As America stands still, Russsia and China are moving aggressively to secure oil and gas resources that can help power their economy and their military. Yet, key U.S. Senators continue to push for “cap and trade” schemes that will stifle development. Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, who recently withdrew from negotiations, even says it’s not about the environment. So what is it about?
As the Climate Change/Global Warming bill is reintroduced in the U.S., The New York Times continues to roll out reports that accept the premise of discredited research and the rationale for more government regulations. The political class has shifted its rhetoric and reconfigured its arguments in the wake of the growing “climategate” scandal.
There’s a real opportunity here for enterprising journalists to challenge public figures who insist upon Kyoto-Type regulatory arrangements that are unattached to what the science now says.
Even as The Times acknowledges that it will be hard to pass “cap and trade” without the support of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), it overlooks some key quotes that help reveal the genuine motivations behind the legislation. Chris Horner, a senior fellow, with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has the story on BigGovernment.com.
Graham, himself, now concedes that the energy-rationing proposals his colleagues continue to float has nothing to do with the environment.
“Today we read in E&E Daily, from another co-sponsor Sen. Lindsey Graham: `It’s not a global warming bill to me. Because global warming as a reason to pass legislation doesn’t exist anymore.’
“Oddly, both remarkable statements have been ignored by the establishment press, slavish as they are to also seeing this agenda through to the end because, as Sen. Tim Wirth said in 1988 and Barack Obama in his 2010 State of the Union address, even if you don’t buy the excuse, their agenda is still `the right thing to do.’ As I have been saying for some time, and just published a book making the case: the issue is not the issue.”
The objective is always more government control, the rationale is malleable.
Although the public is much more focused on healthcare and finances, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) have bravely taken up the lonely but noble cause of “cap and trade,” The Times tells readers.
“They have been working with the White House and an array of business and environmental groups to fashion a package designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce dependence on foreign oil and create millions of clean-energy jobs,” the report says.
But the star attraction here is Sen. Graham who was positioned to help craft the kind of compromise that could have conceivably lured in other Republican senators. The consternation over Arizona’s new immigration law complicated Graham’s efforts but The Times is encouraging him to give this another go.
“Mr. Graham has been working for months with Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lieberman to fashion a complex measure to address the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and try to wean the nation off fossil fuels,” the report says. “The three were set to unveil their proposal two weeks ago, but Mr. Graham backed out at the last minute in a protest over Democrats’ apparent intention to take up immigration first. Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lieberman have continued to refine the measure and talk with industry and interest groups,” the report says.
For his part, Sen. Graham does not see any meaningful prospects for the reloaded “cap and trade” in the current Congress. He cited not the just the immigration question, but also the oil spill as key factors.
Here are few suggested angles and questions that should be pursued in upcoming reports. How does this desire to “wean the nation off fossil fuels” square with the aggressive energy tactics of Russia and China?
While the U.S. stands still, China has spent nearly $200 billion on oil deals that include 19 countries in the just the past few years, according to The Institute for Energy Research (IER) reports. There’s more.
“Between 2004 and 2008 China added 346 gigawatts of generating capacity, of which 272 gigawatts were conventional thermal power (mostly coal) and 66 gigawatts were hydroelectric power. This compares to a total installed US hydroelectric capacity of 77 gigawatts,” according to IER.
Russia is also moving aggressively to secure its strategic interests. With its traditional sources of natural gas steadily eroding, the Kremlin has sought to make the most of substantial gas fields in Yamal Peninsula located in northwest Siberia. Russia has also claims ownership over a portion of the Arctic continental shelf that is equal in size to France, Germany and Italy combined.
Even if investments in so-called green technology have economic merit (a debatable proposition) why shut down fossil fuel resources? And what about climategate?
As is often the case, this is mostly about what is left unreported and unsaid.
Popularity: 2% [?]
