{Disarmed} The New EPA, MIT Scientists Baffled by Global Warming Theory and the weekly Chilling Effect cartoon

Energy and Environment: Around the Interwebs

While “clean energy” companies are ready for a $150 billion bailout from a new administration, a former EPA deputy administrator reminds us: “The government isn’t very good” at energy research…Tasty Debate: Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups Mock Global Warming…TIME Asks: “Will Green Progress Be Stalled or Speeded by the Bad Economy?...Is The Economy Ford Tough?: Ford Accelerates F150 Production…China’s increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the next 20 years will exceed current US emissions

The Power of The New EPA

Dr. Margo Thorning of ACCF writes yesterday:

“Last week, Barack Obama declared that he would classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant to be regulated by EPA, a major reversal of policy from the Bush administration that could dramatically change the everyday lives of Americans.

“While the Clean Air Act has been appropriately used to curb smog, pollution, acid rain and ozone depletion, using it to combat greenhouse gases makes about as much sense as using a power drill to do brain surgery.

“Make no mistake, any policy aimed at reducing manmade GHG, whether it is a cap-and- trade system or a carbon tax, is going to be costly, but using the blunt and heavy regulatory hand of the Clean Air Act will have a tremendous economic impact not just on large carbon emitters, but on our very lifestyles…”

“MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data”

The latest news:

“Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man’s contributions…”

Hat tip: Marc Morano, who hat-tipped Tom Nelson.

“The Senate and the union hall: Where American climate policy will succeed or fail”

The view from the left, with insights for anyone concerned about how economic and environmental policy is likely to be shaped after the election.





	November 5, 2008 Energy and Environment: Around the Interwebs While “clean energy” companies are ready for a $150 billion bailout from a new administration, a former EPA deputy administrator reminds us: “The government isn’t very good” at energy research…Tasty Debate: Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups Mock Global Warming…TIME Asks: “Will Green Progress Be Stalled or Speeded by the Bad Economy?...Is The Economy Ford Tough?: Ford Accelerates F150 Production…China’s increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the next 20 years will exceed current US emissions The Power of The New EPA Dr. Margo Thorning of ACCF writes yesterday: “Last week, Barack Obama declared that he would classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant to be regulated by EPA, a major reversal of policy from the Bush administration that could dramatically change the everyday lives of Americans. “While the Clean Air Act has been appropriately used to curb smog, pollution, acid rain and ozone depletion, using it to combat greenhouse gases makes about as much sense as using a power drill to do brain surgery. “Make no mistake, any policy aimed at reducing manmade GHG, whether it is a cap-and- trade system or a carbon tax, is going to be costly, but using the blunt and heavy regulatory hand of the Clean Air Act will have a tremendous economic impact not just on large carbon emitters, but on our very lifestyles…” “MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data” The latest news: “Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man’s contributions…” Hat tip: Marc Morano, who hat-tipped Tom Nelson. “The Senate and the union hall: Where American climate policy will succeed or fail” The view from the left, with insights for anyone concerned about how economic and environmental policy is likely to be shaped after the election.