Red Ink Outlining His Carbon Footprint

(HT Drudge) President Obama kept a promise of a night on the town to his wife this weekend, apparently on the American taxpayers' dime.  Charles Hurt and Stefanie Cohen describe the promise and the date ("Obama Keeps His Big Apple Pledge," New York Post, May 31, 2009).

"I am taking my wife to New York City because I promised her during the campaign that I would take her to a Broadway show after it was all finished," the president said yesterday after touching down at JFK for an intimate night on the town.

By the way, did anybody calculate the Obama's carbon footprint for the night?

Taxpayers footed the bill for the big night on the town, which included a total of at least $24,000 for the three aircraft used to ferry the Obamas, aides and reporters to New York and back. Dinner costs and orchestra seat tickets -- at $96.50 apiece -- were paid by the Obamas.Obama's jet, a Gulfstream 500, served as a more modest Air Force One for the day in place of the customary presidential Boeing 747.

The White House declined to say how much the trip was costing taxpayers.

Is a night on the town worse than a weekend at the Crawford ranch?  Of course not, but a little modesty by a president ready to micro manage our lives would be nice.  A president preparing a cap and trade program to curtail our carbon footprint could easily be tracked from Washington to Broadway by following his.  A president who lectured American consumers and business for their profligacy spending painted the town red using only a drop in an ocean of red ink from his own deficit.  I found the night on Broadway, tone deaf.
Read more!

Is Sarkozy Getting Cold Feet Over Global Warming?

HT Drudge)  I don't know what to make out of the story by Financial Times writer, Ben Hall, ("Sarkozy in climate row over reshuffle,") that French President Sarkozy plans to appoint a climate-change sceptic to an important ministry.  It may mean that French leaders, like Australian, are growing cautious about imposing carbon taxes that at best impose an intergenerational transfer that harms current voters to benefit future voters, and at worst, imposes a tax with no future benefits.  It may mean nothing more than Sarkozy likes Allegre.  Key elements of the story read,

President Nicolas Sarkozy's desire to appoint an outspoken climate-change sceptic to a new French super-ministry of industry and innovation has drawn strong protests from party colleagues and environmentalists.

Claude Allègre argues that global warming is not necessarily caused by human activity. Putting him in charge of scientific research would be tantamount to "giving the finger to scientists", said Nicolas Hulot, France's best-known environmental activist...

Alain Juppé, the former centre-right prime minister, said the appointment would send a "terribly bad signal" ahead of international negotiations to secure a successor to the Kyoto treaty on cuts to carbon emissions.

One critic said that associating Mr Allègre with the government's ambitious environmental policy was like putting "organic farming alongside Chernobyl".

Mr Allègre hit back at his critics and their "lies and distortions" about his record and beliefs. The climate was certainly changing, he said, but not all the reasons for it were known. "As a scientist and citizen, I, unlike others, do not want environmentalism to accentuate the crisis or make the least well-off suffer more," he said.

Read more!

Taxes, Even Carbon Taxes Are Not Popular in Australia

From the Wall Street Journal, "Carbon Reality, Again," May 12, 2009.

It's turning out that the biggest problem with carbon taxes is political reality. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has just announced he will delay implementing his trademark cap-and-trade emissions trading proposal until at least 2011. Mr. Rudd's March proposal would have imposed total carbon permit costs (taxes) of 11.5 billion Australian dollars (US$8.5 billion) in the first two years, starting in 2010. This would have increased consumer prices by about 1.1% and shaved 0.1% off annual GDP growth until at least 2050, according to Australia's Treasury. Support has fallen among business groups and individuals who earlier professed enthusiasm for Aussie cap and trade. Green gains were negligible; Australia accounts for only 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The reversal, or "backflip," has caused Mr. Rudd much embarrassment. He may still push ahead with legislation in some form, as he promised when running in the 2007 election. But it's becoming clear the proposal won't be a shoo-in despite all the votes Mr. Rudd won when he campaigned as an anti-carbon apostle.

This is yet another example of politicians elsewhere cashing in politically on the current anti-carbon enthusiasm, only to discover that support diminishes as the real-world costs become clear.

Read more!

The EPA and the Carbon Tax

Los Angeles Times reporter, Jim Tankersley, writing in "Obama administration declares greenhouse gases a threat to public health," on April 17, 2009 reports that the Obama administration has declared green house gasses a threat to public health.  A two-year old Supreme Court ruling gives the EPA the right to regulate carbon emissions. 

The Obama administration today declared greenhouse gases a threat to public health, marking a major step -- both practically and symbolically -- toward federal limits on the carbon dioxide emissions scientists blame for global warming.

The move by the Environmental Protection Agency was prompted by a 2-year-old Supreme Court decision. It paves the way for the White House to regulate emissions from vehicles and effectively force the U.S. auto fleet to be cleaner and more efficient -- a plan the administration is expected to put in place soon.

"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said today.

Carbon will probably be regulated through a cap-and-trade system, a tax that will be paid by carbon users.  Knowing that the tax will be impressive, the administration would like the Congress to share the heat by passing new environmental legislation.  Now I will take a cheap shot at all who site every record high temperature as evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).  The announcement setting the stage for carbon regulation came as a late spring snow storm dumped up to 24 inches of snow on Boulder, Colorado (Steven Goddard posting for Watts Up With That?), and another storm dusted Los Vegas.

A poll in Rasmussen Reports ("Energy Update: Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming," explains why the Obama administration would like to share the responsibility with Congress (Another HT to Watts Up With That?).

Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.

Most Democrats (51%) still say humans are to blame for global warming, the position taken by former Vice President Al Gore and other climate change activists. But 66% of Republicans and 47% of adults not affiliated with either party disagree.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of all Americans believe global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 33% who say it’s Very Serious. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s a not a serious problem. The overall numbers have remained largely the same for several months, but the number who say Very Serious has gone down.

I wonder why a smaller percentage of the population now blames humans for AGW.  Is it that they have read more science and find AGW less likely, or a like touch of cognitive dissonance?  Most people say that they care about the environment and most do not like to pay taxes.  Do some now believe that natural climatic variation is driving warmer temperatures because they want to feel good about themselves?
Read more!