Own a house? Beware climate bill

If you will ever consider buying or selling a house, you need to beware of the Democrats' "cap and trade" bill that recently passed the House of Representatives. It could dramatically lower the value of your property and/or make it very difficult for you to sell it without very expensive and time-consuming upgrades. (Story linked here, with full text below.) They call it a national "retrofit" policy. If it becomes law, you will not be permitted to sell your property until it meets federal energy standards that Congress has not seen fit to define.

In this bill Congress asserts enormous additional (and unconstitutional) power for the federal government, but delegates the practical details to the environmental zealots and other bureaucrats in the EPA and in state governments. Thus nobody in particular can be held accountable for requiring building retrofits that could bankrupt many homeowners and businesses.

Congress is unleashing regulatory pit bulls on unsuspecting citizens while preserving its own ability to deny any wrongdoing. Politicians do know how to cover their posteriors while doing great damage.

If you have ever sold a house, you know how much stress is involved, especially in a weak housing market such as we already have. This bill is all we need to destroy the market and force us to visit Congress with torches and pitchforks.

If the Senate also passes this abomination, President Obama will sign it. But you still have a little time left to influence the Senate vote. I suggest you get to it pronto.

And be sure to remember this insanity in November, 2010.

CNSNews.com Democrats’ Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ‘Retrofit’ Policy for Homes and Businesses Wednesday, July 01, 2009 By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – The 1,400-page cap-and-trade legislation pushed through by House Democrats contains a new federal policy that residential, commercial, and government buildings be retrofitted to increase energy efficiency, leaving it up to the states to figure out exactly how to do that.

This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal "green" guidelines in order to sell their homes, if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law.

The bill, which now goes to the Senate, directs the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and implement a national policy for residential and commercial buildings. The purpose of such a strategy – known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) – would be to "facilitate" the retrofitting of existing buildings nationwide.

"The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for single-family and multi-family residences," the bill reads.

It continues: "The purpose of the REEP program is to facilitate the retrofitting of existing buildings across the United States."

The bill leaves the definition of a retrofit and the details of the REEP program up to the EPA. However, states are responsible for ensuring that the government’s plans are carried out, whatever the final details may entail.

"States shall maintain responsibility for meeting the standards and requirements of the REEP program," the bill says.

Ag lobby blew it on climate bill

Maybe when climate-change regulators strangle the economy and carbon-counters turn gas, oil and electricity into expensive luxuries, farmers will recognize how our "friends" in Washington, D.C., sold us out in the name of political compromise. Capitol Hill's agriculture lobby had a choice: withhold support from the Waxman-Markey climate control bill or agree to a compromise that provides cover to rural-district Democrats who support it.

Without those rural votes, Waxman-Markey was bound for the shredder. With those votes, it barely garnered the minimum needed for passage.

Colorado's delegation illustrates the chasm between Democrats with a real-world understanding of agriculture and those whose concern is as sincere as that pair of jeans they bought for county fairs.

Rep. John Salazar, a San Luis Valley potato farmer, staked out his "no" vote early, recognizing that Waxman-Markey will drastically increase energy costs.

Meanwhile, freshman Rep. Betsy Markey, a former staffer to then-Sen. Ken Salazar, voted for the bill, claiming that "critical adjustments were made to protect the agriculture industry." At least that's what the agriculture lobby told her.

Markey is simply "dancing with the ones who brung her." Defenders of Wildlife spent $1.6 million to beat up her opponent last fall; those who think Markey isn't a hard-wired environmental extremist are kidding themselves.

However, the economic illiteracy of the agriculture lobby is embarrassing. Waxman-Markey's threat to farmers and ranchers isn't limited to the carbon emissions of trucks, tractors and flatulent livestock.

In March, a dozen ag lobbying organizations -- including National Association of Wheat Growers and National Farmers Union -- agreed on nine "Principles for Greenhouse Gas Legislation."

Not one of those principles addressed fuel or energy costs. Yet Waxman-Markey will increase electricity rates by an estimated 90 percent and fuel prices by 58 percent, according to Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. The analysis projects cap-and-trade will reduce net farm income by 28 percent by 2012 and 94 percent by 2035, That's in addition to $1,241 per year that cap-and-tax will add to the average household's energy bill.

Farmers recognize those costs, but agriculture lobbyists seem just as clueless as lawmakers who think milk and bread come from the grocery store.

Worse still, these lobbyists seem more concerned about "being at the table" than whether the deal they strike will hold up. Simply put, agriculture lobbyists agreed to create a new bureaucracy in exchange for promises that bureaucrats won't regulate agriculture and might even pay farmers for carbon sequestration and tree planting.

EPA's analysis sees little upside for agriculture, anticipating declining crop production due to higher input costs and fewer acres for livestock grazing if landowners are paid to plant trees instead.

The agriculture compromise resulted in a 300-page amendment released at 3 a.m. on the day of the vote. How many congressmen (or lobbyists) read the amendment or the 1,200-page bill? Now ag lobby compromisers want the Senate to hold hearings to examine how these special provisions will work and "the effects of the complete bill on the industry."

It's a little late for that now, boys and girls.

These "principles" were naïve from the get-go. Avoiding regulation that doesn't exist is much easier than expecting special treatment from regulators when the agriculture vote no longer matters.

Agriculture is "a major polluter," according to those who believe trading trillions in higher taxes, higher energy costs, and lost jobs for a minuscule possible reduction in temperatures is a good deal. Once the carbon caps are enforced, will climate-change zealots and non-exempt industries continue to give a pass to agriculture?

For that matter, does anyone believe that China, India or Russia will restrict their carbon emissions once the U.S. unilaterally imposes this burden on our economy? In military or trade matters, giving away everything you have to trade would be recognized as foolishness.

All of this adds up to a rotten deal for agriculture and for everyone who consumes what we produce. Maybe these agriculture lobbyists will understand that when they're out of a job, too.

Mark Hillman is a wheat farmer who also served as senate majority leader and state treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com

Junk politics, backed by junk science

So the House of Representatives, that august body led by union-backed leftists and intellectual dwarfs, has managed to narrowly pass a Climate change bill that will put a major burden on our fragile economy by taxing every source of energy at our disposal. Its unfathomable to me how we can spend billions of taxpayer dollars in bailouts and then make it even more difficult for the economy to recover. Worse, we are unilaterally disarming -- as other nations that have attempted "cap and trade" schemes are abandoning them left and right. As Kim Strassel at the WSJ shows today, the "climate" around climate change is, well, changing: Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

So it turns out that the whole climate change movement is based on science that is far from certain. In fact, the science may be junk: the earth has been cooling for the past decade, and it turns out that the hottest year on record was in the 1930s -- not the recent result of all the greenhouse gasses we've been polluting the atmosphere with. As Strassel shows, much of the world is wising up to the farce.

But not the U.S., which appears to be lagging behind the rest of the world, intent on repeating the mistakes of others. The truth, of course, is that the science has never mattered -- it was only a pretext to get people on a bandwagon that is really about social engineering.  The left wants us to live differently, and the only way that they can enforce their social agenda is to play fast and loose with the facts to convince people we are on a slippery slope to self destruction. The goal is deprivation, driven by a "consumption guilt" that regrets the plenty we have because others have so little. Never mind that the most egregious offenders of CO2 emissions are the less developed nations that are clear cutting forests with reckless abandon with no limits on carbon output. But that's another inconvenient truth that Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore and the other true believers don't want to talk about.

The madness of all this is that this is bad policy -- even if it is good politics for a public that has been brainwashed into believing that "green jobs" can save the world. We will figure this out eventually -- as Australia and others have. But it won't be before we take a costly trip down a path paved with good intentions.

Meteorologist debunks climate hysteria

Editor: Rob "Sunny" Roseman, trained in meteorology and long familiar in Denver as a TV weatherman, was my radio guest on April 26. Here are his talking points as used in our discussion, designed to cool off the overheated emotion surrounding alleged global warming and the rush toward an economically harmful carbon tax. CLIMATE HYSTERIA & MEDIA BIAS... OR CLIMATE BIAS & MEDIA HYSTERIA (WHATEVER)

Gore, McCain, and other alarmists use scare language such as... "Inaction Poses a Threat.” “Action is a Moral Imperative.” "Situation is unprecedented.” Rational discussion has given way to the Politics of Global Warming, and ultimately to the Church of Global Warming.

BUT WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW?

ABOUT THE CLIMATE MODELS……….

They define a virtual world. Use parameters.

Difficulty dealing with oceans & clouds.

Deal with only limited amount of variables.

Some are faulty and downright wrong.

We are supposed to “take them on faith.”

Current models go haywire after 1 week.

We are supposed to believe in 100 years?

Last 10 years are cooling. Not predicted.

None of models predicted….so they are wrong.

ABOUT CLIMATE HISTORY…………..

We are in an Interglacial period now. Between glacials.

Has always varied. Warmer and Colder.

Medieval warming period 1100 to 1500 (1.13C) warmer.

CO2 levels -100ppm less than today.

1910-1940 and 1970-1998 same amount of warming.

Last 10 years actually have been cooling.

120k, 220k and 320k warmer than today. (.75C)

Today not even close to anything the warmest in

Last 2 million years. Had higher levels of CO2.

ABOUT EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS………….

Drought, Severe, etc. always been there, will be.

Even 50% less C02 will still be there.

1955-2000 increase in C02 no decrease in Soil Moisture.

Can’t make any warmer with same moisture.

Hurricanes….no increase in Frequency/Intensity since 1700s.

ABOUT ICE SHEET DISINTEGRATION……………

Been happening over past 10-15K years.

Antarctica…no change last 40 years.

Greenland warmer past 10K years.

Melting occurs 3.5CM per 100 years anyway.

Bottom Line: Good headlines/Good movies.

ABOUT RISING SEA LEVELS……………….

Been rising for last 15,000 years anyway since last

Major ice age.

Usual rate is 2mm per year.

Rate of rise has slowed last 100 years.

ABOUT METHANE CONCENTRATIONS……………..

They all say this is really bad….sounds bad.

Increase over past 150 years has actually stabilized.

“WE DON’T KNOW WHY”

CONCLUSIONS TO DEAL WITH

NO DATA:

To support something unusual current warm period.

To support droughts, floods & storms more severe.

To support Ice Sheets disintegrating any faster.

To support sea levels rise any faster than before.

WHERE TO NOW:

Do we believe the skeptics or the alarmists?

Do we adapt to our climate (like all species that survived) or do we try to change the climate?

France in 1990s 35,000 dead heat wave.

(Air Conditioners)

Do we adopt Cap & Trade?

HERE ARE MY THOUGHTS…………..

We need to adapt to our climate. Get smart.

Need Al Gore to shut his mouth. Earth will cool 5 deg.

No cap & trade. Nothing other than a massive tax incr.

No more stupid studies from Britian …..obese people

add to global warming.

Have moonshot to create a hydrogen economy.

Manhattan project.

Have to use oil and gas in the meantime.

O/G used for most anything and everything.

Drill, Drill, Drill.

Explain Hydrogen, how it can be used.

New Industries. New Technologies.

Re-Tool America. We own it.

We can sell to rest of world.

We don’t have to buy from rest of world.

Clean technology.

Can actually shut up Enviros finally.

Your waistline: the latest global warming culprit

In case you were wondering what's next on the global warming/climate change agenda -- which is the same as the Obama agenda -- you may not have to look further than your (growing) waistline. A new study in the UK as reported by the BBC has found that getting back to the "slim trim days of the 1970s" would help to tackle climate change: "The rising numbers of people who are overweight and obese in the UK means the nation uses 19% more food than 40 years ago, a study suggests.

That could equate to an extra 60 mega tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year, the team calculated.

Transport costs of a fatter population were also included in the International Journal of Epidemiology study".

Apparently, then, that spare tire that you are more likely sporting  today is not only less attractive to look at, but  takes more fossil fuels and carbon to carry around town. In addition to calculating the increased food costs of the heavier population, the research also addressed how much additional fuel would be needed for transportation of modern-day UK compared with the 1970s version:

"Greenhouse gas emissions from food production and car travel in the fatter population would be between 0.4 to 1 giga tonnes higher per 1bn people, they estimated."

But lest you think this might lead to a campaign against obesity, the self-esteem police are making sure that everyone's "fatness" is to blame:

"This is not really just about obese people, the distribution of the whole population is what's important," said Dr Edwards.

"Everybody is getting a bit fatter. Staying slim is good for health and for the environment.

"We need to be doing a lot more to reverse the global trend towards fatness, and recognise it as a key factor in the battle to reduce emissions and slow climate change."

So, we're all at fault for not being able to fit into those 70s era hip-hugger jeans and tight knit tops with the wide stripes (not to mention the platform shoes). One wonders whether the fashion of the 1970s followed our collective level of slenderness, or whether those tight-fitting fashions and non-breathable poly-blends forced us into a perpetual state of starvation. Whatever the cause-and-effect, the eco-fanatics are now targeting our food consumption as the latest attack on mother earth. It's quite in line with the other prohibitions of personal enjoyment that are now on the chopping block, like taking that family vacation in your fuel-guzzling motor home or driving that V8 Dodge Charger you've always wanted. Nope, from now on you'll squeeze your tight little bum into a Prius and enjoy the rev of that high-performance electric motor -- that sweet hum only a committed tree-hugger could truly enjoy.

In any event, stay tuned. You can bet that this is the next agenda on the Obama mission to remake America. Last year I wrote a piece entitled "The Left's Nanny Aspirations", where I detailed attempts to ban smoking, fast-food and other sins. Left alone, these efforts -- linked to public health considerations -- pose a significant threat to our freedoms. But being able to link our eating habits to climate change will flow nicely with the EPA's recent ruling that CO2 is a pollutant that threatens our health -- even if it is the most common element in the earth's atmosphere. Finding a causal link to global warming should put us on notice that further regulation of our food consumption is coming. You can bet that second helping of potatoes on it!