In the US there are significant moves at the highest levels to limit the carbon related power-grab. (Thanks to SPPI for the heads-up.)
Perhaps this is the point where the 2010 election results start to spoil the grandiose plans that once looked inevitable? Maybe democracy can save the day?
House republicans are trying to stop funding for the EPA “climate control” at the same time as they try to limit the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases.
House GOP spending bill prohibits funding for EPA climate regs
Source: The Hill
By Andrew Restuccia – 02/11/11 07:33 PM ET
A government spending bill unveiled Friday night by House Republicans would prohibit funding for Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations through September of this year.
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on interior and the environment, said he worked closely on the language with Upton. He said the language would give Upton time to move forward with his legislation.
“It has become clear to me in talking to the job creators in this country that allowing these regulations to go into effect would prevent job creation and inhibit economic growth at a time when our economy is still struggling,” Simpson said in a statement. “It should be up to Congress, not the Administration, to determine whether and how to regulate greenhouse gases, and in attempting to do so without congressional authority, I’m concerned that EPA has overreached.”
The continuing resolution makes massive cuts to the EPA’s budget. The legislation cuts EPA funding by $3 billion, 29 percent below fiscal year 2010. Overall, Simpson cut $4.5 billion from his subcommittee’s budget.
Finally there is some sign that Congress wants to take power back from the bureaucrats.
Stop EPA’s Energy Tax
Federal Authority: At a contentious hearing on legislation to keep the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, Republicans rightly called global warming a power-grabbing hoax that is all pain for no gain.
The assertion came at a Wednesday hearing before the House subcommittee on energy and power on the “Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.” The measure is designed to reassert the authority of Congress to levy taxes on the American people and direct public policy — powers that are being usurped by the unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency.
In a power grab that rivals ObamaCare in audacity and job-killing effects, the EPA has claimed unto itself the power to regulate carbon dioxide, a byproduct of human and animal respiration and the basis for all life on earth, as a pollutant. At least with ObamaCare, Congress — our representatives — voted to pass it.
The EPA claims science has given it the justification, and the Supreme Court has given it the authority, to regulate CO2 as a pollutant and impose regulations governing virtually every aspect of American business and our daily life almost down to our lawn mowers.
and Reader Bruce notes that:
There is also a another bill being introduced in the US to stop funding for the IPCC.
The mainstream media notices that there is another side?
Meanwhile in Australia on prime time Sunrise, there was a small, but seemingly reasonable attempt at a debate between Stuart Franks and Mark Diesendorf . (Thanks to reader Llew Jones). No, they didn’t waste much money on the set, or on style consultants (as far as I can tell ), and the debate was too short and unfocused to actually come to any conclusion. But what’s remarkable is that it happened at all, and that Franks was treated on a even footing (sort of).
When Diesendorf used the old cherry picked time spans to say the trend was up up and up, I would have loved to have pointed out that that trick can be used by nearly anyone. The world has cooled since 130,000 years ago, cooled since 8,000 years ago, cooled since 1,000 years ago, and golly, but 150 years is nothing. Stuart did pretty well pointing out that the most warming was in the first half of the 20th C, and that things cooled from 1945 – 1970.
As far as I can recall, nothing like this has happened on Australian TV. There was no wash-out introduction which told us what to believe. The name-calling was minimal (though disappointing to see Diesendorf still pretending that Big-Oil has more money than Big-Bankers, Big-Bureaucrats, and the Gravy Train.)
There was a poll after with the skeptics well in front: Do you believe in Climate Change: 26% Yes, 74% No.