Boulder is a Stoopid Place

That’s Kathryn Jean Lopez’s suggestion.

I found this of particular interest…

Little wonder that Gallup reports that a majority of Americans support “drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off limits.” Unlike Congress, where Democratic California Rep. Maxine Waters wants to “socialize” the oil industry, Americans don’t blame oil companies for the high prices. According to Gallup, “The number of Americans who blame oil companies for the high price of gasoline has decreased from 34 percent to 20 percent.”

I’m sure that’s not the case in the land that reality surrounds. Big Box stores, big oil companies, you’re lower than low!

Read her critique of “America’s Climate Security Act” here.

Over at National Review, Ben Lieberman explores/exposes 5 myths of the “America’s Climate Security Act” authored by Joe Lieberman and John Warner.

The myths are:

Myth #1: LW wouldn’t be expensive.
Myth #2: The costs fall on industry, not consumers.
Myth #3: Global warming is a crisis that must be addressed at all costs.
Myth #4: LW effectively addresses the threat of climate change.
Myth #5: LW’s cap-and-trade approach is a proven success.

and he concludes…

Overall, the Lieberman-Warner bill promises substantial hardship for the economy overall, for jobs, and for energy costs. Given current economic concerns and energy prices, this is the last thing the American people need. At the same time, the environmental benefits would likely be small to nonexistent. The Lieberman-Warner bill fails any reasonable cost-benefit test.

Read it all here.

What a convoluted mess:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who is a leading sponsor of the bill, says computer studies suggest a modest impact on energy costs, with several projections for continued economic growth. Sponsors says the bill also offers billions of dollars in tax breaks to offset higher energy bills.

“Serveral” projections for economic growth? How nice, several out of how many (bogus) simulations. We have computer models on top of computer models.

The debate on global warming is viewed as a watershed in climate change politics. Yet both sides acknowledge the prospects for passage are slim this election year.

Thank goodness.

Only a few senators now dispute the reality of global warming. Still, there is a sharp divide over how to shift lessen the country’s heavy dependence on coal, oil and natural gas without passing along substantially higher energy costs to people..

Scary, very scary. Is less CO2 good? Without a doubt

The petroleum industry, manufacturers and business groups have presented study after study, based on computer modeling, that they say bear out the massive cost and disruption from mandating lower carbon emissions.

Environmental groups counter with studies that show modest cost increases from the emission caps provide new incentives to develop alternative energy sources and promote energy efficiency and conservation.

I have no issue with what the environmental groups want. If they get what they ask for, the backlash may be much larger than they expect.

“This debate is going to be mostly about costs,” says Daniel Lashoff, director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “But we want to make sure in that debate we don’t forget that the cost of inaction on global warming would be much higher than the cost of the emission reductions called for in this bill.”

And where exactly is the global warming over the last 10 years?

These reductions “will not only enable us to avoid the ravages of unchecked global warming, but will create millions of new jobs,” contends Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, who heads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Millions of new jobs, this lady just needs to silence herself.

Senators advocating aggressive action on climate change say that would be too late to avert the worst effects of global warming.

The Algore wannabes.

Also in dispute is the distribution of pollution allowances. Many Democrats, including Clinton and Obama, to auction all allowances. The Senate bill would give about half of them to states, municipalities and affected industries.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, said he will try to get that changed so that none goes to what he considers to be special interests.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., also wants most, if not all, the allowances auctioned and the money going out in checks to anyone earning $150,000 or less, or $300,000 for couples.

What a fancy name for idiotic income redistribution.

Read Darren’s writeup on the Copenhagen Consensus Conference.

Earlier this week I wrote about the Copenhagen Consensus Conference, and its attempt to determine the most effective way to expend limited resources (money) to solve the world’s biggest problems. The results are in.

The Reason article is here. If you’re from Boulder, you must wonder where global warming (whoops climate change) is in the ranking. Here’s your answer…

At number 30, the lowest priority is a proposal to mitigate man-made global warming by cutting the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Yes Boulder, you read that right, the LOWEST PRIORITY!

Of course, just yesterday Erika Stutzman of the Daily Camera editorialized about global warming (whoops climate change). In an editorial titled “The Time is Now” she claims “now” is the time to pass “The Climate Security Act” (Warner-Lieberman bill). She finds this quotation from Tufts University professor Frank Ackerman…

Tufts University senior economist Frank Ackerman says the costs of failing to address climate change will be great. Excluding “priceless” things like the loss of habitat and wildlife, he says the actual dollar figures would be $1.9 trillion by the end of the century. His estimation includes things like the loss of residential real estate due to rising sea levels and the increased cost to cool houses across the nation — which will far outweigh reductions in heating costs, he says.

Obviously Frank, err Professor Ackerman was NOT at the Copenhagen Concensus Conference, or had no influence on his fellow economists.

Also from the Stutzman editorial…

On Thursday — years late and only after a court order — the Bush administration produced a document that lists threats to the United States due to climate change. The report was required by a 1990 law that requires the federal government to produce a comprehensive scientific assessment of global warming every four years. It had not been done since 2000. One of the conclusions in the 271-page report is that there will be more death and damage from wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters. In the last three decades, wildfire season in the West has increased by 78 days.

Hmmm, there hasn’t been any global warming since 1998, but a greatly improved ability to fantasize about potential disasters.