By The Institute for Energy Research

When President Obama released his budget plan three weeks ago, it included a whopping $1.6 trillion in new taxes. The plan contained $989 billion in various tax increases and a $646 billion cap and trade tax. As we previously noted, if enacted, this would be the largest tax increase in American history.

But it turns out the Administration’s budget did not reveal the entire truth. A top White House aide told Senate staffers that cap and trade tax would be much higher than the initially reported $646 billion. In fact, Jason Furman, the deputy director of the National Economic Council, told Senate staffers the tax would cost American taxpayers between $1.3 trillion and $1.9 trillion. A $1.6 trillion tax raise is huge-but a tax increase of $2.3 trillion or $2.9 trillion is astonishing. To put that in perspective, that is a tax increase of $7,500 to $9,500 per American. Let’s hope the cost of the President’s budget does not continue to escalate.

By Ian Talley, Wall Street Journal

See in this Wall Street Journal report on the EPA sending the White House a proposed finding that carbon dioxide is a danger to public health, a step that could trigger a clampdown on emissions of greenhouse gases across a wide swath of the economy. If approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget, the endangerment finding could clear the way for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to control emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases believed to contribute to climate change. In effect, the government would treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The EPA submitted the proposed rule to the White House on Friday, according to federal records published Monday.

Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers warn that if the EPA moves forward on regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act—instead of a measured legislative approach—it could hobble the already weak economy.

Coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and domestic industries, such as energy-intensive paper, cement, fertilizer, steel, and glass manufacturers, worry that increased cost burdens imposed by climate-change laws will put them at a severe competitive disadvantage to their international peers that aren’t bound by similar environmental rules. Environmentalists have called for the endangerment finding, and say action by Congress or the Obama administration to curb greenhouse gases is necessary to halt the ill effects of climate change.  (H/T Dr. Benny Peiser, CCNET)

Historic Day: EPW Minority Blog

FACT: EPA’s finding is indeed historic news, for the simple fact that it will enlarge EPA’s regulatory reach to an unprecedented degree, extending it into every corner of the US economy, causing enormous economic damage.  According to Peter Glaser, a national legal expert on the Clean Air Act, an endangerment finding will lead to new EPA regulations covering virtually everything, including “office buildings, apartment buildings, warehouse and storage buildings, educational buildings, health care buildings such as hospitals and assisted living facilities, hotels, restaurants, religious worship buildings, public assembly buildings, supermarkets, retail malls, agricultural facilities and many others.” An array of new development projects could be delayed, perhaps for several years, causing “an economic train wreck.” This conclusion was supported recently by the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, which found that EPA’s new carbon regulations would destroy over 800,000 jobs and result in a cumulative GDP loss of $7 trillion by 2029. 

See also here in the Houston Chronicle, how the U.S. climate change laws could create a market for carbon dioxide emissions much like the risky mortgage-backed derivatives market that contributed to the global recession, according to a report set for release today. 

By Joanne Nova

A donor in the US felt The Skeptics Handbook was so worthwhile that they have paid to print and post 150,000 copies of the booklet through Heartland. Just soak in that number. A “bestseller” only has to notch up 5,000 copies. always, Joseph Bast and his team are efficient and ambitious. For starters, the Handbook was provided to everyone who came to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York, but the big plan extends far and wide. It includes some 850 journalists, 26,000 schools, 19,000 leaders and politicians, just to mention a few (see the list at the bottom for details).

My aim, as always, is to lift standards of science communication to help people make up their own minds. Scientists need to stand up and defend the discipline that gave us penicillin, cures for cataracts, and machines that fly round the world in a day. Science has become the victim of politics and economics and like everything valuable in life it needs to be defended against the ever present entropy of unreason. There are infinite ways to confuse, confound and be incorrect.

For those who are wondering, I will not, and have not received any payment for my work or costs. I did not ask for any, nor was any offered. Heartland approached me with a request for permission to print the Handbook, which I was happy to give. That I should have to even mention payments (or lack of) shows how weak the AGW case is. After all, if the alarmists had the evidence they claim, they could discuss the science instead of the funding. (DeSmog and Deltoid tried and failed pathetically to find any faults in the science. See my reply to DeSmog here.) Thanks to the special online supporters who’ve bought me boxes of chocolate and to everyone for all the enthusiastic feedback. It keeps me going.

Like predictable performing poodles, no doubt some who pretend to be concerned about the environment will find the time to question my motivations (as if that changes Earth’s climate somehow). Apparently some ‘idealists’ can’t imagine anyone working for free for a cause they believe in passionately. It’s hard to believe I’m just as dedicated and sincere as all those greenie bloggers eh? Ironically, I’m just like them, except - I can reason.

Even if I had been paid, it makes no difference to the graphs from NASA. The hypocrisy is rich. No one expects NGO office bearers to work for free, and when funded-Greenpeace-activists publish reports, no one shrilly dismisses the science because it’s produced by an organization that benefits from inflating crises. Read more here.