By Paul Chesser, Washington Examiner
This weekend in Williamsburg, the Southern Governors Association (SGA) has its annual confab. If some reality isn’t injected into the planned panel discussions, their constituents may come away from it stuck with yet another costly cap-and-trade agreement.
Polls from Gallup and Rasmussen this year show the public increasingly doubts catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Growing numbers of well-credentialed scientists have expressed their skepticism as well.
Those trends are mostly ignored in Washington and in the state capitals. Congress and governors across the country still pursue the policy prescription of the climate fearmongers: A greenhouse gas emissions-trading scheme imposed on utilities and industry, which leads to higher costs for electricity and gasoline.
Besides the House-passed Waxman-Markey greenhouse gas-cap legislation, three regional cap-and-trade state coalitions are either in effect or near completion: The Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (already auctioning emissions permits); the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (plan finalized); and the Western Climate Initiative (also completed).
The South, heavily dependent on coal for power generation, is the last quadrant of the country for the alarmists to capture. The SGA meeting, with five of six discussion panels planned to address climate change or related issues, could topple that last domino. Among the topics: “Climate Change, Energy and National Security;” “Evaluating State-based Climate and Energy Policies;” “Developing a Smart Electricity Grid;” and “Balancing Energy Demands with Climate Goals.”
The one-sided nature of these panels foretells the alarmists’ agenda. For example, a pair of cap-and-trade advocates from the Center for Climate Strategies - president Tom Peterson and economist Adam Rose - will explain how they’ve successfully advanced carbon control policies in nearly half the states.
Meanwhile SGA will not consider realistic research produced by the Beacon Hill Institute and by the American Council of Capital Formation, which reveal the heavy economic costs of such schemes to the states.
SGA will also host a discussion that addresses the trendy new angle in alarmism: “Climate security.” Former Virginia Sen. John Warner and a retired Air Force general in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence will sound their alerts, but none of the governors will hear from those who believe a greater threat exists from higher global energy costs.
Global warmers have a veracity problem. Despite on-growing carbon emissions, the planet has seen Arctic sea ice extent level off, Antarctic sea ice extent reach record levels, and no warming since 1998.
Unfortunately SGA members will hear only one side of the story if their agenda stands, and pursue disastrous public policy based on incomplete data and half-truths. See post here.
Icecap Note: No matter which state you live in, you need to contact your governor’s office or state legislature and protest any involvement in these wasteful and costly (to you) climate initiatives. In most cases, most states have taken these steps under the radar without the taxpayers knowledge and with plans preprepared and subsidized by environmental organizations. Its time to take control back from these tax hungry and dishonest state governments even as we fight against a national Cap-and_Tax debacle.
By Norm Kalmanovitch
Enough data has already been released to unequivocally prove scientific fraud. All of the global temperature datasets that include the actual physical measurements of the global temperature clearly demonstrate that there was a rapid rise in global temperature from around 1910 to about 1942, followed by a slow drop in global temperature from 1942 to 1975, at which time the world reverted to warming which all global temperature datasets clearly show ended after 1998, with a cooling trend that is still continuing.
Global emissions increased by just half a billion tonnes of CO2 per year during the global warming of about half a degree C from 1910 to 1942. This equates to each gigatonne increase in CO2 emissions causing a one degree C rise in global temperature.
As a result of increased CO2 emissions from post-war industrialization, from 1942 to 1975 global emissions increase from under 4 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 1942 to over 20 billion tonnes of CO2 by 1975.
During the cooling that occurred from 1942 to 1975 the global emissions increase by 16 billion tonnes of CO2 per year and based on the previous warming this should have caused 16C of global warming but instead there was nothing but cooling.
It was only 13 years after this global cooling with contemporaneous rapid increase in global CO2 emissions that the climate models incorporated a forcing parameter that related global warming to increases in CO2 concentration on the basis that this increase came from humans.
Since these are supposed climate specialists, these modelers would be fully aware that the globe cooled from 1942 to 1975 as the atmospheric CO2 concentration grew. The relationship of the forcing parameter of the climate models of 5.35ln(C/C0) in which C0 represents the reference level and C represents the new level of CO2 concentration, clearly shows that increases in CO2 concentration will produce an increase in temperature. This did not happen over the entire period from 1942 to 1975 and therefore this parameter is clearly not valid.
The modelers also related global warming directly to human sourced CO2 emissions, but these were increasing dramatically as the global temperature dropped over these 33 years, making this relationship completely contrary to physical observation.
Since physical data already existed that completely falsified the forcing parameter of the climate models long before the models were run using this forcing parameter, and this had to be known by the modelers, it is clearly an open and shut case of scientific fraud.
If the modelers were unaware that this physical data falsified their forcing parameter it is still fraud because the modelers misrepresented their credentials as climate specialists.
Either way it is still fraud, and as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and global emissions of CO2 both continue to increase while global temperatures continue to drop the fraud becomes more and more obvious.
By Nile Gardiner
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has such a low profile on the world stage that he’s referred to as “the invisible man”. Perhaps in an effort to boost his press coverage he’s given a speech in Incheon, South Korea (hat tip: Drudge), that can only be described as a bizarre PR stunt, with the sort of cataclysmic environmental statements doled out in scientifically dodgy disaster movies like The Day After Tomorrow or the forthcoming 2012.
In his address to the Global Environment Forum this week (read talking shop for unelected, overpaid bureaucrats), Ban warned of impending “droughts, floods and other natural disasters”, as well as mass social unrest and violence - “the human suffering will be incalculable” - if the world’s leaders did not “seal a deal” on climate change at a summit in Copenhagen in December. In the Secretary General’s ominous words:
“We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.”
In reality, the United Nations can’t even maintain its own headquarters, manage its own books and keep its tens of thousands of peacekeepers under control, let alone save the world. The UN is an extraordinarily badly run institution, rife with corruption and mismanagement, that shields some of the most odious tyrants on the face of the earth. Surely it should be focusing on implementing some much-needed management reform, cracking down on rampant corruption within its ranks, and preventing its peacekeeping troops from raping refugees in war-torn places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and southern Sudan.
If Ban Ki-moon really wants to make a bigger impact on the world stage he should condemn North Korea’s barbaric enslavement of millions of its own people in forced labour camps, speak out against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, fraudulent elections and mass violations of human rights, and stand up to tyrannical regimes from Pyongyang to Khartoum. He should also call for reform of the UN’s ludicrous human rights organization, the Human Rights Council, which is no improvement at all over its disastrous predecessor the UN Commission on Human Rights.
The main threat to humanity at present is posed not by climate change but by dangerous madmen like Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, heading rogue regimes hell-bent on wiping their neighbours off the map. Not to mention the rise of militant Islam and a global terrorist network that seeks the destruction of the free world. As long as UN officials stick their head in the sand and ignore the world’s real problems the body will remain an irrelevance.
See more here. See how the charlatans at the UN hope to seal thje deal with the help of children here. See here how the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is helping the UN brainwash our children with lies.
U.S. Climate Bill Could Cost 2 Million Jobs here
By Jim Snyder, The Hill
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study Wednesday that found under a high-cost scenario the House global warming bill could reduce economic growth by 2.4 percent and cost 2 million jobs by 2030. Environmentalists were quick to criticize the study for underselling the development of climate-friendly sources of power and not releasing other assumptions NAM and ACCF fed into the computer model to get their economic forecast, which takes more of a glass-half-empty view than recent governmental reports.
But the business groups’ figures will likely provide opponents of capping carbon more ammunition and could add to the angst of senators from industrial states. One key finding is that the climate bill will hurt the manufacturing sector particularly hard. As much as 66 percent of the total job loss from the climate bill could come from manufacturers, the report notes. And though the impact of the bill will grow over time, the economy will start feeling the effects of the carbon cap almost immediately.
“Industrial production begins to decline immediately in 2012, relative to the baseline,” the report notes. Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund, which supports the climate bill, said the business study is overly pessimistic about the development of nuclear power plants and makes other assumptions that raise the costs of a climate cap. For example, the NAM-ACCF study assumes a relatively small amount of international offsets would be available to businesses to help them meet carbon caps. Even so, Kreindler criticized the study for its lack of details about exactly what assumptions went into the model.
The report’s executive summary, the only version released publicly, does provide some details about what assumption the study makes, relating to the development of wind and other renewable sources of power and the availability of offsets to help businesses meet their emissions reductions. Modelers also assumed that only 10 to 25 nuclear plants would be built in the next two decades. The Energy Information Administration, however, assumed 95 plants would be built by 2030, under one scenario.
Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist at ACCF, called that projection “ridiculous” given the expense of building a nuclear plant and the length of time it takes to get a permit from nuclear regulators to move forward with construction. She said the assumptions used in the NAM-ACCF study were based on information gathered from business leaders and energy experts. “We’ve bent over backward to be generous about how quickly new technology can be put in place” that would help minimize the costs of the climate bill, Thorning said. (H/T BPeisier CCnet)
By Ann McElhinney & Phelim McAleer
Dear Friends.
And we’re off! We started the final leg of our race to the Oct. 18 premiere of Not Evil Just Wrong with a rush of activity last week and have another busy week ahead. It’s a good kind of busy.
We’re selling DVDs, premiere packs and related movie materials through our redesigned Web site in preparation for the big premiere. Be part of the movement by throwing your own cinematic “tea party” in your home or on your campus.
We announced our premiere plans at the annual National Conservative Student Conference in Washington last week. Ann rallied the youthful troops with a rousing recap of our unique strategy to bypass Hollywood.
“We’re going to have the largest-ever simultaneous premiere screening of a film on planet Earth,” Ann said. “On the 18th of October at 8 p.m. Eastern, people all over the United States are going to press ‘Play’ at exactly the same moment, and you are incredibly important to that effort.” Premiere hosts will get movie posters for their front doors and red carpets for their porches.
“You can say to [your guests], ‘So who are you wearing?’ as they come in the door,” Ann joked in a reference to a Hollywood catchphrase.
The Young America’s Foundation has posted video of our appearance at its conference on Ustream.tv, or you can watch select segments as we post them to our YouTube channel.
Before the conference, Ann and I chatted with popular radio host Laura Ingraham about our documentary and the hysteria that runs rampant through the environmental movement. Her program currently airs on 340 channels and averages 5.5 million viewers per week. We had some fun imagining how Hollywood would portray hysteric-in-chief Al Gore, who doesn’t have the courage of his convictions to debate critics like we did at the student conference.
Speaking of Hollywood, we were interviewed for a story in Big Hollywood, a group blog that examines culture and politics from a decidedly non-Hollywood perspective.
Phelim also was a guest on the nationally syndicated “Jerry Doyle Show,” Washington Times Radio, “Wisconsin’s Morning News,” and Chris Ferrell’s radio show in Charlotte, N.C., and Ann appeared on “The Brad Davis Show,” which airs from Connecticut. The movie also earned mentions on the U.S. blogs Graymatters and Infidels Are Cool, the Canadian blog Dr. Roy’s Thoughts, and the Australian blog Thoughts On Freedom.
Ann and I are keeping busy this summer both to promote the movie premiere and also to keep the threat of job-killing global warming regulation foremost in people’s minds.
This week, we’ll be guests at the RightOnline conference, a gathering of grassroots activists who are holding their second annual meeting in Pittsburgh. We will screen the movie Friday evening and ask them to join our premiere night Oct. 18 by hosting parties in their homes.
If you haven’t already made plans for a party of your own, please take a few minutes now to order your premiere pack. Be a part of history, and help us set a world record!
And please forward this e-mail to your friends and family. Thanks for your support!
-Ann & Phelim
Larger trailer for Not Evil, Just Wrong , a feature length documentary which shows how extreme environmentalism is damaging lives of the most vulnerable populations in the developed and developing world, from the ban on DDT to the current campaigns on Global Warming.
By Edmund Conway, UK Telegraph
The Government’s plans to increase the proportion of Britain’s energy generated by “green” sources is set to cost between 11 and 17 times what the change brings in economic benefits.
The figures are buried deep in the Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy paper produced last month.
According to the document, while the expected cost will total around 4bn UK pounds a year over the next 20 years, amounting to 57bn to 70bn UK pounds, the eventual benefit in terms of the reduced carbon dioxide emissions will be only 4bn to 5bn pounds over that entire period.
The figures make up part of the Government’s impact assessment of the policies, which include plans to raise the proportion of British electricity produced by renewable sources from 5.5 percent today to 30 percent.
It is the Government’s assessment that the non-monetary benefits of the policies will compensate for the possible 65bn shortfall, but economists are sceptical as to how much of this sum such factors can make up. See post here.
And from the Economist, BRITAIN’S ENERGY CRISIS: HOW LONG TILL THE LIGHTS GO OUT?
In the frigid opening days of 2009, Britain’s electricity demand peaked at 59 gigawatts (GW). Just over 45% of that came from power plants fuelled by gas from the North Sea. A further 35% or so came from coal, less than 15% from nuclear power and the rest from a hotch-potch of other sources. By 2015, assuming that modest economic growth resumes, a reasonable guess is that Britain will need around 64GW to cope with similar conditions. Where will that come from?
North Sea gas has served Britain well, but supply peaked in 1999. Since then the flow has fallen by half; by 2015 it will have dropped by two-thirds. By 2015 four of Britain’s ten nuclear stations will have shut and no new ones could be ready for years after that. As for coal, it is fiendishly dirty: Britain will be breaking just about every green promise it has ever made if it is using anything like as much as it does today. Renewable energy sources will help, but even if the wind and waves can be harnessed (and Britain has plenty of both), these on-off forces cannot easily replace more predictable gas, nuclear and coal power. There will be a shortfall-perhaps of as much as 20GW-which, if nothing radical is done, will have to be met from imported gas. A large chunk of it may come from Vladimir Putin’s deeply unreliable and corrupt Russia.
Many of Britain’s neighbours may find this rather amusing. Britain, the only big west European country that could have joined the oil producers’ club OPEC, the country that used to lecture the world about energy liberalisation, is heading towards South African-style power cuts, with homes and factories plunged intermittently into third-world darkness.
In terms of energy policy, this is almost criminal-as bad as any other planning failure in New Labour’s 12-year reign (though the opposition Tories are hardly brimming with ideas). British politicians, after all, have had 30 years to prepare for the day when the hydrocarbons beneath the North Sea run out; it is hardly a national secret that the country’s nuclear plants are old and its coal-power stations filthy. Recession has only delayed the looming energy crunch (see article). How did Britain end up in this mess?
By Alan Caruba
In 1898, an article by the great French novelist, Emile Zola was published in L’Aurore. It was addressed to the President of France. Zola accused the military of having wrongly convicted Capt. Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish artillery officer, of treason, incarcerating him for years on Devil’s Island. The title of the article was “J’Accuse!” Zola’s courage has been an inspiration for writers ever since.
It is in this spirit that I issue my own version of “I Accuse.”
I accuse the United Nations environmental program in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular of creating a huge hoax, “global warming”, in order to reduce energy use and to create a phony market for so-called “carbon credits,” based on the lie that carbon dioxide plays a role in the alleged warming process.
The Earth is not warming. It is cooling. Meteorologists, climatologists, and solar physicists agree that it has been cooling for at least a decade and predict the cooling will continue for several decades to come.
I accuse the President of the United States and politicians from both political parties for engaging in this deception for their own purposes, while ignoring the peril to the nation’s economy and future. Billions have been and continue to be misallocated to bogus “solutions” such as solar and wind power, the mandate for an ethanol mixture with gasoline, and the construction of a vast regulatory and grant-making apparatus based on the global warming hoax.
I accuse the Obama administration and those members of Congress of seeking to impose a “Cap-and-Trade” bill based entirely on the hoax. It would tax all energy use in America, thus increasing the cost of energy while further reducing the personal income and savings of all Americans. It would codify a bogus market for carbon credits.
I accuse all of the scientists who sought to justify global warming by deliberately publishing falsely documented studies or studies that purported to justify the hoax by attributing natural phenomena to global warming. I accuse them of engaging in such practices to advance their careers and for accepting government largess to further the hoax. I accuse the academic community for permitting their publications and research programs to be corrupted by the global warming hoax and for lending the prestige of their institutions to its advancement.
I accuse those elements of the nation’s and the world’s media for advancing the global warming hoax in the face of increasing evidence that it is not occurring. It cannot occur at a time when solar activity is decreasing, thus reducing the radiation responsible for much of the Earth’s warming.
I accuse those media that continue to advance the global warming hoax via print and electronic broadcasting. I accuse all print and electronic journalists of failing their responsibility to investigate the bogus science put forth and for deliberately disparaging those scientists and others who disputed it, calling them “deniers.”
I accuse the U.S. Department of Education for the corruption of the nation’s school curriculums, using them to spread the hoax and indoctrinate thousands of students passing through the system with the belief that global warming exists. I accuse every publisher of school texts that advances this hoax.
I accuse former Vice President Gore of advancing the greatest hoax of the modern era and those who joined with him, awarded him honors, and sought to enrich themselves by doing so.
I accuse all the “environmental” organizations such as the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and all others that have spent millions to advance the hoax to advance their collective and individual agendas. I accuse the Environmental Protection Agency of falsely asserting that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that must be regulated when it is essential to all life on the planet. It is vital for all plant life and plays no role in climate change except to react to it.
I accuse the EPA, Department of Energy, and Department of the Interior, in collusion with many “Green” organizations, of thwarting the construction of coal-fired and nuclear plants to generate the energy necessary to the growth and expansion of the nation’s economy, general welfare, and security.
Lastly, I applaud those many courageous scientists from various disciplines and all others who have stepped forth to denounce the global warming theory with the presentation of legitimate science. The entire world is in their debt. See post and more here.
By Paul Dreissen
Americans are justifiably wary about Congress rushing to overhaul our healthcare system - 17% of our economy with little debate, analysis or bipartisan input. They worry that the legislation could affect their costs, free choice, doctor-patient relationships and access to quality care. They should be even more concerned about complex, thousand-page legislation that would overhaul 100% of our economy - the energy system that powers and enables everything we eat, heat, cool, grow, make, transport, drive and do – to prevent hypothetical manmade catastrophic climate change.
Energy is the Master Resource that makes life possible. Without abundant, reliable, affordable energy, opportunity, progress, job creation, health and civil rights are hobbled and rolled back. And yet, global warming bills are being rushed into law at warp speed, not just without debate, but with debate vilified as climate holocaust denial, criminal acts and treason against the planet.
Proponents insist a planetary crisis demands instant action. The truth is that President Obama wants to present a US commitment to draconian reductions in plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide at the December Copenhagen climate conference. He wants to pressure China, India and other nations to sacrifice their economic growth to the specter of alleged climate disasters. Copenhagen is the last chance for eco-activists to implement a UN-centered system of global governance, global taxes, and global control of energy, economies and living standards.
Open, robust, unfettered debate is absolutely essential. It is our inalienable right, the foundation of democracy and a free and prosperous America. A good place to start that debate is the town hall meetings that our elected representatives will be holding during their August recess. Here are a few questions that concerned citizens might want to ask.
1) Congressman John Conyers said he didn’t bother reading the bill, before he voted on it, because he would need two lawyers to explain the passages to him. Did you read and understand it? All of it? Then how can we be expected to do so? Why should we be expected to obey it? Why should we let congressmen who can’t understand their own bills control 100% of our economy?
2) Global temperatures are not increasing. Thousands of scientists say humans and carbon dioxide are not causing a climate disaster. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and heat waves are not increasing. Emissions from China and India will quickly replace any CO2 reductions the United States might achieve by taxing and restricting fossil fuel use, crippling our economy, and hurting seniors and poor families most. Why does Congress refuse to allow real debate? Why does it simply assume and decree that we have a global warming crisis and must enact legislation immediately?
3) House Speaker Pelosi recently said “every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory,” so that America can slash energy use and emissions, and prevent dangerous climate change. This can only lead to a massive, intrusive Green Nanny State; the end of affordable, reliable energy; a coerced switch to expensive, unreliable wind and solar power; and skyrocketing energy costs that will hammer families and businesses and cost millions of jobs. Why would you support such legislation?
4) Cap-and-trade is a huge tax on the energy we use for everything we make and do. It’s a massive wealth transfer, from consumers to the government, to pay for unprecedented spending increases and more pork for favored businesses and voting blocs. It violates President Obama’s pledge not to tax anyone with incomes below $250,000. It will cost families $1000 to $4,600 per year in extra energy and living expenses. How can you justify voting for such punitive legislation?
5) The average annual temperature in Antarctica is minus 50. Temperatures would have to increase 85 degrees 24/7/365 for a century or more, to melt South Pole ice caps and raise sea levels 20-50 feet. Can you explain how a 0.02% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 285 ppm in 1850 to projected 485 ppm) can overturn basic laws of thermodynamics, replace the powerful natural forces that caused Ice Ages and other climate changes in the past, and produce ice-cap meltdowns?
6) Replacing hydrocarbons with “green” energy will require millions of acres of land for turbines, solar panels, geothermal facilities and transmission lines. Do you support relaxing environmental study, endangered species and other laws, to fast-track approval of these projects, despite their impacts on habitats? Or do you want them subjected to the same rules that have stymied thousands of other energy projects, so that renewable energy projects can’t be built, either - and we have a huge “energy gap”?
Do you support protecting the rights of land owners? Or do you favor eminent domain, so that government can seize people’s property and expedite construction of these projects?
7) Replacing hydrocarbons with “green” power will also require hundreds of millions of tons of steel, copper, concrete, fiberglass and rare earth minerals for turbines, solar panels and transmission lines. Do you support opening our lands for renewed exploration and development, so that we can produce these raw materials and create American jobs? Or do you intend to keep US lands off limits, allow eco-activists to file lawsuits to prevent development, and force us to depend on imports for renewable energy, too?
8) The United States spent $79 billion on global warming programs between 1989 and 2008. The vast majority went to scientists, bureaucrats, alarmist groups and propaganda campaigns that say we face a climate disaster. Do you support a law requiring that future spending be split 50:50 between researchers who think humans are causing a climate disaster, and those who believe climate change is mostly natural and cyclical - so that we can have honest, unbiased science and sound public policy decisions?
9) Claims that we face a climate disaster are based on selected use of questionable temperature data, short-term temperature trends, and scary computer scenarios that even modelers don’t call predictions - but merely possible futures, if numerous assumptions about climate systems, energy generation, carbon dioxide and global economic growth 25-100 years from now turn out to be true. How can you justify transforming (and risking) America’s energy and economic future, based on computer models?
10) The White House and EPA suppressed a government report that said scientific evidence does not support claims that we face a global warming disaster - until after passage of a House bill that would send US carbon dioxide emissions back to 1868 levels. Why did you ignore this dictatorial and fraudulent action? Will you now demand a new debate and new vote? Demand that this report be reviewed and debated fully, before the Senate acts on similar legislation? Penalize EPA for suppressing free speech?
11) The economic pain, job losses and government intrusion into our lives under the House-passed global warming bill would reduce projected global average temperatures in 2050 by an imperceptible 0.1 degrees. That’s largely because 97% of the projected increase in CO2 emissions between now and 2030 will come from developing countries that are building new coal-fired power plants every week, according to the International Energy Agency. Why would you support legislation that is all pain, and no gain?
12) Over 1.5 billion people in China, India and Africa still do not have electricity, for even a light bulb or tiny refrigerator. Almost 2.5 billion people around the world live on less than $2 a day. Millions die every year from diseases that would be largely eradicated with electricity for refrigeration, sanitation, clinics, and industries that generate greater health and prosperity. How can you justify telling them global warming is the biggest threat they face, and they need to get by on wind and solar power, and give up their dreams of better lives, because you are worried about global warming? Doesn’t that violate their most basic human rights - including their right to improved living standards, and to life itself?
Exercise your constitutional rights. Attend town hall meetings. Ask questions. Demand answers. Demand debate. And safeguard your future, and your children’s future.
By Mackubin Thomas Owens, Boston Herald
While the attention of the American public was focused on the circus surrounding the death of Michael Jackson, the House of Representatives was laying the groundwork for picking that same public’s pockets. The Waxman-Markey energy bill, set for debate later this year in the Senate, would hamstring the U.S.
economy, raise unemployment and burden taxpayers. The centerpiece of the legislation is a “cap and trade” provision designed to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by raising the price of CO2-intensive goods and services such as gasoline, electricity and many industrial products. Legislation should be subjected to some basic cost-benefit analysis. This bill provides little in the way of benefits to Americans but imposes very high costs.
The goal of the bill is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that allegedly cause “global warming,” or as it is now known, “climate change.” But global temperatures have been decreasing since 1998. On the benefits side, there is another problem. Even if the United States were to significantly reduce CO2
emissions, it would have little global effect, given that the biggest producers of greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly developing countries such as China and India. And U.S. businesses have reduced such emissions in response to market forces.
On the other hand, the costs of something along the lines of Waxman-Markey are staggering. Carbon-based fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) provide about 85 percent of U.S. energy needs and generate most greenhouse gases. Companies would need annual allowances issued by the government in order to emit greenhouse gases.
Under the “cap” part of the bill, these allowances would gradually decline. Indeed, Waxman-Markey requires the CO2 level in 2050 to be 83 percent less than it was in 2005. The “trade” permits utilities and refineries that need extra allowances to buy them from other companies. As the annual allowances allowed by Washington are reduced, their price would rise. The EPA estimates that the price of a permit would rise from $20 a ton in 2020 to $75 a ton by 2050. Companies would pass the extra cost to customers.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that reducing the level of CO2 to 15 percent less than the total level of emissions in 2005 would increase a household’s annual cost of living by $1,600. Meanwhile, American companies would suffer in export markets as American prices rose. Domestic
producers would suffer because of competition from imports from countries that do not impose the CO2 tax. The idea that we can shift effortlessly from carbon-based fuels to alternative “clean” forms of energy and conservation is a pipedream. Population increases in the United States alone will raise energy demand. If the supply of electricity doesn’t keep pace with demand, brownouts, blackouts or other disruptions would mount.
Western European countries have found that it is very difficult and expensive to reduce carbon emissions. Nearly every western European state has had higher unemployment and energy costs than America, and a weaker overall economy. And the promise of the new “green” economy is proving elusive as well. Let’s hope the Senate does a better job of cost-benefit analysis than the House. It should not be Washington’s job to wreck the economy.