Yesterday, I only brushed on the growing skepticism that the Environmental Left is experiencing regarding global warming and man’s supposed impact on it in Part One of The Great Climate Change Boondoggle. I would have loved to present more information; however, the post would have run thousands of words long, rather than the hundreds that it did. If you are interested in finding more information regarding scientists and political leaders that refuse to drink the global warming Kool-Aid, check out the following articles:
“No climate debate? Yes there is.” by Jeff Jacoby.
“A Closer Look at Climate Change.” by Mark W. Hendrickson.
“Planet Gore” on nationalreview.com.
Before I continue, let me just say that I am not against protecting the environment. In fact, far from it. I do believe in prohibiting corporations, governments and individuals from needlessly harming the environment through sensible restrictions and laws.
I do not, however, condone radically changing our way of life or seriously undermining our economic prowess based on shoddy scientific evidence… and that is precisely what is being proposed in the Waxman-Markey climate bill that is steamrolling through Congress as we speak.
The main section of this 1,500-page behemoth of a bill is the so-called “Cap-and-Trade” plan. In a nutshell, Cap-and-Trade works like this (from americanprogressive.org):
Each company has a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas that it can emit. The company must have an “emissions permit” for each ton of carbon dioxide it releases into the atmosphere. These permits set an enforceable limit, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that the company is allowed to emit.
It will be relatively cheaper or easier for some companies to reduce their emissions below their required limit than others. These more efficient companies, who emit less than their allowance, can sell their extra permits to companies that are not able to make reductions as easily.
Firms that exceed the carbon cap can also purchase extra permits from the federal government.
Now, the Center for American Progress is a liberal think tank, so I am not surprised that they are toeing the party line in this description. For the most part, they objectively lay out the program in a truthful manner, except they leave out one important word.
That word?
Tax.
“Emission permits” is a politically correct version of “tax” and a word they and the democrats pushing this bill desperately want to avoid when discussing it.
How much tax is the average family going to have to incur as a result of this plan? Well, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, about $1,600 per household, per year, just on extra energy (utilities and gas) costs. So much for not raising taxes on 95% of American, right President Obama? (Do keep in mind that these projections are notoriously low).
A Heritage Foundation analysis finds that Waxman-Markey would, by 2035, raise electricity rates 90%, gasoline prices 74% and residential natural gas prices 55%.
Now, that’s just the direct impact on an average household right now. When you look at the impact this bill would have on the entire economy, this picture becomes more and more frightening.
The Obama administration has estimated the revenue value of these rights, if purchased from the government by private industry, will be as high as $1.8 trillion over 10 years. That’s $1.8 trillion out of the productive private sector and into the inefficient public sector.
Plus, this placement of an artificial cap on carbon emissions is bad enough; but what’s even worse is that the cap lowers every year. That means that year after year, the restrictions placed upon businesses becomes harder and harder to meet, making future economic growth smaller and smaller.
This slower growth will also mean that more and more Americans will lose their jobs, as companies need to find ways to come up with the $1.8 trillion in taxes that has just been dropped in their lap for the next decade. Don’t buy into the “Green Jobs” charade that the Obama Administration is selling right now either. Various researchers are discovering that we most likely would lose more jobs than we would gain and that many of these green jobs would be extremely non-productive and subsidized by the government...another tax.
This bill would also put more emphasis on energy sources that are renewable, but incredibly unreliable like wind and solar power meaning more and more roving blackouts that the good citizens of
By the way, the reductions in carbon emissions made possibly from this bill will essentially mean nothing if
Guess what, neither of them have any plans to do so.
That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.
-John
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment