Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Barbara Boxer - Thank Goodness for National Poverty!”

« Thomas Sowell: Obama Isn't UnAmerican, He's Anti-American | Main | Why No "Celebration" of 1984's 60th Anniversary? »

October 28, 2009

Barbara Boxer - Thank Goodness for National Poverty!

Hatched by Dafydd

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA, 100%) is of course shepherding the economy-killing energy bill, Cripple and Tax (sorry, I meant Cap and Trade) through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which she chairs. Her fellow committee member Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT, 80%) -- who just recently wrote his own Obamacare bill in the Senate Finance Committee, which he chairs -- has decided to write his own energy bill as well; he came out swinging against the Boxer bill... but his objections are all to the specifics; Baucus has no problem with the basic concept of the Obama-Boxer bill:

Regulate carbon emissions as if they were pollutants (so stop exhaling, you climate traitor!)

Force industries, farms, utilities, and other businesses to buy "carbon credits" that allow them to pollute the planet -- i.e., feed the plants.

Set a national carbon reduction goal of about 80% by 2050 (!). This is so draconian, it can only be achieved one of two ways: By absolutely crippling American industry to the point where we'd have trouble competing with Albania; or by embarking upon a massive program to build a hundred or more nuclear power plants.

The Democrats have no interest in building a hundred nuclear power plants. Or even one.

"Fine" businesses and utilities increasingly staggering amounts of money when they're unable to meet that absurdist goal... thus creating the most massive tax the United States has ever levied -- on the evil, unAmerican sin of producing energy.

Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX, 76%) and Kit Bond (R-MO, 75%) conducted a study that found the gasoline tax increase alone would carry a price tag of $3.6 trillion, a cost that would be borne by "families, small businesses, farmers, truckers, & air travelers." I don't believe that even includes energy taxes on other forms of fossil fuel besides gasoline, deisel and jet fuel, such as natural gas, ordinary coal, or clean-coal technology.

But all this is prolog; what really caught my eye was this astonishing suggestion from Boxer:

Mrs. Boxer said that Mr. Baucus told her Friday that he could not back the bill in its current form. Still, she expressed hope that recent declines in U.S. emission levels caused by the economic recession of as much as 8 percent since 2005 would make the 2020 target more palatable for Mr. Baucus and other bill critics.

And there you have it, the essential absurdity of Cripple and Tax: A United States senator hopes that the current recession continues plaguing America, because that would reduce emissions (by reducing industrial production, jobs, and GDP) -- and "make the 2020 [emissions reduction] target more palatable!"

In other words, we'll already be so impoverished by the recession, which Barack H. Obama now "owns" via his counter-economic policies that perpetuate it, that we'll hardly even notice when we become even poorer due to his equally risible energy policy.

At last I understand: It's not true that the One's economic plan is failing; it's succeeding beyond his wildest dreams. We just misunderstand its real goal.

Cross-posted on Hot Air's rogues' gallery...

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 28, 2009, at the time of 1:18 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/4008

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Barbara Boxer - Thank Goodness for National Poverty!:

» Barbara Boxer – Thank Goodness for National Poverty! from The Greenroom
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA, 100%) is of course shepherding the economy-killing energy bill, Cripple and Tax (sorry, I meant Cap and Trade) through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which she chairs. Her fellow committee member Sen. Max ... [Read More]

Tracked on October 28, 2009 12:53 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

I think it reasonable to inquire of any proponents to tell us EXACTLY how much "global warming" will be averted by these bills. If we are going to incur the "cost" of millions of people suffering in poverty, dying from lack of winter heating, and such, we should know what the benefits are, should we not?

The above hissed in response by: snochasr at October 28, 2009 4:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

Well, Snochasr, Senator Inhofe spoke on the Capital Floor today, and quoted that very information:

Knappenberger quantified the temperature reduction that would occur because of Waxman-Markey. "By the year 2050," he said, "the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result in a global temperature ‘savings' of about 0.05ºC." And this is the case, Knappenberger found, regardless of the IPCC scenario used.

That is not half a degree C... that's zero point zero five degrees C. Most thermometers are not even accurate to five one-hundredths of a degree C. But that's all we'll gain, according to those who support the idea of anthropomorphic climate change.

Progress!

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael at October 28, 2009 6:06 PM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

And let's keep in mind that this is only a Prediction, plus or minus 5 degrees! In other words, we're going to cut trillions out of our economy for no good reason! Seems like a no-brainer, but unfortunately, it's before Congress.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr at October 28, 2009 7:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

I remember well the cartoon I had taped to the wall of my office (OK, cubicle) back in the 70’s when catalytic converters were first being introduced. It showed a car driving through a grimy, smog-choked city. Streaming from its exhaust pipe toward the heavens was an idyllic scene of hills, meadows, blue skies and frolicking wildlife.

The left’s pollution target of yore was stuff everyone recognizes as pretty nasty -- sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, particulate grunge, etc. We’ve gotten those emissions pretty much under control, so they had to find a new bugaboo.

Once someone finally demonstrates conclusively that carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant (no one has yet proven that it is), lefties will have to find another new target. I predict that the next greenhouse gas to be condemned will be -- drum roll -- water!

At least water demonstrably is a greenhouse gas. We knew that back in my meteorology days.

So when cars start running in significant numbers on hydrogen, they will be spewing forth a terrible pollutant: H2O.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E at October 28, 2009 8:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: AD

Dick E...H2O...They already do. Cats are designed to deal with unburned HC and CO. They do this by breaking down the above and forming CO2, O2, and H2O...the latter is why modern exhaust systems have high levels of stainless-steel and other rust-resistant metals and/or coatings.

The above hissed in response by: AD at October 29, 2009 5:55 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

AD-

OMG -- our cars are already polluting the air with water vapor? And we’re clogging our atmosphere with that other filthy pollutant, oxygen?!

Why can I never find my panic button when I need it?

The above hissed in response by: Dick E at October 29, 2009 10:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: AD

It's just tragic that conditions on this planet have gotten so bad...
We're doomed, and we're all going to die!

The above hissed in response by: AD at October 29, 2009 11:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

Look at the chemistry and you will notice that burning hydrocarbons-- gasoline, specifically-- produces an essentially equal number of CO2 and H20 molecules for each molecule of gasoline burned. But water vapor already accounts for well over 95% of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and 99+% of it is of natural origin, so it makes a terrible "bugaboo" for the environmentalists to scare us with. Of course, 96% of CO2 is of natural origin, too, but with enough screaming, it can be made to sound like we're all going to die if we don't stop breathing!

(By the way, humans live with an average concentration of about 15% CO2 in their lungs all the time, while the "deadly" concentration in the atmosphere is rapidly approaching 0.04% !!)

The above hissed in response by: snochasr at October 30, 2009 12:39 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Folks:

Let's circulate a petition to ban all atmospheric carbon dioxide, water vapor, and oxygen. The U.N. can administer the regulatory regime.

And then, let's all put on a show!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at October 30, 2009 3:11 AM