Climate Change Teetotalers Denounce Baptists and Bootleggers

Earlier I blogged about the USCAP coalition of Climate Change Baptists and Bootleggers testifying on Capitol Hill today asking for free money. Some holier-than-they climate activists (perhaps they should be styled as Climate "Teetotalers" or "Fundamentalists") hate the sin of carbon emissions even more and will not brook any compromises with corporate "bootleggers." As the 350 member 1Sky coalition press release declared:

[1Sky Campaign Director Gillian] Caldwell explained that the U.S. Climate Action Partnership's (USCAP) proposal includes giveaways to the nation's most powerful polluters rather than the bold solutions necessary to solve the climate crisis. "Under this proposal, 40% of the dirtiest polluters would be allowed to keep polluting," Caldwell said, "1Sky and its allies urge the members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to draft effective energy policy that closes loopholes, and auctions 100% of pollution allowances." Caldwell noted that President-elect Obama repeatedly promised to make polluters pay and the USCAP proposal, as she says, "Lets the most powerful polluters off the hook."

"USCAP's scheme for coal is not any better. They propose allowing exorbitant subsidies for coal plants to be built now, as long as they capture and sequester the carbon once the technology becomes commercially viable. No one can predict whether or if it will ever be commercially viable," Caldwell said. The 1Sky coalition wants an immediate moratorium placed on all new coal-fired power plants that emit global warming pollution.

1Sky advocates cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent by 2020.

Whole 1Sky press release here.

Comments

[Seward]

Ronald Bailey,

So what industries from the 1Sky coalition's proposals (assuming they are proposing some alternative to this plan)? There is always the "seen" and the "unseen."

[Episiarch]

1Sky advocates cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent by 2020.

And I advocate that Hollywood cuts its shit output by 35 percent by 2020 (and puts a hit out on Michael Bay). Both proposals have the same chance of happening.

[Jay]

"1Sky and its allies urge the members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to draft effective energy policy that closes loopholes, and auctions 100% of pollution allowances"

As an organism that inhales O2 and exhales CO2, will I have to pay?

[Shannon Love]

1Sky advocates cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent by 2020.

When faced with an absurd idea like this I like to ask: How will this effect social security?

Social Security is dependent on continually rising productivity so that fewer and fewer workers can support more and more retirees. Social Security would have collapsed outright by the 70's if we had had the same productivity then that we had in 1935 when Social Security started.

That productivity means replacing human labor with machine labor which requires energy. Since no technology beside nuclear exist to replace coal plants, reducing CO2 emissions means reducing productivity.

So, how are we going to pay for social security if we cripple our economy in this fashion?

The trouble with Leftist is that they have a very simplified model of how the world fits together. They have almost no awareness of the synergistic effects of changes. In this case, the side effects are dramatic because energy use effects everything we do.

[Milano]

I hope that everyone likes reading books by candlelight.

[Francisco Torres]

"Under this proposal, 40% of the dirtiest polluters would be allowed to keep polluting,"

CO2 is not a pollutant. So, just to begin with, their argument already begs the question. And yet, Progressives and State-worshipers already accept the premise to tout for more State control.

Shannon,
So, how are we going to pay for social security if we cripple our economy in this fashion?

The usual leftist solution to this conundrum is to print money, and that is exactly what the left in Capitol Hill is doing (and with "Left" I include both the Democrat Fascists and the Republican Fascists, along with Il Duce, who is just days from his coronation.)

[Hazel Meade]

I wonder what the chances are that 1Sky is in favor of building more nuclear power plants.

If not, let's see their proposed alternative. A windmill in every backyard, strict rationing of air conditioners, a WPA program to dig root cellars, and free educational programs on organic gardening and backyard goat raising.

[TallDave]

Meanwhile, billions of people in China, India, and Africa could care less.

Remember, not only is the theory suspect, the proposed actions have virtually no effect.

[Marc]

The funniest thing is, allowing the biggest polluters to continue to pollute is pretty much standard for environmental regulations. Writing it in to the bill is not that common, but lobbying for exemptions before the reg takes affect, happens all the time. Environment regulations are little more than campaign contribution opportunities and barriers to entry.

[Tony]

Yeah why can't we libs be more like conservatives, who understand how everything in the world works because they get to make up their own facts.

If climate change continues to happen unchecked, what exactly will the collapse of human civilization do for productivity?

[Paul]

Since no technology beside nuclear exist to replace coal plants, reducing CO2 emissions means reducing productivity.

So, how are we going to pay for social security if we cripple our economy in this fashion?

Take a fuel-cell car, drive two SUV's behind it, one being towed by the other. Then when the fuel cell runs out, get a new cell out of the first suv, drive it back...

Something like that.

[Paul]

If climate change continues to happen unchecked, what exactly will the collapse of human civilization do for productivity?

There'll be fewer people drawing Social Security. Problem solved.

[Paul]

CO2 is not a pollutant.

You may know that, and I may know that, and science may know that, but that doesn't mean people are already feeling around the edges of it "becoming" a pollutant.

[Hat Trick]

"No one can predict whether or if it will ever be commercially viable," Caldwell said. The 1Sky coalition wants an immediate moratorium placed on all new coal-fired power plants that emit global warming pollution."

Ahh, yes. But we can predict with great certainty how lower carbon emissions will stop climate change.

[Brandybuck]

Caldwell noted that President-elect Obama repeatedly promised to make polluters pay

And I'm still expecting a pony for Christmas...

[Guy Montag]

Brandybuck,

We get miniature elephants instead of unicorns. No poneys were on the table.

[shakes fist at Ron Bailey]

RON! From your title I thought Reason was finally covering NASCAR!

[Neu Mejican]

Just for the sake of furthering discussion:

What is your definition of a pollutant?

Would you agree with the use of a common science dictionary?

pollutant (p?-lt'nt)

A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.

The American Heritage? Science Dictionary
Copyright ? 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[Neu Mejican]

oops screwed up the tags...

That last one was aimed at Paul and/or Francisco Torres...

[Guy Montag]

Neu,

such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment.

I think we can leave out plant food from the definition.

[Neu Mejican]

Guy,

We could.

But why would we use some specialized variant of a commonly understood term?

Define, for example, "weed."

Best one I have heard..."a plant that's in the wrong place."

Pollutant is the same type of concept.

"Something that's causing a problem."