Update at the Bottom:
Here’s a quote you had better remember:
“…cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.” – Rep. John Dingell (D-MI)
Listening to the radio on the way to the store yesterday morning, I caught the tail-end of an interview with Representative Dingell. It was brought up that if today’s vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (HR2454) was passed by the House & Senate and signed by the President, we could expect our fuel prices go up 77¢ a gallon, and our energy costs rise 30%. This is all in a 1,200 page document that purports to “create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy.”
Hang on to your wallets…
Just reading the summary has this language:
Requires the President to use statutory authorities to set motor vehicle emissions standards.
Safe Climate Act – Amends the CAA (Clean Air Act) to require the Administrator to promulgate regulations to: (1) cap and reduce GHG emissions, annually, so that GHG emissions from capped sources are reduced to 97% of 2005 levels by 2012, 83% by 2020, 58% by 2030, and 17% by 2050; and (2) establish a federal GHG registry.
Phases in prohibitions against covered entities (including electricity sources, fuel producers and importers, industrial gas producers and importers, geological sequestration sites, industrial stationary sources, industrial fossil fuel-fired combustion devices, natural gas local distribution companies, nitrogen trifluoride sources, algae-based fuels, and fugitive emissions) exceeding allowable emission levels. Requires covered entities to demonstrate compliance through: (1) holding emission allowances (including international emission or compensatory allowances) at least as great as attributable emissions (as specified); or (2) using offset credits. Sets forth penalties for noncompliance.
Provides for trading, banking and borrowing, auctioning, selling, exchanging, transferring, holding, or retiring emission allowances.
And so on. But where are the taxes? Well, you won’t pay them directly – the companies that you buy your gasoline, electricity, and others from will pay the taxes for you, but you will reimburse them. Remember, companies and corporations do not pay taxes and penalties because they pass these costs on to the consumer of their products. And that will be a big hit to consumers. The Wall Street Journal states:
The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.
And the Orange County Register:
Most carbon emissions result from the use of hydrocarbon energy sources (mostly petroleum-based). Since 85 percent of U.S. energy comes from hydrocarbons, almost all use of energy would become more expensive due to the necessity to buy permission to emit a constantly declining amount of carbon dioxide every year. Thus the system would be a hidden tax on energy that would cost every American, including the middle class and lower-income people that President Barack Obama promised he would never tax.
What’s the real reason for this bill? We are told that it would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that Americans emit to reduce the effect of Global Warming Climate Change. The Orange County Register continues:
The kicker, of course, is that, assuming carbon dioxide emissions caused by human beings cause global warming – still more theory than fact – the highly respected Institute for Energy Research has estimated that the controls in this bill would reduce the global temperature by one-half of 1 degree Fahrenheit. Not very impressive.
Considering that China is building a coal-fired power plant every week, anything that we legislate and otherwise enact will be a drop in the bucket. China and India refuse to cut their emissions because that would inhibit their economic growth. Why are we so willing to cut our economic throats? From Human Events.com:
Waxman-Markey is fundamentally anti-economic growth in nature. If you don’t yet grasp the significance of national economic growth, just look around at the recession we and the rest of the world are now enduring. Waxman-Markey would be a permanent clampdown on economic growth. The bill does this by making energy, the life blood of our economy, much more expensive and scarce.
Waxman-Markey will add $9 trillion in costs to the production of energy between 2012 and 2050 — that works out to almost $800 per American per year for the next 38 years. Those are just the direct costs imposed by the bill’s cap-and-trade regime. These costs will ripple throughout the American economy — everyone uses energy — making all goods and services more expensive.
Waxman-Markey necessarily supersizes government and increases its intrusiveness. In addition to expanded authorities and budgets for the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and other existing federal behemoths, the bill creates a whole new bureaucracy of government agencies and boards that will dictate who can use how much energy. There’s the Offsets Integrity Advisory Board, Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Panel, National Climate Service, and the Centers for Energy and Environmental Knowledge and Outreach to name a few.
Answer: Bigger government. More power to the politicians. Money to the carbon traders. All at the expense of the consumer. And it won’t help the environment one damn bit.
However, the models also predict unambiguously that the atmosphere is warming faster than the surface of the earth; but all the available observational data unambiguously shows the opposite! – David Douglass, American Physicist
Global Warming Climate Change is based on a theory, one that is build on assumptions and horrendously complex computer models that cannot possibly predict all of the “what ifs.” All we need to have is the sun belch out more than the average number of solar flares or a major volcanic eruption, and any model is absolutely rendered invalid. Remember, Global Warming Climate Change is a consensus of scientific experts (who have a consensus of other scientific experts opposing the findings), which is absolutely opposite of the Scientific Method. For those of you who slept through science class, the scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses (theories). And the results of the testing must be repeatable for the hypotheses to be valid (i.e., a scientific fact).
And the validity of consensus?
Indeed, scientific truth by consensus has had a uniformly bad history. – David Douglass, American Physicist
Now should we have fuel efficient cars and be able to conserve energy? Yes, we should, but not by government mandate with power-hungry politicians at the helm, and certainly not by a fear that the Earth will melt due to a questionable theory as put forth by the media. Those things will come in time, the question is when.
From the Wall Street Journal comes this article:
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)
The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
So now we have the scientific community making statements that the sky is not falling, and that the draconian measures proposed by the politicians are more destructive of the economies of countries than Global Warming Climate Change could ever be.
I only hope and pray that the politicians get some common sense soon…