Cap and Trade

[bonnie]

http://newt.org/EditNewt/NewtNewsandOpin...10/Default.aspx

BACKGROUND ON WARNER-LIEBERMAN CAP AND TRADE BILL

In June 2008, the United States Senate will debate S. 2191, better known as the Warner-Lieberman, or “America’s Climate Security Act.” Authored by Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the bill would implement a cap-and-trade policy to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 4% below the 1990 level by 2020, and to 63% below the 2005 level by 2050, according to its authors. The bill would cap the total amount of GHGs emitted in America, direct the government to auction GHG permits to American businesses, and set a declining cap on GHGs between 2012 and 2050.

The bill would also establish a number of new organizations and programs:

* The Climate Change Credit Corporation: Auctions emission allowances.

* The Carbon Market Efficiency Board: Observes and reports on the GHG emission market; provides cost relief if the emission market is deemed too harmful to the U.S. economy.

* The Climate Change Worker Training Program: Assists workers displaced by the bill and helps transition them into new “green” jobs.

* Energy Assistance Fund: Provides “reasonably-priced” electricity to off-grid rural energy consumers (at the discretion of the Secretary of Energy) whose price of electricity exceeded 150% of the national average.

* The Climate Change and National Security Fund: Includes the Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of Defense; would submit annual reports on global GHG levels and any resulting compromises to America’s national security.

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL COSTS OF WARNER-LIEBERMAN CAP AND TRADE BILL

(Studies of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and Economists All Attest to the Negative Economic Impact of Warner-Lieberman Cap and Trade Bill)

CBO: Cap-and-Trade System Would Cause ‘Higher Prices for Consumers’ and ‘Windfall Profits’ For Large Firms. “Policymakers' decisions about how to allocate the allowances could have significant effects on the overall economic cost of capping CO2 emissions, as well as on the distribution of gains and losses among U.S. households. Giving allowances away to companies that supply fossil fuels or that use large quantities of fossil fuels in their production processes could create ‘windfall’ profits for those firms. The reason is that the cap-and-trade program would still result in higher prices for consumers and households but would not impose additional costs on those firms. Even if the companies received allowances for free, they would still raise prices to their customers because the cost of using an emission allowance for production—rather than selling it to another firm—would be embodied in the prices that they would charge for their goods and services. The resulting price increases would disproportionately affect people at the lower end of the income scale.”

(Peter R. Orszag, “Approaches to Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions,” Testimony – Congressional Budget Office, November 1, 2007 )

CBO Predicts High Costs For Warner-Lieberman. In April 2008, the Congressional Budget Office revealed the following facts about the Warner-Lieberman Cap and Trade Bill:

* Bill Would Cost Americans Over $1 Trillion In Next Decade. From 2009-2018, Warner-Lieberman would cost Americans roughly $1.2 trillion, and discretionary spending would increase by about $3.7 billion.

* Includes Expensive Private Sector Mandates. “The most costly mandates [of the Warner-Lieberman bill] would require certain types of private-sector entities to participate in the cap-and-trade programs for GHG emissions created by the bill. CBO estimates that the cost of those mandates would amount to more than $90 billion each year during the 2012-2016 period, and thus substantially exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA [unfunded Mandates Reform Act] for private-sector mandates ($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation).”

* With Boxer Amendment Now Included, Warner-Lieberman Would Increase Discretionary Spending By Over $80 Billion During Next Decade. During committee markup in December 2007, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) added an amendment to the Warner-Lieberman Bill to make the bill deficit neutral, and the CBO assessed the amended version separately. “CBO estimates that enacting S. 2191, as amended…would increase discretionary spending by about $84 billion over the 2009-2018 period.”

(Congressional Budget Office, “Cost Estimate – S. 2191: America’s Climate Security Act of 2007,” CBO, April 10, 2008: 1, 2 )

EPA Economic Analysis Concludes Warner-Lieberman Would Be Costly. The EPA released a list of key facts of the Warner-Lieberman Bill:

* Warner-Lieberman Would Cost Americans At Least $238 Billion By 2030 and Over $1 Trillion By 2050. If passed, Warner-Lieberman would cause GDP to be between 0.9% ($238 billion) and 3.8% ($983 billion) lower in 2030 than if the bill was not in place. In 2050, GDP would be between 2.4% ($1,012 billion) and 6.9% ($2,856 billion) lower than projected without passing Warner-Lieberman.

* Electricity Prices To Rise Dramatically. “Electricity prices are projected to increase 44% in 2030 and 26% in 2050.”

* Asymmetrical Costs. “The largest GDP and consumption impacts are in the Plains region.”

(“EPA Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 14, 2008 )

National Association of Manufacturers Rejects the Warner Lieberman Cap and Trade Bill. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study in March 2008 on the economic impact of Warner-Lieberman cap and trade bill:

* GDP would be reduced by $151-$210 billion by 2020; in 2030, GDP would be reduced by $631-$669 billion (in 2007 dollars).

* There would be 1.2-1.8 million jobs lost in 2020 and 3-4 million jobs lost in 2030.

* Manufacturing would slow and shipment values would fall 3.2 % to 4% in 2020; by 2030 the value of shipments would fall by 8.3 % to 8.5%.

* Household income would be reduced by $739-$2,927 in 2020 and $4,022-$6,752 (in 2007 dollars) in 2030.

* Electricity prices would increase by 28%-33% by 2020 and 101%-129% by 2030

* Gasoline prices would increase 20%-69% by 2020 and 77%-145% by 2030.

(American Council for Capital Formation and National Association of Manufacturers, “Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) Using The National Energy Modeling System,” March 12, 2008 )

Economist Anne Smith: Large GDP Losses Under Warner-Lieberman. Economist Anne Smith of CRA International, a financial consulting firm, testified before Congress on the potentially destructive economic impacts of Warner-Lieberman, and discovered the following:

* Unfair Distribution of Costs. “Our scenarios imply that S.2191 would decrease US average economic welfare by 1.1% to 1.7%. This impact varies by region, and…we find that New York, New England states, and California would experience welfare impacts substantially less than the US average, while regions heavily reliant on fossil fuel energy sources would face impacts somewhat greater than the US average.”

* Punitive Effect On GDP. Rather than allowing healthy economic expansion, Warner-Lieberman would restrain GDP growth. “GDP would be lower in 2015 by about $160 billion to $250 billion. Eventually, the annual loss in GDP would increase to the range of $800 billion to $1 trillion (stated in real, 2007 dollars).”

* Job Loss Much Greater Than Green Job Creation. “Naturally, with reductions in GDP come reductions in real wages and job losses. We have estimated 1.2 million to 2.3 million net job losses by 2015 over our set of scenarios. By 2020, our scenarios project between 1.5 million and 3.4 million net job losses. There is a substantial implied increase in jobs associated with “green” businesses (e.g., to produce renewable generation technologies), but even accounting for these there is a projected net loss in jobs due to the generalized macroeconomic impacts of the Bill.”

(Anne Smith, “Prepared Statement of Anne E. Smith, Ph.D., at the Legislative Hearing on America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, S. 2191,” United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, November 8, 2007 )

Cost to the Average Family Estimated at Nearly $17,000.

(WashingtonWatch, “S. 2191, The America's Climate Security Act of 2007,” 2008 )

Conservative and Evangelical Leaders Sign Letter Opposing Warner-Lieberman. In a letter sent to all 100 U.S. senators, over 70 scientists, evangelicals, and conservative leaders made the following statement: “We the undersigned write to urge you to reject legislation that imposes regulations on American energy usage through a so-called ‘cap-and-trade’ provision in a vain attempt to change global average temperatures.” The letter further asserts that “the current offering of cap-and-trade measures would produce imperceptible climate change while doing grave harm to our economy, the poor, and U.S. competitiveness.”

[carolaa]

I don't put too much stock in Newt Gingrich.

We need to get busy with wind and solar power to replace all those lost jobs and provide more electricity so the prices don't rise.

[bonnie]

I don't put too much stock in Newt Gingrich.

We need to get busy with wind and solar power to replace all those lost jobs and provide more electricity so the prices don't rise.

I wonder if you have ever checked into the feasibility and price involved with wind or solar. Your prices are going to rise.

[there buster]

Apparently carolaa doesn't put much stock in the Congressional Budget Office, run by Democrats, and which shows how expensive cap-and-trade will be.

Or it could just be that ol' devil Semmelweis reflex encountering the fragility of leftist dogma again.

[bonnie]

Apparently carolaa doesn't put much stock in the Congressional Budget Office, run by Democrats, and which shows how expensive cap-and-trade will be.

Or it could just be that ol' devil Semmelweis reflex encountering the fragility of leftist dogma again.

Really not much hope for the left that is afflicted with that reflex

[carolaa]

I wonder if you have ever checked into the feasibility and price involved with wind or solar. Your prices are going to rise.

We have green energy in our area that is quite competitively priced. About any time you do the right thing, it costs money. Or at least that is brought up as an excuse not to do it.

[carolaa]

The fact is, the oil is going to run out. It is foolish not to be working towards other sources of energy. I wonder how expensive it is to get oil out of sand, like they're talking about doing in Canada and other places. That sounds desperate and terribly expensive to me. And how expensive is coal - supposedly the cheapest source of energy - when the waste is dumped into stream beds? That's too expensive, no matter how cheap it is.

[bonnie]

The fact is, the oil is going to run out. It is foolish not to be working towards other sources of energy. I wonder how expensive it is to get oil out of sand, like they're I wonder how expensive it is to get oil out of sand, like they're talking about doing in Canada and other places. That sounds desperate and terribly expensive to me. And how expensive And how expensive is coal - supposedly the cheapest source of energy - when the waste is dumped into stream beds? That's too expensive, no matter how cheap it is.

[Dr. Shane]

Oil out of sand? Yes, Canada is already doing this. However, just so that we understand the discussion, most oil now comes out of rocks. Don't think there are pools or lakes of oil that are underground that we tap into. When we drill an oil well we drill into rocks and get the oil out of the rocks. The oil comes out with natural gas. If over 50% of what comes out is natural gas, we call it a gas well. If over 50% is oil, we call it an oil well. Think of the rocks with oil like a sponge. When an oil well "dries up" it actually still has well over 50% of the oil in it but with today's technology we cannot get that oil but we are making advances. So consider that.

Department of Energy

Quote:

In the history of the United States oil industry, more than 160 billion barrels of oil have been produced. But more than 330 billion barrels have been left in the ground. Unfortunately, we don't yet know how to produce most of this oil.

Petroleum scientists are working on ways to produce this huge amount of remaining oil. Several new methods look promising. Oil companies, in the future, might use a family of chemicals that act like soap to wash out some of the oil that's left behind. Or possibly, they might grow tiny living organisms in the reservoir, called microbes, that can help free more oil from reservoir rock.

Now consider all the new places we are discovering oil everyday. New advances in drilling are allowing us to access oil in places where we could not get it before.

There a plenty of reasons we need to get off from oil dependence but the idea that it is going to run out in the next century is not one of them. Nuclear power is a much more realistic goal to work towards than solar or wind. Solar and wind are alternatives that we should continue to research but we shouldn't think they we be able to provide our energy needs in the foreseeable future.

[carolaa]

Any business that dumps in streams should be shut down.

Also those that dump poison into the air. Also those that export their waste into international waters.

[carolaa]

New advances in drilling are allowing us to access oil in places where we could not get it before. That sounds awfully expensive to me - maybe we should re-think that idea.

Nuclear power is a much more realistic goal to work towards than solar or wind. Solar and wind are alternatives that we should continue to research but we shouldn't think they we be able to provide our energy needs in the foreseeable future.

What do you propose should be done with nuclear waste? I know - we can put it in your back yard.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: Shane

New advances in drilling are allowing us to access oil in places where we could not get it before. That sounds awfully expensive to me - maybe we should re-think that idea.

Nuclear power is a much more realistic goal to work towards than solar or wind. Solar and wind are alternatives that we should continue to research but we shouldn't think they we be able to provide our energy needs in the foreseeable future.

What do you propose should be done with nuclear waste? I know - we can put it in your back yard.

Same place the nuclear power plant that is less than three miles from me put their"s.

Or we can ask Iran as Obama has given the green light to them for nuclear energy

[carolaa]

We need sources of energy that don't create toxic waste. Not oil, not coal, not nuclear. Otherwise, we are killing the planet and ourselves.

[bonnie]

We need sources of energy that don't create toxic waste. Not oil, not coal, not nuclear. Otherwise, we are killing the planet and ourselves.

This is up for debate. Less and less believe the "new religion"

[carolaa]

Hmmm, so you don't think pollution and toxic waste cause harm to the earth and its people? (I'm not talking about global warming, if that's what you're referring to - just your basic harm.)

[bonnie]

Hmmm, so you don't think pollution and toxic waste cause harm to the earth and its people? (I'm not talking about global warming, if that's what you're referring to - just your basic harm.)

Pollution and toxic waste lacks the ability to kill the planet and ourselves in mass.

Those that pollute and dump toxic waste to the harm of individuals needs to be stopped.

We are not talking about that.

We are talking of cap and trade.It will be far more destructive than pollution.

[bonnie]

Cap and trade is a tax on almost every activity. Will affect farming and any and all manufacturing.

You think the economy is in bad shape,watch if this goes thru.

Many more will be on the level playing field of "fairness".

We will all have much less to worry about

[bonnie]

http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/obama_cap_and_trade_/2009/05/05/211007.html

Cap and Trade Will Devastate Economy

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:49 PM

By: Phil Brennan

When the world was still flat contemporary maps of the great ocean to the west of Europe showed a distant point offshore and noted "Beyond here there be dragons."

That warning well applies to a voyage Congress is about to launch — the infamous cap and trade bill — a peril-laden excursion into a fiscal and regulatory nightmare rife with the fearsome dragons of excess government control and crushing financial burdens on America's families.

It is Ballyhooed as a measure designed to somehow "sequester" co2 — though they haven't quite yet figured out how.

In order to prevent this life-giving gas, upon which the health of plant life depends, from allegedly contributing to an imaginary warming of a planet that is actually cooling, it would in fact impose economy-destroying costs and tyrannical regulatory restrictions on the backs of the American people.

It would take us back to the horse and buggy days and have us shivering in the dark.

Essentially, cap and trade legislation would set a limit, or cap, on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use, effectively imposing rationing of coal, oil, and natural gas on the American economy.

Aside from the fact that beyond computer models manipulated to produce the results desired by the anthropologic global warming (AGW) alarmists, there is not a shred of scientific evidence that carbon dioxide does anything but keep plant life and agricultural produce healthy.

Yet in pursuit of their determination to deal with a non-existent threat, the Obama administration, their allies in congress, and the heavy breathing acolytes of Al Gore are bound and determined to shove this disastrous cap and trade measure down our throats.

The annual cost to every American family is estimated to be an additional $3,000.

During the election campaign even Barack Obama admitted it would cause your electric bill alone to "skyrocket" — his word, not mine.

Writing in the Fort Worth Star Telegram on April 11, 2009, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, noted, “[Cap and trade] is being sold as a way to save the planet by taxing ‘emitters,’ but it will kill the economy and decimate your family’s budget.”

He cited an analysis that showed the staggering effects of cap and trade legislation: Job losses between 1.8 and 7 million; Family tax increases between $739 and $6,752; increases in costs of electricity between 44 percent and 129 percent; gas price increases at the pump between .61 cents and $2.53 per gallon; and increases in the price of natural gas of between 108 percent to 146 percent.

House Republican Leader John Boehner warns “The Waxman-Markey bill will raise taxes on every American who drives a car, buys a product manufactured in the United States, or has the audacity to flip on a light switch.

"For proof of cap-and-trade’s folly, look no further than Europe, where the scheme hurt the economy, drove up energy costs, and failed to cut carbon emissions at all."

Added Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., "My fear, my belief, is this is an intentional move to deceive us so we're not allowed to do the cost-benefit analysis. This bill is the largest assault on democracy and freedom on this country that I've ever experienced. "

In an all-out effort to keep cap and trade alive, President Obama met Tuesday morning with Democratic House members of the Energy and Commerce Committee thought to be reluctant on passing the cap and trade bill, urging them to support it.

Clearly the full weight of the Obama White House is behind the bill and they will do everything in their power to jam it through. They must be stopped!

Nancy J. Thorner, in Just another WordPress.Com weblog, writes: "At a time when many Americans are being indoctrinated in a belief system based on a political agenda rather than science, it becomes the responsibility of those who have not drunk the global warming Kool-Aid to question and to confront those who are pushing global warming propaganda.

"Proposed climate change legislation that seeks to limit coal, oil and nuclear as sources of energy must be opposed in mass by the American people, unless they view with fondness the horse and buggy days. Not to do so would mean a victory for global warming alarmists and their agenda."

This a battle we cannot afford to lose.

Here's an immediate crisis those hundreds of thousands of good folks who rallied at the tea parties on April 15 all across America can address.

They need to warn members of the House that a vote for the cap-and-trade bill will be a vote that will cause them to lose their seats in Congress next year. Let them know that can count on that.

Remember, beyond cap and trade legislation there be dragons with very sharp teeth.

Phil Brennan writes for Newsmax.com. He is editor and publisher of Wednesday on the Web (www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist (Cato) for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He is a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association For Intelligence Officers. He can be reached at pvb@pvbr.com.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

[bonnie]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/930

Those unfamiliar with the term "cap and trade" and the tremendous economic burden this program would place on society if implemented may first want to consider a couple definitions. The Center for American Progress, in its report, "Cap and Trade 101," states:

The cap: Each large-scale emitter, or company, will have a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas that it can emit. The firm must have an "emissions permit" for every 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....

The trade: 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....

Companies unable to meet their emissions quotas could purchase allowances from other companies that have acquired more permits than they need to account for their emissions. The cost of buying and selling these credits would be determined by the marketplace.

Another explanation appears in an article appearing on the Congressional Budget Office website: "Another approach would be to establish a 'cap-and-trade' program: The government would set gradually tightening limits on emissions, issue rights (or allowances) corresponding to those limits, and then allow firms to trade the allowances."

In today's society, where "global warming" is a term that pops up in conversation and print almost daily, the cap-and-trade scheme may appear to many to be a cost-efficient way to help forestall an environmental crisis of legendary proportions. However, upon closer examination, both the economic and environmental arguments used to justify cap and trade are found to be based on specious evidence.

Bloomberg News reported on March 12 that the budget that President Obama proposed in February anticipated revenues of almost $650 billion by 2019 from a cap-and-trade program. The president's proposal would require companies to buy government-issued permits to release carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere. One of the best explanations of the economic realities of cap and trade, written by Patrick Semmens, was posted on the Ron Paul blog on March 9. It is entitled: "'Cap and Trade' Is Really Just a Massive Tax." As the writer explains: "Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating."

As to why he considers cap-and-trade to be a regressive tax, Semmens cites none other than Peter Orszag, Obama's budget director, who has estimated that the price hikes from a 15-percent cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile (20 percent of the population) about 3.3 percent of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9 to 2.7 percent of income. The richest Americans would pay 1.7 percent.

As Semmens summarizes the plan: "Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth — but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street "green tech" investors who know how to leverage the political class."

U.S. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has said that Obama's "cap and trade," which she calls "cap and tax," will cost each household $1,300 in new energy taxes.

Toni Johnson, a staff writer for CFR.org, the website of the powerful policy group, the Council on Foreign Relations, posted a series of interviews on March 19 seeking opinions about "Cap and Trade's Economic Impact." As might be expected, since the CFR has a long-standing history of advocating policies that increase the size and scope of government — both domestically and internationally — the majority of those interviewed expressed opinions at least somewhat favorable to cap and trade. However, even in a forum dedicated to expounding the views of America's ruling establishment, there were two dissenting views.

William Yeatman, Energy Policy Analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said: "A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea." Yeatman called the cap-and-trade plan "a roundabout energy tax," proposed in lieu of a direct tax because politicians "are terrified of the 't-word.'" He predicted that if the Obama cap-and-trade plan raised its projected $645 billion in revenue from the government-run emissions auctions, "everyone would feel the pinch. Businesses would compensate for higher production costs and diminished markets by slashing jobs. Consumers would have to pay more for energy and energy intensive goods."

Another expert interviewed by Johnson who warned of the economic consequences of a cap-and-trade plan was Dr. Sergey V. Mityakov, assistant professor in the Department of Economics at Clemson University and the coauthor of The Cost of Climate Regulation for American Households, published by the George C. Marshall Institute. Dr. Mityakov came straight to the point by saying: "Restricting carbon emissions by cap and trade is probably not a good idea even in a booming economy. Many studies assessing the costs of mitigation of climate change (either through some cap-and-trade system or by means of a carbon tax) indicate that the losses in consumer welfare are likely to be enormous."

Dr. Mityakov warned that the imposition of a cap-and-trade plan would severely impact Americans in multiple ways. He noted that consumers would "suffer directly from the increased prices of the energy and energy-intensive goods they buy." Furthermore, "higher energy prices will increase the production costs of American producers, making American-produced goods less competitive in the world market." He also warned that because of increased energy costs and competition from abroad, some American companies would shift their production overseas where no cap-and-trade system is operating, moves that "are likely to lead to additional job losses in the United States, further increasing the costs of the recession for the American households."

Another article citing the adverse effects of cap and trade is "Obama's Self-Immolating Capitalism," by Will Wilkinson, a research fellow at the Cato Institute. Wilkinson wrote:

A cap and trade system would introduce a new market fabricated by government to regulate the entire economy of mundane markets. Cap and trade is based on the political invention of scarcity. But the problem of determining the ideal supply of emission permits is much like the Federal Reserve's problem of determining the ideal quantity of government money. In both cases, bureaucrats must appeal to dubious mathematical models and pronounce on questions that remain the subject of raging scientific controversy.... The reality of cap and trade will be a typical political market: an expensive ramshackle compromise of competing forces.

Another article, "The Costs of Cap-and-Trade," by Raymond J. Keating, chief economist with the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, cited the November 8, 2007 testimony of Anne E. Smith, Ph.D. (a nationally known expert in environmental policy assessment and corporate compliance strategy planning) before the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works. In her testimony, Dr. Smith presented the findings of a study done by CRA International assessing the economic costs of the "America's Climate Security Act of 2007" (S. 2191) cosponsored by U.S. Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.). Among Dr. Smith's findings:

* S. 2191 would decrease U.S. average economic welfare by 1.1 percent to 1.7 percent.

* The bill would cause real annual spending per household to be reduced by an average of $800 to $1,300 in 2015. These spending impacts would increase to levels of $1,500 to over $2,500 by the end of our modeled time period, 2050.

* GDP (Gross Domestic Product) would be lower in 2015 by about $160 billion to $250 billion. Eventually, the annual loss in GDP would increase to the range of $800 billion to $1 trillion (stated in real, 2007 dollars).

* There would be 1.2 million to 2.3 million net job losses by 2015. By 2020, the study projects between 1.5 million and 3.4 million net job losses.

We could cite other sources, but the above sampling makes an excellent case that the economic costs of cap and trade would be substantial. Even so, some would argue that any economic cost is worth enduring, if global warming can be forestalled. However, this argument ignores one critical factor: credible scientific evidence has not been presented to prove that any increase in the average temperature of the Earth is anthropogenic — caused by man's activities.

Global-warming doomsayers tend to ignore the history of the Earth's temperatures, which have constantly varied. Climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen has pointed out that "two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling." During the global-cooling scare of the 1970s, some observers even worried that the planet was on the verge of a new ice age!

As for man's impact on global temperatures, In the April 3 issue of the Wall Street Journal, deputy editor George Melloan noted that, according to "serious scientists," "the greenhouse gases are a fundamental part of the biosphere, necessary to all life, and ... industrial activity generates less than 5 percent of them, if that."

And the theory that CO2 is the prime culprit in so-called global warming may also be flawed. In the compendium Earth Report 2000, Dr. Roy Spencer, senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, noted: "It is estimated that water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of the earth's natural greenhouse effect, whereas carbon dioxide contributes most of the remaining 5 percent. Global warming projections assume that water vapor will increase along with any warming resulting from the increases in carbon dioxide concentrations."

Dr. Spencer points out that such assumptions are unproven, however, noting that "there remain substantial uncertainties in our understanding of how the climate system will respond to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." He observes that the natural greenhouse effect that heats the Earth is offset by natural cooling processes. "In other words," concluded Dr. Spencer, "the natural greenhouse effect cannot be considered in isolation as a process warming the earth, without at the same time accounting for cooling processes that actually keep the greenhouse effect from scorching us all."

Until such time as better science supporting global-warming theories emerges, bankrupting our economy through cap and trade schemes is an imprudent solution to a non-existent problem.

[bonnie]

“Spain’s Energy Model: What Not To Do”

A must-read on cap-and-trade devastation comes from Rep. Michele Bachmann over at Redstate.com:

After years of promoting green jobs, Spain has the highest unemployment rate of any developed country—currently at 17.5%, and that number is expected to climb to 20.5% by the end of the year. That’s one in five workers out of a job.

According to a study by Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, on the effect of public aid to renewable energy sources on employment, if the U.S. adopts the Spanish model as proposed by President Obama, for each job created, the “U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created.”

Dr. Calzada further found that the high-energy costs associated with these policies have driven high-energy reliant businesses, like manufacturing, to cheaper places. And of the green jobs created, two-thirds were temporary installment and construction jobs.

Other countries have similar job-loss stories to share. As the economic realities of Australia’s much-heralded cap-and-trade policies began to sink in, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced a delay in its implementation. A headline in The Australian says it all: “Carbon Plan Will Cause Jobs Carnage.”

Read the whole article … now!

[bonnie]

http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SCOTUS-Examiner~y2009m5d14-Adviser-admits-Obamas-tax-increases-could-kill-economic-recovery

Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, who has advised Obama, warns that “the barrage of tax increases proposed in President Barack Obama’s budget could, if enacted by Congress, kill any chance of an early and sustained recovery.” He compares Obama’s tax increases to the ones that contributed to the Great Depression and the “Lost Decade” of economic stagnation and decay in Japan.

Feldstein, who serves on Obama’s economic advisory board, has also “warned of serious inflation and higher taxes down the road” as a result of Obama’s policies.

Feldstein singles out for criticism Obama’s proposed global-warming tax. “Mr. Obama’s biggest proposed tax increase is the cap-and-trade system of requiring businesses to buy carbon dioxide emission permits. . .CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the Senate Finance Committee on May 7 that the cap-and-trade price increases . . . would cost the average household roughly $1,600 a year, ranging from $700 in the lowest-income quintile to $2,200 in the highest-income quintile.”

That’s a highly regressive tax increase, since lowest-income earners don’t make a third of what highest-income earners make, but they would incur a third as much cost. It’s regressive in the same way as the 1932 excise tax increase by Herbert Hoover that deepened the misery of the Great Depression.

During the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover damaged the economy, and impoverished the American people, with costly, artificial attempts to stimulate the economy through increased government spending, financed by heavy taxes like the Revenue Act of 1932.

Obama earlier admitted that “under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” As Obama admitted, that cost would be directly passed “on to consumers” — just the way Herbert Hoover’s regressive excise taxes were in 1932. Although the tax’s supporters claim it will cut greenhouse gas emissions, it may perversely increase them and also result in dirtier air.

In reality, Obama’s proposed “cap-and-trade” tax is likely to raise $2 trillion over the next decade, far more than even Feldstein anticipates. That’s far more than the $646 billion the Administration earlier estimated — amounting to at least $3,100 per family per year. And that figure may be dwarfed by the amount of money siphoned from consumers to well-connected corporations that have learned how to game “cap-and-trade” schemes.

In the Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover raised marginal tax rates to 63%, and went on a deficit spending binge. Similarly, Obama has proposed higher marginal tax rates, which will produce another $1.9 trillion in tax increases.

In spite of its massive size, Obama’s carbon tax won’t begin to pay for all his spending increases, such as a budget that will generate $4.8 trillion in increased deficits, Obama’s trillion-dollar toxic-asset program, and his $800 billion, economy-shrinking “stimulus” package, all of which contradict Obama’s campaign pledge of a “net spending cut.”

These tax increases are breaches of Obama’s campaign promise not to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year, which he earlier broke by signing into law the regressive SCHIP excise tax increase.

It’s part of a long line of broken promises, such as Obama’s pledge to enact a “net spending cut,” which he discarded by offering mind-bogglingly large budgets that will explode the national debt through $9.3 trillion in massively increased deficit spending.

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

Hmmm, so you don't think pollution and toxic waste cause harm to the earth and its people? (I'm not talking about global warming, if that's what you're referring to - just your basic harm.)

Pollution and toxic waste lacks the ability to kill the planet and ourselves in mass.

Those that pollute and dump toxic waste to the harm of individuals needs to be stopped.

We are not talking about that.

We are talking of cap and trade.It will be far more destructive than pollution.

Actually, we *were* discussing pollution and toxic waste with regards to oil, coal, and nuclear, in relation to cap and trade. But fine if you want to get back to specifics of cap and trade.

[carolaa]

When the world was still flat contemporary maps of the great ocean to the west of Europe showed a distant point offshore and noted "Beyond here there be dragons."

That warning well applies to a voyage Congress is about to launch — the infamous cap and trade bill — a peril-laden excursion into a fiscal and regulatory nightmare rife with the fearsome dragons of excess government control and crushing financial burdens on America's families.

LOL - Maybe this guy's op-ed will be just as accurate as the old maps he refers to.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Actually, we *were* discussing pollution and toxic waste with regards to oil, coal, and nuclear, in relation to cap and trade. But fine if you want to get back to specifics of cap and trade.

The combination of cap and trade,oil,coal and nuclear ,pollution and toxic waste really can't be separated.

Obama is using all the above to promote cap and trade.

What Obama is promoting is not sustainable . By the time he is done the economy will be far below the bottom of the barrel.

Others have tried it without good results. You seem to think Obama can re-invent the wheel.

[bonnie]

Quote:

When the world was still flat contemporary maps of the great ocean to the west of Europe showed a distant point offshore and noted "Beyond here there be dragons."

That warning well applies to a voyage Congress is about to launch — the infamous cap and trade bill — a peril-laden excursion into a fiscal and regulatory nightmare rife with the fearsome dragons of excess government control and crushing financial burdens on America's families.

Quote:

LOL - Maybe this guy's op-ed will be just as accurate as the old maps he refers to.

And more than likely he will be accurate. It just might be a intelligent move to stop worshiping at the altar of Obama and pay attention to what others have tried,what most of the economists say. Try reading Warren Buffets comments, a staunch supporter of Obama. Seems he has a little disagreement as to where we are and where we are headed.