Subject: {Disarmed} Call it Cap and Tax, Another Global Warming Protest Buried by Snow and the weekly Chilling Effect Cartoon
From: "editor@thechillingeffect.org"
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:26:19 -0600
To: bob@cosy.com

Please add editor@thechillingeffect.com to your address book to ensure our emails reach your inbox.

March 2, 2009

 
    * Kotkin: ‘Gentry’ and ‘populist’ factions square off on energy and the environment
    * “The debate on tackling climate change often becomes transfixed by magic bullet technologies”
    * Monckton: “Global Warming Is Not Happening”
    * WSJ Blog: One of the biggest challenges in fighting global warming is getting countries to act. One of the biggest risks may be that countries do act—with unilateral geoengineering schemes to stave off climate change.
    * Watts Up With That?: John Kerry et al vs. George Will items here and here
    * Is It Getting Warmer?: “The other bad thing about carbon trading is that it doesn’t really tackle all of the problems of greenhouse gas”
    * This should be scientifically and economically sound … Martin Sheen, Paul Hawken, James Hansen and others invite citizens to stand with them against coal
    * JunkMan: Is George Soros a global-warming turncoat?
    * Celebrities’ carbon footprint from flying in private jets? No problem. Your carbon footprint earns a new fee at the airport.
 
 
 
The George C. Marshall Institute this morning released a new study telling us what we already (should) know: regulating carbon, in the name of fighting climate change, will be costly for consumers. How costly? Wrap your noodle around these points:
 
    The authors find that the constraints posed by the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade approach is equivalent to a constant (in percentage terms) consumption decrease of about 1% each year, continuing to 2050. Put another way, the cap-and-trade approach is the equivalent of a permanent tax increase for the average American household, which was estimated to be $1,100 in 2008, would rise to $1,437 by 2015, to $1,979 in 2030, and $2,979 in 2050.
 
    Reviewing a host of recent studies, Buckley and Mityakov show that estimates of job losses attributable to cap-and-trade range in the hundreds of thousands.
 
    The price for energy paid by the American consumer also will rise. The studies reviewed showed electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9-145% by 2015. As an illustration, gasoline would suffer a 16 cent price increase per gallon at the low end of the estimates to a $2.58 penalty at the high end (using the January 2009 reported retail price of $1.78 per gallon).
 
Emphases added. Recap here. Study here. Don’t forget the NAM/ACCF study and the Heritage Foundation’s work. What does it all add up to? Plenty of warnings for politicians who will either oversee an economic recovery through processes that help grow the economy or be responsible for a cratering economy in the name of specious policy endeavors.
 
 
It’s galling that President Obama’s first budget includes projected billions in new tax revenue … from a cap-and-trade carbon scheme that hasn’t been passed by Congress. In fact, the president is banking on tens of billions from the plan, which most economists will tell you is less efficient at addressing carbon concerns than would be a straight tax.
 
But since politicians hate saying they’re going to raise taxes on poor people (who use energy but may not pay income taxes), they call it cap and trade. Here’s the Wall Street Journal this morning:
 
    “Mr. Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu was refreshingly candid on this point with the New York Times earlier this month. Given that higher prices are supposed to motivate the changes necessary to reduce carbon energy use, Mr. Chu said he was worried that climate taxes may drive jobs to countries where costs are cheaper. “The concern about cap and trade in today’s economic climate,” he said, “is that a lot of money might flow to developing countries in a way that might not be completely politically sellable.” You are correct, sir.
 
    “Meanwhile, the political class loves a cap-and-trade tax because it gives them new economic and political power. Congress would create a new property right to expend CO2, setting a price per ton on carbon output, and then Congress would also get to determine the distribution of allowances. The Administration wants all of them to be auctioned off, which is what creates the giant revenue windfall. The politicians would then decide how to spend all of that new “climate revenue.”
 
    “Mr. Obama’s budget proposes to spend this windfall on two items: $15 billion a year in more subsidies for alternative fuels, and $65 billion or so a year to finance tax subsidies for workers, many of whom don’t pay income taxes. In other words, once this cap-and-trade tax is on the books, the revenue stream will create political constituencies that depend on it.”
 
Let’s make a resolution together: let’s call this Cap-and-Tax. It will save time and explain the issue better.
 
 
But will it warn alarmists’ ... probably not.
 
 
Check it out:
 
    One gathers from the links that the Capitol Climate Action blogger attributes the droughts to global warming. But that’s a pretty dumb unpersuasive argument to make on a snowy day in Washington at the end of an unusually cold winter.
 
    Meanwhile, the increasingly erratic James Hansen of NASA issues a “call to action” against coal in a video posted at the blog, headlined, “Dr. James Hansen on coal, civil disobedience.”
 
For those brave souls in DC, don’t forget the pro-coal demonstration intended to remind the public (and, hopefully, their surrogate, the media) about the positives of inexpensive access to domestic energy. Sheesh — it shouldn’t be so much work to point out the obvious.
 
 
Steve Milloy, the JunkMan: “President Obama wants to pay you to support global warming regulation. What he isn’t saying, however, is that his enticement won’t come close to covering what the regulations will cost you.”
 
 

 


Web Bug from open
Web Bug from open 


Web Bug from open
Web Bug from open
Web Bug from open
Web Bug from open
Web Bug from open
Web Bug from open
Web Bug from open
Web Bug from open
Web Bug from open
Web Bug from http://www.activecampaigns.net/connect/lt/t_go.php?i=454&e=NzU1NDA0&l=open
--- MailScanner ---
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.