.S. Senate. In a vote late Wednesday, no fewer than 26 Democrats joined all 41 Republicans to insist that any new cap and tax on carbon energy would require at least 60 votes.
Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander called it “the biggest vote of the year†so far, and he’s right. This means Majority Leader Harry Reid can’t jam cap and tax through as part of this year’s budget resolution with a bare majority of 50 Senators. More broadly, it’s a signal that California and East Coast Democrats won’t be able to sock it to coal and manufacturing-heavy Midwestern states without a fight. Senators voting in favor of the 60-vote rule included liberals from Wisconsin, Michigan and West Virginia. Now look for Team Obama to attempt to impose cap and tax the non-democratic way, via regulation that hits business and local governments with such heavy costs that they beg Congress for a less-harmful version.
And before the usual suspects perform their usual partisan politics twists, let me ask them “what are you doing to reduce and offset your CO2 output?” I so rarely get a coherent answer. And tell us why you think that energy and all other costs should skyrocket.
In related AGW news: Debris, climate change threaten new Hawaiian marine monument. The Times notes that it is mostly due to debris, but could be threatened by “climate change, ocean acidification, rising sea surface temperatures and sea level rise.” But, no actual facts were involved, just a reading of a crystal ball. Too bad that the water temperatures around Hawaii are pretty much the same now as what they were in 1943. A range of 76-81 for the ocean water around Hawaii is, and has been, the norm.
