Obama and the Democrats tell us that passing even more government regulation aimed at the environment will help revive the economy.
Oops, somebody forgot to tell the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). They say there will be a net loss of jobs.
"The shifts will be significant," the CBO director said. "We want to leave no misunderstanding that aggregate performance -- the fact that jobs turn up somewhere else for some people -- does not mean that there are not substantial costs borne by people, communities, firms in affected industries and affected areas. You saw that in manufacturing, and we would see that in response to changes that this legislation would produce."
I have written before about the estimated cost of this cap and trade nonsense. Don't drink the Kool-Aid when Congress tells you it's only a little bit per day.
You can find the original article here.
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Graham Endorses Cap and Trade
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) joined with Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the chamber's leading Democratic advocate of climate legislation, to promote a bipartisan plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The bill does little for nuclear power beyond new training programs and is silent about offshore drilling.
With friends like this, who needs enemies?
Here is a link to the original article from The Washington Post.
With friends like this, who needs enemies?
Here is a link to the original article from The Washington Post.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Regulatory Czar Says Americans Are Too Racist To Implement Socialism
These whacky czars just get better and better. It's like a friggin' Saturday Night Live skit, live and in person.
WorldNet Daily has an article about Cass Sunstein's view that Americans wouldn't implement socialism because it would benefit minorities. From his book The Second Bill of Rights:
"The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)," wrote Sunstein.
"During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum."
And we all know how well that turned out for the Soviet Union, right? We can see how well it's working in Venezuela, France and China, too.
Sunstein penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper in which he debated whether America should pay "justice" to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S. He argues it is "desirable" to redistribute America's wealth to poorer nations.
And how would that happen, that we would give away more than we earn? Cap and trade:
"It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid," wrote Sunstein.
You can find the article here.
WorldNet Daily has an article about Cass Sunstein's view that Americans wouldn't implement socialism because it would benefit minorities. From his book The Second Bill of Rights:
"The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics)," wrote Sunstein.
"During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum."
And we all know how well that turned out for the Soviet Union, right? We can see how well it's working in Venezuela, France and China, too.
Sunstein penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper in which he debated whether America should pay "justice" to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S. He argues it is "desirable" to redistribute America's wealth to poorer nations.
And how would that happen, that we would give away more than we earn? Cap and trade:
"It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid," wrote Sunstein.
You can find the article here.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Senate Working Out Its Version of Cap and Trade Bill
Now that the House has come up with a plan to tie business down with new regulations that don't do anything constructive, the Senate has come up with its own plan.
Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Boxer (D-CA) have come up with a plan that is more ambitious than the Waxman-Markey bill in the House. I have already covered an analysis of the costs associated with the House bill here.
Although Democrats promise all kinds of new jobs with this legislation, nowhere in the legislation does it spell out where those jobs will come from, what they will be or how much they will pay. It's pie in the sky, just talking points for people that get paid to talk and not produce.
You can find the House version of the bill here in PDF.
Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Boxer (D-CA) have come up with a plan that is more ambitious than the Waxman-Markey bill in the House. I have already covered an analysis of the costs associated with the House bill here.
Although Democrats promise all kinds of new jobs with this legislation, nowhere in the legislation does it spell out where those jobs will come from, what they will be or how much they will pay. It's pie in the sky, just talking points for people that get paid to talk and not produce.
You can find the House version of the bill here in PDF.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Paul Krugman Preemptively Strikes Climate Change Opponents
Paul Krugman from The New York Times weighs in already against the people opposed to climate change legislation. He starts off with:
So, have you enjoyed the debate over health care reform? Have you been impressed by the civility of the discussion and the intellectual honesty of reform opponents? If so, you’ll love the next big debate: the fight over climate change.
Civility? Who was civil? Certainly not progressives like Paul Krugman. You can find documentation here about his hostility to anyone that disagrees with him.
Let's not get started on intellectual honesty in the health care debate. Look at any column I've written in this blog, for example, to see just how "intellectually honest" the progressives are about health care legislation. Here is another example of his intellectual honesty. He says we are in the worst "greatest financial crisis since the 1930s."
His first salvo in this article is to try to marginalize opponents of climate change legislation and remove them altogether from the conversation. He attempts to debunk claims that global warming is a myth and then continues:
"So the main argument against climate action probably won’t be the claim that global warming is a myth. It will, instead, be the argument that doing anything to limit global warming would destroy the economy."
We have already covered here about the costs of global warming legislation. The Treasury Department estimates cost of the legislation could reach $300 billion annually. You can see the PDF of their statement here.
Krugman's editorial can be found here.
The Waxman-Markey climate bill can be found here (PDF).
So, have you enjoyed the debate over health care reform? Have you been impressed by the civility of the discussion and the intellectual honesty of reform opponents? If so, you’ll love the next big debate: the fight over climate change.
Civility? Who was civil? Certainly not progressives like Paul Krugman. You can find documentation here about his hostility to anyone that disagrees with him.
Let's not get started on intellectual honesty in the health care debate. Look at any column I've written in this blog, for example, to see just how "intellectually honest" the progressives are about health care legislation. Here is another example of his intellectual honesty. He says we are in the worst "greatest financial crisis since the 1930s."
His first salvo in this article is to try to marginalize opponents of climate change legislation and remove them altogether from the conversation. He attempts to debunk claims that global warming is a myth and then continues:
"So the main argument against climate action probably won’t be the claim that global warming is a myth. It will, instead, be the argument that doing anything to limit global warming would destroy the economy."
We have already covered here about the costs of global warming legislation. The Treasury Department estimates cost of the legislation could reach $300 billion annually. You can see the PDF of their statement here.
Krugman's editorial can be found here.
The Waxman-Markey climate bill can be found here (PDF).
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Lying About Climate Change
Obama is at the UN summit for climate change and telling whoppers there like he does in the health care debate.
He says, "And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history." (1)
But that isn't true. We have been able to reduce our carbon emissions by 1.3% and grow our economy through a private sector solution -- THREE YEARS AGO (2). (Ahem, I would mention that was under George W. Bush).
While Europe pursued the ineffective Kyoto strategy, the US worked to engage the world’s biggest polluters in a joint program that seriously addressed both emissions and economic growth:
"In a surprise move that caught Europe’s smug moralists and the environmental movement’s noisy extremists flatfooted, the United States announced in Vientiane, Laos, last week that it was joining five other nations – China, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia — in a new pact that offers a refreshing and effective alternative route to tackling the problem of climate change." (3)
The result of this was instead of imposing a $1700 cost burden per American household and costing the US 3.5% of its GDP by 2050, Bush grew the economy — and increased tax revenues:
"An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
"On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year’s levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.
"Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year." (4)
======================
1. Morrissey, Ed (2009, September 22). "Obama makes U.N. debut on global warming (text, video here)". Hot Air.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from Hot Air
2. Eilperin, Juliet (2007, May 24). "U.S. Carbon Emissions Fell 1.3% in 2006". The Washington Post.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from The Washington Post
3. The Anchoress (2009, September 22). "Obama lying about Carbon Emissions?". The Anchoress.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from The Anchoress
4. The Anchoress (2009, September 22). "Obama lying about Carbon Emissions?". The Anchoress.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from The Anchoress
He says, "And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history." (1)
But that isn't true. We have been able to reduce our carbon emissions by 1.3% and grow our economy through a private sector solution -- THREE YEARS AGO (2). (Ahem, I would mention that was under George W. Bush).
While Europe pursued the ineffective Kyoto strategy, the US worked to engage the world’s biggest polluters in a joint program that seriously addressed both emissions and economic growth:
"In a surprise move that caught Europe’s smug moralists and the environmental movement’s noisy extremists flatfooted, the United States announced in Vientiane, Laos, last week that it was joining five other nations – China, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia — in a new pact that offers a refreshing and effective alternative route to tackling the problem of climate change." (3)
The result of this was instead of imposing a $1700 cost burden per American household and costing the US 3.5% of its GDP by 2050, Bush grew the economy — and increased tax revenues:
"An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
"On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year’s levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.
"Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year." (4)
======================
1. Morrissey, Ed (2009, September 22). "Obama makes U.N. debut on global warming (text, video here)". Hot Air.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from Hot Air
2. Eilperin, Juliet (2007, May 24). "U.S. Carbon Emissions Fell 1.3% in 2006". The Washington Post.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from The Washington Post
3. The Anchoress (2009, September 22). "Obama lying about Carbon Emissions?". The Anchoress.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from The Anchoress
4. The Anchoress (2009, September 22). "Obama lying about Carbon Emissions?". The Anchoress.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from The Anchoress
The Horrific Cost of Cap and Trade
Doctor Steven Chu, Obama's pick for Energy Secretary, said, "The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act." (1)
But the government has a fix for that -- education. They are targeting kids to teach them about "climate change", energy efficiency and pollution. The EPA has partnered with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) and Parent Teacher Organizations Today (PTO Today) (2). Our tax dollars at work, folks.
"We’re showing people across the country how energy efficiency can be part of what they do every day," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. "Confronting climate change, saving money on our utility bills, and reducing our use of heavily-polluting energy can be as easy as making a few small changes." (3)
The government is doing all it can to push cap and trade when health care is not stealing the spotlight. Asked if he expected a town-hall style pushback on cap and trade, Dr. Chu said, "I don’t think so…maybe I’m optimistic, but there’s very little debate" that a new green energy economy will bring economic prosperity, Mr. Chu told reporters. Very little debate among the politicians, maybe, but not among the citizens once they get wind of how much this will cost.
Global warming cap and trade costs could hit $300 billion annually, the Treasury Department admitted in documents released recently (4). You can see the documents from the Treasury Department here (PDF).
But those are big numbers. Let's break it down to something we can all relate to. Ben Lieberman, in testifying before Congress, said:
"For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.
"But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600." (5)
And that's not including impact to employment. He continues:
"We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they'll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey." (6)
You can find the Waxman-Markey bill, HR 2454, here (PDF).
======================
1. Talley, Ian (2009, September 21). "Steven Chu: Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’ When It Comes to Energy". Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from WSJ.com
2. Jones, Enesta (2009, September 17). "EPA Launches Fall Tour to Help Americans Fight Climate Change and Save Money". The EPA.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from EPA
3. Talley, Ian (2009, September 21). "Steven Chu: Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’ When It Comes to Energy". Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from WSJ.com
4. Hall, Christine (2009, September 18). "Breaking News: Treasury Admits Global Warming Cap-and-Trade Costs Could Hit $300 Billion Annually". Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from CEI
5. Lieberman, Ben (2009, June 22). "The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill". The Heritage Foundation.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from The Heritage Foundation
6. Lieberman, Ben (2009, June 22). "The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill". The Heritage Foundation.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from The Heritage Foundation
But the government has a fix for that -- education. They are targeting kids to teach them about "climate change", energy efficiency and pollution. The EPA has partnered with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) and Parent Teacher Organizations Today (PTO Today) (2). Our tax dollars at work, folks.
"We’re showing people across the country how energy efficiency can be part of what they do every day," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. "Confronting climate change, saving money on our utility bills, and reducing our use of heavily-polluting energy can be as easy as making a few small changes." (3)
The government is doing all it can to push cap and trade when health care is not stealing the spotlight. Asked if he expected a town-hall style pushback on cap and trade, Dr. Chu said, "I don’t think so…maybe I’m optimistic, but there’s very little debate" that a new green energy economy will bring economic prosperity, Mr. Chu told reporters. Very little debate among the politicians, maybe, but not among the citizens once they get wind of how much this will cost.
Global warming cap and trade costs could hit $300 billion annually, the Treasury Department admitted in documents released recently (4). You can see the documents from the Treasury Department here (PDF).
But those are big numbers. Let's break it down to something we can all relate to. Ben Lieberman, in testifying before Congress, said:
"For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.
"But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600." (5)
And that's not including impact to employment. He continues:
"We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they'll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey." (6)
You can find the Waxman-Markey bill, HR 2454, here (PDF).
======================
1. Talley, Ian (2009, September 21). "Steven Chu: Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’ When It Comes to Energy". Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from WSJ.com
2. Jones, Enesta (2009, September 17). "EPA Launches Fall Tour to Help Americans Fight Climate Change and Save Money". The EPA.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from EPA
3. Talley, Ian (2009, September 21). "Steven Chu: Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’ When It Comes to Energy". Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from WSJ.com
4. Hall, Christine (2009, September 18). "Breaking News: Treasury Admits Global Warming Cap-and-Trade Costs Could Hit $300 Billion Annually". Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from CEI
5. Lieberman, Ben (2009, June 22). "The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill". The Heritage Foundation.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from The Heritage Foundation
6. Lieberman, Ben (2009, June 22). "The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill". The Heritage Foundation.
Retrieved September 22, 2009, from The Heritage Foundation
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Coal Company Raises Awareness of Cap and Trade
Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy, helped organize a rally in southern West Virginia to raise awareness for the cap and trade legislation.
Mr. Blankenship said he wanted to show people at the event how government regulation is hurting the coal industry, driving up energy prices and making the country less competitive. "We're hopeful that through networking that they will educate their neighbors and that they'll all begin to speak out," he said. "We think that will make a difference."
The show was held in a reclaimed Logan County strip mine. It was headlined by Hank Williams, Jr., and featured Ted Nugent, who was the MC and who did some performing. Also in for the show was Sean Hannity from Fox News.
Said Mr. Blankenship, "We don't need a government that wants to shut down our coal mines. We don't want a government that wants to increase our power bills. ... We don't want a government that is run by people who believe they can change the Earth's temperature when they can't balance a budget."
The original article can be found here.
Mr. Blankenship said he wanted to show people at the event how government regulation is hurting the coal industry, driving up energy prices and making the country less competitive. "We're hopeful that through networking that they will educate their neighbors and that they'll all begin to speak out," he said. "We think that will make a difference."
The show was held in a reclaimed Logan County strip mine. It was headlined by Hank Williams, Jr., and featured Ted Nugent, who was the MC and who did some performing. Also in for the show was Sean Hannity from Fox News.
Said Mr. Blankenship, "We don't need a government that wants to shut down our coal mines. We don't want a government that wants to increase our power bills. ... We don't want a government that is run by people who believe they can change the Earth's temperature when they can't balance a budget."
The original article can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)