Cap and Trade equals ‘Pre-Industrial Economy’ and the weekly Chilling Effect cartoon

Energy and Environment: Around the Interwebs

* Obama changing the language of selling cap-and-trade

* Amen: Energy strategies must be affordable

* Berkshire Hathaway’s Munger on Cap-and-Trade (”Monstrously Stupid Right Now…Almost Demented”) (h/t: Climate Depot)

* The regional director of the Iowa Farm Bureau says there needs to be more “science” behind the EPA’s contention that ethanol is contributing to global warming.

* “Cap-and-trade stumbling in D.C.” …

* … and “US Democrats backing away from cap and trade” …

* … but … “a meeting today of senior White House staff with U.S. Climate Action Partnership, or USCAP- whose members include GE, Duke Energy (DUK), and Caterpillar (CAT)- indicates [cap and trade] is not a dead issue“

* Bjorn Lomborg and global warming: Part 1

* Cap and trade said to only hurt a little bit…

* “Chu had better raise his game if he wants to stick in the big leagues.”

* The Sierra Club hates all thoughts and sounds related to coal

* Cap-and-Trade Means ‘Pre-Industrial Economy’

The True Cost of Global Warming Legislation to be Paid By You

IBD reports:

“Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, told members of the Senate Finance Committee Thursday that ‘Under a cap-and-trade program, consumers’ — not demonized corporations, we might add — ‘would ultimately bear most of the costs of emission reductions.’

“This is because industry and other groups (hospitals, schools, any institution that discharges carbon), forced under a federal cap-and-trade regime to buy government permits to release CO2, would pass on their costs to consumers.

“Cutting carbon emissions by 15% through this method would cost each American household an average of $1,600 a year, the CBO found. In a worst-case scenario, the cost is $2,200 per household.”

That’s certainly in line with what we’ve seen in terms of estimates.

And — just so that it’s a fair discussion — it’s important that we discuss not just the costs but the benefits. But here’s the thing: there really aren’t any appreciable benefits for that $2,200. Any honest conversant will acknowledge that an America-only carbon capping plan will do virtually nothing for the global greenhouse gas levels.

What would your family do with $1,500 or $2,200? Because we’re betting whatever it is, it would be better for you and for the economy to spend that money on something more productive.

Numbers Dwindling for Global Warming Alarmists?

Michael Barone, the great new addition to the Washington Examiner, has turned his keen political eye on global warming and gun control in his most recent article. On the trend of public opinion and global warming, he writes, things are not going well for the alarmists…

“In Texas, ‘Big Oil’ often means small businesses”

Last week’s Houston Chronicle had a well-written article about the impact of government regulations on small businesses. Here’s the story of William Whitefield of Whitefield Plastics:

“My father, Donald D. Whitefield, broke new ground in the manufacturing industry when he founded Whitefield Plastics more than 47 years ago. His wife’s pots and pans served as his first molds, and his first oven was nothing more than an old refrigerator he converted. Hand-me-down cookware — that’s how Don became the first exclusive producer of castable polyurethane molding in Texas.

“Today, I’m honored to fill my father’s shoes, running a family-owned company that now serves a host of national and international oil field, pipeline and industrial clients. However, the latest round of congressional energy plans would hurt local companies like mine on two fronts: increasing the tax burden and limiting production…”

Read the whole thing: taxes, offshore drilling restrictions, windfall profits taxes.

A Better Way To Go Green: Cut The Red Tape

The New York Times is just about the last place you’d expect to get good free market arguments, but the paper has a guest article this morning from former Bush administration lawyer Daniel Price. He writes:

“Eliminating tariffs on clean technology goods can help achieve the twin imperatives of economic growth and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The solution lies in the development and deployment of affordable cleaner technologies.

“To be sure, tariff cuts alone won’t do it. We need both national legislation and international commitments by all major economies to reduce their emissions. But as a start, President Obama should use his personal popularity with world leaders to call upon his colleagues to join him in tearing down tariff walls.”





	May 11, 2009 Energy and Environment: Around the Interwebs * Obama changing the language of selling cap-and-trade * Amen: Energy strategies must be affordable * Berkshire Hathaway’s Munger on Cap-and-Trade (”Monstrously Stupid Right Now…Almost Demented”) (h/t: Climate Depot) * The regional director of the Iowa Farm Bureau says there needs to be more “science” behind the EPA’s contention that ethanol is contributing to global warming. * “Cap-and-trade stumbling in D.C.” … * … and “US Democrats backing away from cap and trade” … * … but … “a meeting today of senior White House staff with U.S. Climate Action Partnership, or USCAP- whose members include GE, Duke Energy (DUK), and Caterpillar (CAT)- indicates [cap and trade] is not a dead issue“ * Bjorn Lomborg and global warming: Part 1 * Cap and trade said to only hurt a little bit… * “Chu had better raise his game if he wants to stick in the big leagues.” * The Sierra Club hates all thoughts and sounds related to coal * Cap-and-Trade Means ‘Pre-Industrial Economy’ The True Cost of Global Warming Legislation to be Paid By You IBD reports: “Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, told members of the Senate Finance Committee Thursday that ‘Under a cap-and-trade program, consumers’ — not demonized corporations, we might add — ‘would ultimately bear most of the costs of emission reductions.’ “This is because industry and other groups (hospitals, schools, any institution that discharges carbon), forced under a federal cap-and-trade regime to buy government permits to release CO2, would pass on their costs to consumers. “Cutting carbon emissions by 15% through this method would cost each American household an average of $1,600 a year, the CBO found. In a worst-case scenario, the cost is $2,200 per household.” That’s certainly in line with what we’ve seen in terms of estimates. And — just so that it’s a fair discussion — it’s important that we discuss not just the costs but the benefits. But here’s the thing: there really aren’t any appreciable benefits for that $2,200. Any honest conversant will acknowledge that an America-only carbon capping plan will do virtually nothing for the global greenhouse gas levels. What would your family do with $1,500 or $2,200? Because we’re betting whatever it is, it would be better for you and for the economy to spend that money on something more productive. Numbers Dwindling for Global Warming Alarmists? Michael Barone, the great new addition to the Washington Examiner, has turned his keen political eye on global warming and gun control in his most recent article. On the trend of public opinion and global warming, he writes, things are not going well for the alarmists… “In Texas, ‘Big Oil’ often means small businesses” Last week’s Houston Chronicle had a well-written article about the impact of government regulations on small businesses. Here’s the story of William Whitefield of Whitefield Plastics: “My father, Donald D. Whitefield, broke new ground in the manufacturing industry when he founded Whitefield Plastics more than 47 years ago. His wife’s pots and pans served as his first molds, and his first oven was nothing more than an old refrigerator he converted. Hand-me-down cookware — that’s how Don became the first exclusive producer of castable polyurethane molding in Texas. “Today, I’m honored to fill my father’s shoes, running a family-owned company that now serves a host of national and international oil field, pipeline and industrial clients. However, the latest round of congressional energy plans would hurt local companies like mine on two fronts: increasing the tax burden and limiting production…” Read the whole thing: taxes, offshore drilling restrictions, windfall profits taxes. A Better Way To Go Green: Cut The Red Tape The New York Times is just about the last place you’d expect to get good free market arguments, but the paper has a guest article this morning from former Bush administration lawyer Daniel Price. He writes: “Eliminating tariffs on clean technology goods can help achieve the twin imperatives of economic growth and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The solution lies in the development and deployment of affordable cleaner technologies. “To be sure, tariff cuts alone won’t do it. We need both national legislation and international commitments by all major economies to reduce their emissions. But as a start, President Obama should use his personal popularity with world leaders to call upon his colleagues to join him in tearing down tariff walls.”