• JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 529
  • JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 62
  • JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 529
  • JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 62


Written by Ann Shibler on Tuesday, March 09 2010 12:30.

Wisconsin state capitolIn 2007 when global warming extremism was at its zenith with few questioning the now-debunked data and junk science used to come to certain climatic conclusions, Wisconsin’s Governor Jim Doyle established a global warming task force. That task force then created the Clean Energy Committee which produced Wisconsin Assembly Bill 649 and Senate Bill 450 dubbed Doyle’s global warming bills, but actually entitled Clean Energy Jobs Act (CEJA).

After a couple of years of cold Wisconsin weather, and one positively brutal winter season of 2008-2009, combined with Climategate and Glaciergate, Doyle’s global warming legislation is running into some rough weather of its own. The bill is still being pushed in Madison by four cosponsors and promoted by wind power companies and domestic and international fringe group environmentalists, along with others who stand a chance at raking in some dough, but at least the public debate is starting to heat up.

There is a lack of specific details, costs, tax increases, and job tallies, missing from the debate -- the only cost benefit analysis completed by outsiders estimates a $16 billion increase in the cost of electricity by 2025 -- which begs the question, shouldn’t the legislators who will be voting on the measure and the general public who will be most affected by it and who would be influencing their legislators, need such details? And shouldn’t everyone be concerned with what the funding sources for such a measure might be?

Details that were shared by the governor’s task force include reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 22 percent by 2022 and 75 percent by 2050 which is basically and adoption of California’s vehicle emissions standards. Wisconsin Representative Jim Ott, who has been outspoken in his attempt to bring the details of the bill to light, wrote in an op-ed:

Do we want California bureaucrats to set emission standards in Wisconsin? And who will be in charge of administering AB 649/SB 450? The deer-counting-challenged Department of Natural Resources.

The deer-counting-challenged DNR is a standing joke in Wisconsin -- ask any hunter or outdoorsman about the DNR’s on-going deer herd management disaster and deer counting technique.

Mandated in the bill is an emphasis on renewable energy sources: windmills, solar panels, biofuels and storage batteries. The advanced renewable tariff being pushed would force electric utilities to find other and more expensive sources for electricity generation.  Estimates from outside the state legislature show the mandates will cost at least $1,000 per year for the average family in higher energy costs, and doesn’t include possible federal cap and trade legislation that may come down the pike.

Doyle commissioned a study by the Center for Climate Strategies --”the nation’s premiere catalyst for climate policy development,” it says on its website -- that concluded the state’s economy would be boosted by $4.9 billion by the year 2025. They also concluded that 16,000 jobs would be created. But this is a center that was specifically formed to assist policy makers, governments, stakeholders, etc., to promote and implement climate change policies, so just a bit biased.

Major increases in energy costs would be devastating to the agricultural industry in the state, as well as to the manufacturing base. Farmers usually have to absorb these types of costs while manufacturers either pass the increases along to the consumer, or pack up and move their operations out of the state entirely. Industry experts say the loss of jobs would range from 30,000 to 43,000 in the private sector, and in a relatively small state like Wisconsin, that is a considerable amount.

Rep. Ott questioned what, if any, benefits to the climate would be seen: “Even if Wisconsin reduced greenhouse gas emissions to zero, there would be no measurable effect on background levels of greenhouse gases and, therefore, no effect on temperatures.”  And he added, “Conservation and a cleaner environment make sense, but AB 649/SB 450 is not the answer. Wisconsin does need a sensible energy policy. We should start by increasing our use of nuclear energy. Mandating utility rate increases and oppressive government regulations will only raise the cost of living and cost our state jobs.”

Wisconsin State Senator Glenn Grothman also issued a warning on the Wisconsin governor’s bill:

Given that we are talking about billions of dollars in new windmills, a possible 60 cent a gallon increase in gas prices, and a possible increase in electric bills of 30%, we ought to take a two year break to see whether we recently have global warming or cooling or what we have.  In addition to yet another burden on the average consumer, higher electrical prices would also be devastating in comparing Wisconsin’s business climate to other states.

Let’s save the per diems and lobbyist expenses and adjourn for two years. The whole idea that Wisconsin can affect the global temperature with 1/1300th of the world’s population is silly anyway.

It seems as though Governor Doyle is plowing the very same furrow that Obama is with a federal cap and trade bill. Similarities abound, certainly, but Doyle has an extra problem to deal with -- the chairman of Doyle’s global warming task force, Roy Thilly, is the president and CEO of WPPI Energy, a regional power company “serving 51 customer-owned electric utilities,” that provide electricity to more than 192,000 homes and businesses in Wisconsin, Upper Michigan, and Iowa. WPPI would be a major financial beneficiary of the high-priced, renewable energy Doyle and other Wisconsin state legislators are mandating in the bill. This would be called a notable conflict of interest.

Thilly, says Senator Grothman, “made it sound during the initial hearing as if he was concerned about the climate and renewable energy. Now it turns out he has such a financial stake in this matter that he could not possibly be an impartial chair and the Task Force’s work should be promptly dispatched to the wastebasket.” 

To help send this particular piece of legislation to the proper circular file, it is imperative that Wisconsinites send emails (this link only enables residents of Wisconsin to send emails to their state legislators), make phone calls, or personally visit their state assemblymen and senators (click here for contact information) and insist that they vote “No” on Assembly Bill 649 and Senate Bill 450. 

Written by Larry Greenley on Friday, January 29 2010 11:43.

Just in time to bolster President Obama's "green" credentials at the UN Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced on December 7, 2009: "Today I'm proud to announce that EPA has finalized its endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution and is now authorized and obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act" (view video).

So, even though the cap and trade energy tax bill was stalled in the U.S. Senate, President Obama was able to point to the EPA announcement in Copenhagen to show the commitment of the U.S. government to take measures to reduce greenhouse gases as part of the whole global warming/climate change charade being participated in by our political, news media, and academic elites.

The whole idea of the EPA, an executive branch agency which was created by President Richard Nixon through an executive order in 1970, creating environmental regulations with the force of law is at odds with the U.S. Constitution. The first sentence of Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states very simply: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." This means all law-making power resides in Congress. So, if the federal government undertakes to regulate greenhouse gases, Congress must be passing the regulatory laws, not the EPA. However, even Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate the production of greenhouse gases.

Fortunately, there is a movement in Congress to prohibit the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases. There are two bills in the House and one proposed amendment in the Senate to do just this.

The first bill in the House is H.R. 391 which was introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) on January 9, 2009 and which currently has 151 cosponsors. The purpose of this bill is to: (1) stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases by amending the Clean Air Act to exclude greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide; and (2) by expliciting stating, "Nothing in the Clean Air Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming."

The second bill in the House is H.R. 4396 which was introduced by Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) on December 16, 2009. This bill would prohibit EPA regulation of greenhouse gases by amending the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to the Act.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) has taken a different approach in the Senate. She has introduced a resolution, which is supported by 35 Republicans and three Democrats so far, that could be used as an amendment and attached to the bill of her choice or introduced as a standalone bill. The purpose of this resolution is "To prohibit the use of funds [by the EPA for one year] to regulate or control carbon dioxide from any sources other than a mobile source or to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant subject to certain regulations." Senator Murkowski's approach is much narrower than the two House bills in that it only prohibits EPA regulation of carbon dioxide for one year, and then only for non-mobile sources.

Although Senator Murkowski's resolution is a step in the right direction and deserves support, the approach of H.R. 391 is much better and should be supported for passage in both House and Senate.

Contact your representative and senators
and tell them to "stop the unconstitutional, jobs-killing, EPA regulation of carbon dioxide."

Written by Ann Shibler on Thursday, September 03 2009 02:02.

Wind TurbineFrom Spain to Britain to Brazil to Japan, foreign companies are reaping the benefits of Obama’s corporate welfare giveaway program, a.k.a. stimulus packages. American taxpayers will provide the money, and foreign companies will be the contractors for the newly popular renewable energy projects, then the little energy produced will be sold back to increasingly impoverished Americans.

Spanish company Iberdrola has been awarded most of the $500 million in economic recovery funds from the Obama administration. Iberdrola will be constructing wind farms in Texas, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Minnesota, with Arizona, Illinois, and North Dakota seeing other renewable energy projects constructed by Iberdrola.

A British company, Terra Firma Capital Partners, recently bought a controlling stake in EverPower Wind Holdings, which gets the grant for one Pennsylvania wind farm project.

Japan’s Mitsubishi Corp., stands to reap rewards from this as well — they will provide the wind turbines for Iberdrola.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says, “This renewable energy program will spur the manufacture and development of clean energy in urban and rural America.” He fails to say by whom. President Obama offers the usual mantra that it will create new jobs, again for whom?

Most recently, wind energy companies have been receiving tax credits. But with Obama’s regime, it’s cash on the barrel handed directly to these foreign companies. An Iberdrola spokeswoman says they are “delighted” and will put stimulus money to use right away. I’ll bet.

And then there is the Brazilian oil company Obama is also “lending” our money to through the Ex-Im Bank. Petrobras, the Brazilian state-owned oil company, will benefit to the tune of $2 billion for offshore drilling.

Do you think George Soros knew in advance Obama was going to let Petrobras have $2 billion of taxpayer money? Funny how the Soros Fund Management LLC bought a $811 million stake in Petrobras — Petroleo Brasileiro SA — in the second quarter, making it that fund’s largest holding. (Soros also bought heavily into Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and expanded his mining and commodities by buying into an iron-ore producer and a Canadian gas and oil company, for those who are curious.)

The Soros-Obama partnership is a win-win situation. Obama’s economic policies help Soros to wildly increase his already stratospheric financial empire, and Soros in turn dumps money into funding Acorn, Obama’s health care reform propaganda machine, his community organizers, the cap and trade crowd, and the global warming extremists for their agenda as well.

Click on this photo at left to view video of Glenn Beck's interview with Dr. Alan Carlin, EPA research analyst, who wrote an internal report about some problems with using so-called global warming science to prove endangerment to "US Health and Welfare" from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Based on internal EPA emails, Dr. Carlin's report was suppressed because of pressure to support the Obama administration's agenda of getting a 'cap and trade' bill through Congress.

The title of the internal EPA report is "Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act." The "Preface" of this report includes this statement: "As discussed in these comments, we believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt is made to reach conclusions on the subject."

For more information about why 'cap and trade' climate change bills amount to extraordinarily expensive energy taxes on everyone see "Oppose the Cap and Trade ‘Tax’ Increase Bill, H.R. 2454" and "Defeat the 'Cap and Trade' Energy Tax Bill in the Senate."

As stated in the articles referred to in the previous paragraph, a cap and trade bill has already passed in the House, however, the Senate is not expected to vote on its version until this fall. Take immediate action by clicking here to contact your senators in strong opposition to any form of cap and trade legislation.

UPDATE: Since posting this article a couple hours ago, I've found the final version of Dr. Carlin's EPA report along with some explanation of how this report has come to be publicly available. While I'm at it, I've found another interesting article, "EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming," about this whole EPA report controversy.




Now that the House has passed its 'cap and trade' energy tax bill (H.R. 2454) by 219-212 last Friday, it's the Senate's turn to consider this "climate change" legislation. The current indications are that the Senate won't vote on 'cap and trade' until this fall; however, opponents of this legislation must begin building pressure on the Senate to defeat such a bill immediately, just in case the schedule is moved up to enhance the chances for passage.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe has already predicted defeat of 'cap and trade' in the Senate with his statement that "Today's razor-thin vote in the House spells doom in the Senate." Nonetheless, Americans who value their freedom and prosperity and who prefer to avoid adding thousands of dollars of new energy costs per household per year need to take extraordinary measures to build a sufficiently large grassroots voice to be sure that we stop 'cap and trade' dead in its tracks.

Here are three videos to help motivate enough Americans to defeat 'cap and trade.'

First, click on the video at the top of this article to see Senator James Inhofe discuss an EPA report on global warming that was suppressed by the Obama administration to help assure passage of the 'cap and trade' bill by Congress.

Second, click on the video immediately below to see California Rep. Tom McClintock explain why 'cap and trade' must be defeated. McClintock was in the California state legislature when it passed a greenhouse gas emissions reduction bill a few years ago. Implementation of this bill a couple years ago has led to large-scale job losses and higher utility rates in California.

Third, click on the video below to view a video version of Texas Rep. Ron Paul's weekly "Straight Talk" audio report for June 29 on the topic of what's wrong with the 'cap and trade' bill.

Take immediate action by clicking here to send a prewritten, editable message in vigorous opposition to 'cap and trade' legislation to your two senators.

You can get a sense of just how important this issue is when some of the advocates of 'cap and trade' refer to it as a "transformational" bill that is the most important bill most congressmen will ever vote on in their entire career.

The stakes are very high in the upcoming battle in the Senate. And, chances are good that the Senate version will be different from the House version and require another vote in House. So, work hard enough to defeat any 'cap and trade' bill in the Senate. Keep the pressure on the House. And, don't be fooled by various concessions and compromises. Oppose 'cap and trade' legislation in whatever form it might take.

Let's draw a line in the sand right here! Let's make this the moment when we start to bring our out-of-control federal government back under control. Let's make this the moment when the wheels start coming off the Big Government juggernaut.

Defeat 'cap and trade'!


JBS Facebook JBS Twitter JBS YouTube JBS RSS Feed