“... it would appear the political consensus on global warming was as exaggerated as the alleged scientific consensus.” (Stephen Moore, writing on the Democrats’ collapsing Climate Tax Bill, in The Wall Street Journal, June 6]

The ‘global warming’ mad house is flourishing! I have rarely known a couple of days in which so many ‘global warming’ foibles and follies have been exposed for the nonsense that they are. Here is my Friday round-up for you to savour:

Senate Climate Bill Doomed

[Update: as predicted here this morning (UK time) [below] the U.S. Senate has ignominiously brought an end to the debate on the doomed Climate Tax Bill, and thus the bill is withdrawn. The Democrats could not raise the 12 votes to make the 60 necessary to proceed. Sixteen senators were absent during the vote, including, as already mentioned, likely presidential nominees, John McCain and Barack Obama (see: ‘Senate Kills Climate Change Bill’, The Washington Independent, June 6)]

First, and by far the most significant, the debate on the climate-change bill, the Climate Tax Bill, in the U.S. Senate has been reduced to a farce, with even many Democrats now wanting to kill it off as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Indeed, we may have to witness the bizarre spectacle of Republicans trying to prolong the debate in order to embarrass Democrats even further. The plot of this Gilbert-and-Sullivan-style operetta is vividly told today in The Washington Post [‘Senate Democrats May Pull Climate Bill’, May 6]:

“Although parliamentary maneuvers could still extend the debate into next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) faced the prospect of failure in a bid to end debate on amendments to the climate bill this morning. In that event, he was expected to seek withdrawal of the entire measure, to the relief of some Democrats from coal-producing or heavy industrial states.

‘We are going to have Democrats voting to end debate on what they call the most important issue facing the planet and Republicans voting to continue debate on it,’ said Don Stewart, communications director for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky).”

Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), Ranking Republican Member of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, is reported as observing:

 

“‘This bill was doomed from the start. The committee process was short-circuited, the floor debate was circumvented and the amendment process was derailed. I do not see how the Democrats use this failed bill as any kind of model for future success. As I suspected, reality hit the U.S. Senate when the economic facts of this bill were exposed. When faced with the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, very few Senators were willing to even debate this bill.’”

Neither Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) nor Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) attended the debate or voted.

Stephen Moore, writing in today’s ‘Political Diary’ for The Wall Street Journal, turns the screw [‘Climate-Change Collapse’, June 6] :

“Environmentalists are stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse. Senator Harry Reid has all but conceded he lacks the vote for passage in the Senate and that it’s time to move on. Backers of the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill always knew they would face a veto from President Bush, but they wanted to flex their political muscle and build momentum for 2009. That strategy backfired. The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face.

Those groups spent millions advertising and lobbying to push the cap-and-trade bill through the Senate. But it would appear the political consensus on global warming was as exaggerated as the alleged scientific consensus. ‘With gasoline selling at $4 a gallon, the Democrats picked the worst possible time to bring up cap and trade,’ says Dan Clifton, a political analyst for Strategas Research Partners. ‘This issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan.’”

Just so. So much, then, for European Panglossian wishful thinking over the US and climate.

European Scandal And Hypocrisy

But, in any case, why on Earth should anybody pay attention to Europe over ‘global warming’? The expenses scandal, and the forced resignation, of the Conservative party’s leader in Europe, Giles Chichester MEP [‘David Cameron forces resignation of Giles Chichester after expenses scandal’, The Times, June 6], remind us too vividly of the wanton profligacy of European institutions. The European Parliament is not so much a gravy train as a luxury 4x4. What do our MEPs get? (i) a free city taxi service; (ii) an overseas travel allowance of 3,500 euros(*) per annum for trips outside Europe - The Times reports: “it is alleged that a British MEP claimed a holiday in Thailand on expenses because he had a 30-minute meeting at the European Commission office in Bangkok”; (iii) first class airfares; (iv) from July 7, the ‘Strasbourg Express’, a special fast train to take MEPs, and their entourage, from the Parliament in Brussels to that in Strasbourg, each journey costing the tax payer about €200,000; and, (v) in addition, of course, a €47,352 annual MEP office allowance and €185,952 annual staff allowance.

As I have said many, many times, nobody should take Europe seriously on anything it says about climate change until the European Parliament stops its ludicrous ‘toing-and-froing’ between two parliamentary buildings of equal glassiness. Each year the activities of the Parliament cycle between committee weeks, where reports are discussed in committees and inter-parliamentary delegations meet, political group weeks for members to discuss work within their political groups, and session weeks, where members spend 3½ days in Strasbourg for part-sessions. In addition, six 2-day part-sessions are organised in Brussels. Now, add to this nonsense the fact that, while the European Commission is primarily based in Brussels, it also operates out of Luxembourg, and, when the Parliament is meeting in Strasbourg, the Commissioners likewise meet there to attend Parliamentary debates.

Zut Alors!

‘Global Warming’ Off Track

There will, however, be no ‘Strasbourg Express’ to ease the pain of the long-suffering British public. For my last item today, we really do enter the mad house. Fasten your seat belts for what must be possibly one of the most blatant abuses ever of ‘global warming’ politics by a Minister in order to excuse Government inaction. The Times carries the sorry tale [‘High-speed rail travel is not a green option, say ministers’, June 6; paper edition: ‘Rail passengers to stay on the slow track because it’s the greener option’, p.8]:

“Britain is to be left out of Europe’s high-speed rail revolution because the Government has decided that 200 mph trains are bad for the environment.”

“What!” The Times alleges that it has got hold of a disgraceful letter (and piece of sophistry) from Tom Harris, the Rail Minister, in response to an appeal from Chris Davies, the Liberal Democrat MEP for the North West of England:

‘“The argument that high-speed rail travel is a ‘green option’ does not necessarily stand up to close inspection. Increasing the maximum speed of a train from 200 kph [125 mph – the current maximum speed of domestic trains] to 350 kph leads to a 90 per cent increase in energy consumption.”’

This is absolutely mind-blowing! Here is a Government Minister seemingly using the excuse of ‘global warming’ to prevent the progress of train travel. My, the Fat Controller has truly lost his top hat this time. What about all the folk who would move from plane to train? What about the severe overcrowding on our Inter-city services? What about the known demand for such services? And, why should the UK lag so far behind the rest of Europe where fast rail is concerned? France alone has over 1,000 miles of high-speed track, with more planned.

With this little bit of ministerial gerrymandering, we have surely plumbed the ‘global warming’ nadir. Not only is every type of weather, from drought to flood, to be caused by ‘global warming’, ‘global warming’ is now the portmanteau excuse of the Government to do either nothing or something. The argument works anyway it pleases.

As readers of GWP know, I rarely agree with the Liberal-Democrats, but who can gainsay Mr. Davies’ reaction?

“It is very disappointing to see the minister scrabbling around for excuses for the Government’s inaction on high-speed rail, especially when those excuses are so weak.”

Indeed. ‘Global warming’ is thus off track on every front, from the railways of the UK to the floor of the U.S. Senate.

When will this ‘global warming’ madhouse be closed down and confined to the dustbin of history? Or trash can?

_____________________

*€1.26 = £1.