CLIMATEGATE BOOK - Exposing the Global Warming Scam

Non-Partisan Proof: Cap-and-Trade’s an Economy Killer

Posted on American Thinker.com, Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Last week, in what the National Academy of Sciences declared “the most comprehensive report ever on climate change,” three studies requested by Congress were unfurled, providing sweeping proposals for an aggressive federally based strategy to deal with climate change.


Bold actions are necessary because “climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming … concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link [those effects] to humans,” said Pamela A. Matson of Stanford University, co-chair of the studies and the subsequent report to Congress.


The report was ordered by congressional Democrats who want climate change legislation passed and signed into law this year. Both the House climate bill (passed last year) and the pending Senate version call for the trading of carbon credits, as well as heavy taxes on businesses that emit greenhouse gases in order to supposedly cool the planet. The Senate is expected to renew debate on the issue later this summer.


However, a just-released report assembled by the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics confirms my long-held contention: The pending climate change bill will be an economic bust for America by killing jobs and raising prices for virtually everything.


The Peterson Institute’s report focuses on Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) bill, The American Power Act. Overall, Peterson’s eighteen-page synopsis of the bill definitely leans green. For example, the reports states, “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems.”


Those of you who have read my book Climategate, as well as my multiple missives on American Thinker, know I wholeheartedly disagree with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.


Besides believing that humans are altering the climate, the Peterson report recommends that a single federal entity or program be given the authority and resources to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both understanding and responding to climate change.


In other words, the nonpartisan report contends that government is the solution to the problem.


Nonetheless — and surprisingly — the report states that if the Kerry-Lieberman bill should become law, there will be net job losses and higher energy and product prices.


The Peterson analysis neatly buries those findings after stating that 203,000 new green jobs will be created each year for a decade. Specifically, the report states the net employment losses will be due to “the jobs lost in fossil fuel production and as a result of higher energy prices between 2011 and 2020. In the second decade of the program [2020-2030], higher energy and product prices offset the employment gains from new investment.”


Translation: Yes, there will be new so-called “green” jobs that will include government bureaucrats hired to shuffle papers and enforce new green building codes, construction jobs to retrofit buildings, installers for solar panels, etc. However, there will be more jobs lost than gained should the bill become law.


To review: Both the House and Senate climate change bills plan on scaling back CO2 emissions 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. According to United States Census figures, the population of the U.S. will increase by thirty million by 2020 and by 100 million by 2050. So where will the cuts come from? From America’s coal industry, which will be shuttered; from our manufacturing sector, which will be moved offshore; and from our livestock industry, which will also be sent abroad.


Do you see what’s about to occur? Good jobs will be lost. That’s why in the House version of the bill, a provision ensures that if your job is shipped overseas, you are eligible for three years of unemployment compensation at 70% of your pay, plus retraining and relocation expenses. The intent is to pacify your anger with a three-year paid vacation. In the Senate version of the bill, the unemployment benefits are cleverly tied into an Internal Revenue Code entitled the “empowerment zone employment credit.”


The Peterson reports also notes that by forcing the price of energy upward (which is what both the House and Senate bills will do), Americans will be forced to use less energy:


By placing a price on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, providing incentives for low-carbon sources of energy supply and improving the efficiency of energy use through a range of mechanisms, the American Power Act would substantially alter the way energy is produced and consumed in the United States.


By pricing carbon, the American Power Act raises the cost of fossil fuels, prompting firms and consumers to improve the efficiency with which they use energy or switch to low-carbon sources of energy supply.


Households will also face higher prices for non-energy goods as the firms producing them face higher energy costs.


To compensate for this additional cost of living, both the House and Senate versions of the bill present consumer handouts in the form of direct deposits from Uncle Sam into the bank account of lower wage-earners. In the case of the Senate bill, a family of four making $55,000 a year will receive a monthly cash deposit into their bank account to offset their increased cost of living.


Sounds like socialism to me, but then again, I’ve never believed this bill was about the environment. It’s an attempt to spread the wealth around, allow a few investors to make huge amounts off of money off cap-and-trade, and — more importantly– take away the liberty of the American people. When the government is able to control how much energy we consume, they have an additional tool with which to control our lives.

  • Share/Bookmark


6 Responses to “ “Non-Partisan Proof: Cap-and-Trade’s an Economy Killer”

  1. John Kohler says:

    My answer is to exhort all Americans to protest pending global warming/cap and trade legislation by setting fire to a tire or an pile of oily trash. We need to vote the current party in power out of office and repeal all of the detrimental legislation passed in the last 18 months.

  2. Cap and trade is a wealth redistribution scheme. Since windmills, labor and land are cheaper in China, carbon credits will be cheaper from China also.

    So if you are a company that wants to expand or hire people. You will need to buy credits, and Chinese credits will be cheaper.

    The president says it will create green jobs that can’t be outsourced. He is right, they can’t be outsourced because they wont be here to begin with.

    Harvard Physicist, Mike Stopa, calls Global Warming a Hysteria.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XGvTRk9pMk

  3. Jon Thaler says:

    You say:

    “However, a just-released report assembled by the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics confirms my long-held contention: The pending climate change bill will be an economic bust for America by killing jobs and raising prices for virtually everything.”

    You are misrepresenting their report. Here’s their own synopsis (http://www.iie.com/research/topics/hottopic.cfm?HotTopicID=16):

    “As the scientific consensus on the need to limit greenhouse gas emissions to avert the worst effects of global warming solidifies, policymakers face a number of serious issues in forging both domestic and international climate policy. US policy proposals so far have focused on establishing a price for carbon, either in the form of a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program. These proposals raise concerns that aggressive climate policy in the United States will merely lead to the outsourcing of carbon-intensive industry to countries with fewer restrictions, which highlights the need for a multilateral approach to global warming. At the same time, international trade and economic development are central topics in negotiations on a post-Kyoto climate regime, and the outcome of these negotiations could bring sweeping changes to the international financial system. Policymakers must consider these and other issues in order to develop effective measures to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and halt global warming.”

  4. Jon, I’ve written extensively about the Peterson report at American Thinker. You failed to recognize a key line from their “findings:”

    The Peterson analysis admits there will be “net employment losses” due to “the jobs lost in fossil fuel production and as a result of higher energy prices between 2011 and 2020. In the second decade of the program [2020-2030], higher energy and product prices offset the employment gains from new investment.”

    Translation: Yes, there will be new so-called “green” jobs that will include government bureaucrats hired to shuffle papers and enforce new green building codes, construction jobs to retrofit buildings, installers for solar panels, etc. However, there will be more jobs lost than gained should the bill become law.

    Brian

  5. hello and thank you for the information – I’ve undoubtedly grabbed something new from your posts. I however noticed a few on-site difficulties using this blog. I was thinking about whether your website hosting is ok? Not that I am complaining, however poor loading instances times will likely impact your placement in the search engines and may damage your excellent content here. Anyway I will be adding your Rss feed to my feed reader and can look out for even more of your fascinating articles..

  6. Orpha says:

    Thanks for your fascinating article. Other thing is that mesothelioma cancer is generally a result of the inhalation of material from asbestos, which is a extremely dangerous material. It is commonly witnessed among individuals in the engineering industry who’ve long experience of asbestos. It is also caused by living in asbestos protected buildings for a long time of time, Genes plays a huge role, and some people are more vulnerable towards the risk compared to others.

Leave a Reply

© 2016 Climategate Book   |   Brian Sussman | Eco-Tyranny Book

  

WordPress Web Design Portland