Cap and trade sticker shock hits Americans and the weekly Chilling Effect cartoon

Energy and Environment: Around the Interwebs

Examiner editorial: Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme will wreck U.S. economy
‘I’m off the train’– Dem Committee Chairman Vows: ‘I will not support any kind of climate change bill…I’ve had it’
Quote of the week from Watts Up With That?: “looks like I’ve boobed”
Researchers closer to the ultimate green ‘fridge magnet’
Waxman-Markey Bill: It’s Giveaway Time for Emissions Permits
Chamber of Commerce Details Opposition to Waxman-Markey Bill
And, finally, this important video

Heritage on Waxman-Markey, By the Numbers

The spawn of Waxman-Markey was unveiled late last week, but the economic numbers are no less ugly. Heritage Foundation’s new study on the modified climate change bill finds:

The result is government-set caps on energy use that damage the economy and hobble growth–the very growth that supports investment and innovation. Analysis of the economic impact of Waxman-Markey projects that by 2035 the bill will:

* Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $7.4 trillion,

* Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1,900,000 jobs,

* Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation,

* Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent,

* Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent,

* Raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500, and

* Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.

American Families to Congress: No Cap and Trade!

H/T to Iain Murray from The Corner. The only thing dropping faster than global temperature is public support for a cap-and-trade bill. A new national poll expected soon to be online highlights public discontent over congressional climate change efforts:

* 78% of all respondents saying a $50 increase monthly in utility bills would be a hardship. A recent MIT study said household costs could exceed $3000 per year, or 5 times as much overall costs the $50 per month/$600 per year would mean.

* 58% of respondents say they are unwilling to pay any more than they currently pay for electricity to combat climate change.

* Respondents are aware that climate change legislation will likely cause their electricity rates to go up.

* In addition, one-half (50%) of the country opposes enacting a carbon tax to fund energy research, which represents an amazing 49-point shift (22% drop in agree; 27% increase in disagree) away from supporting a carbon tax for energy research in 2007.

* Interest in protecting the environment and fighting climate change has dropped from a low priority (8%) in 2007 to receiving virtually no attention (3%) in 2009.

We'll be sure to keep an eye out for more details on this one...

Our Cash4Gold Congress

If you thought it was impossible to liken our politicians to cheesy Cash4Gold pitchmen, think again. The Washington Examiner was kind enough to run our article, which played off recent news that Democratic leaders are working to offer a voucher for people to trade in their clunkers for newer, greener cars. We argue:

“The business model for the As-Seen-On-TV phenomena is simple: Convince individuals to give up something of value and give back something of considerably less cost. In the marketplace, that cost is often justified through added value. In this instance, the company provides an easy method of liquidating a commodity, gold.

“In the political world, however, there’s a reverse effect. Instead of MC Hammer and Ed McMahon offering to buy your old jewelry for a fraction of the price, it’s Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, and Rep. John Dingell, D-MI, offering to pay more than your clunker’s worth. And hey, who needs catchy pitchmen when you’re throwing around “free” money, right?”

We also discuss green jobs and cap-and-trade legislation: all “green” initiatives that are going to cost us more than they’re worth.

OMG, OMB!

From WSJ’s Washington Wire:

“Republicans pounced Tuesday on a White House document that said regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act “is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.”

“The document, a combination of government agencies’ comments that the Office of Management and Budget sent the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year, presents a grim view of the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Last month, the EPA issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gases “endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”

“Asked about the memo at a Senate hearing Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson emphasized that the agency’s declaration is preliminary and might not lead to regulations. She reiterated the administration’s preference for legislation such as Rep. Henry Waxman’s plan to cap and gradually reduce emissions, while allowing companies to buy and sell emissions permits..

“The OMB memo — marked “Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege” — isn’t dated and doesn’t name an author. OMB Director Peter Orszag said in a statement that the views expressed in the document “came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration.””

See the document here.





	May 18, 2009 Energy and Environment: Around the Interwebs Examiner editorial: Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme will wreck U.S. economy ‘I’m off the train’– Dem Committee Chairman Vows: ‘I will not support any kind of climate change bill…I’ve had it’ Quote of the week from Watts Up With That?: “looks like I’ve boobed” Researchers closer to the ultimate green ‘fridge magnet’ Waxman-Markey Bill: It’s Giveaway Time for Emissions Permits Chamber of Commerce Details Opposition to Waxman-Markey Bill And, finally, this important video Heritage on Waxman-Markey, By the Numbers The spawn of Waxman-Markey was unveiled late last week, but the economic numbers are no less ugly. Heritage Foundation’s new study on the modified climate change bill finds: The result is government-set caps on energy use that damage the economy and hobble growth–the very growth that supports investment and innovation. Analysis of the economic impact of Waxman-Markey projects that by 2035 the bill will: * Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $7.4 trillion, * Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1,900,000 jobs, * Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation, * Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent, * Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent, * Raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500, and * Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation. American Families to Congress: No Cap and Trade! H/T to Iain Murray from The Corner. The only thing dropping faster than global temperature is public support for a cap-and-trade bill. A new national poll expected soon to be online highlights public discontent over congressional climate change efforts: * 78% of all respondents saying a $50 increase monthly in utility bills would be a hardship. A recent MIT study said household costs could exceed $3000 per year, or 5 times as much overall costs the $50 per month/$600 per year would mean. * 58% of respondents say they are unwilling to pay any more than they currently pay for electricity to combat climate change. * Respondents are aware that climate change legislation will likely cause their electricity rates to go up. * In addition, one-half (50%) of the country opposes enacting a carbon tax to fund energy research, which represents an amazing 49-point shift (22% drop in agree; 27% increase in disagree) away from supporting a carbon tax for energy research in 2007. * Interest in protecting the environment and fighting climate change has dropped from a low priority (8%) in 2007 to receiving virtually no attention (3%) in 2009. We'll be sure to keep an eye out for more details on this one... Our Cash4Gold Congress If you thought it was impossible to liken our politicians to cheesy Cash4Gold pitchmen, think again. The Washington Examiner was kind enough to run our article, which played off recent news that Democratic leaders are working to offer a voucher for people to trade in their clunkers for newer, greener cars. We argue: “The business model for the As-Seen-On-TV phenomena is simple: Convince individuals to give up something of value and give back something of considerably less cost. In the marketplace, that cost is often justified through added value. In this instance, the company provides an easy method of liquidating a commodity, gold. “In the political world, however, there’s a reverse effect. Instead of MC Hammer and Ed McMahon offering to buy your old jewelry for a fraction of the price, it’s Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, and Rep. John Dingell, D-MI, offering to pay more than your clunker’s worth. And hey, who needs catchy pitchmen when you’re throwing around “free” money, right?” We also discuss green jobs and cap-and-trade legislation: all “green” initiatives that are going to cost us more than they’re worth. OMG, OMB! From WSJ’s Washington Wire: “Republicans pounced Tuesday on a White House document that said regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act “is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.” “The document, a combination of government agencies’ comments that the Office of Management and Budget sent the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year, presents a grim view of the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Last month, the EPA issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gases “endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.” “Asked about the memo at a Senate hearing Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson emphasized that the agency’s declaration is preliminary and might not lead to regulations. She reiterated the administration’s preference for legislation such as Rep. Henry Waxman’s plan to cap and gradually reduce emissions, while allowing companies to buy and sell emissions permits.. “The OMB memo — marked “Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege” — isn’t dated and doesn’t name an author. OMB Director Peter Orszag said in a statement that the views expressed in the document “came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the Administration.”” See the document here.