RSS
Home
The staggering economic costs of cap and trade — in Obama's own words
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
In light of President Obama's own words about the high energy costs associated with his cap and trade bill, let's perform a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis of the proposed legislation.
Let's suspend our disbelief and all the recent accumulated scientific evidence that exposes the fraudulent theory of climate change and assume, for the moment, that global warming is indeed caused by man-made activity. What practical effect will the draconian energy rationing envisaged by the massive cap and trade bill have on reducing CO2 levels worldwide?
The answer, is absolutely nothing. Firstly, since two of the world's biggest polluters, China and India, are beyond the reach of the proposed cap and trade legislation, these countries will continue to spew massive amounts of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. India has expressed no desire to hamstring its economy with Kyoto protocol cap and trade restrictions.
Secondly, even if all the target CO2 emissions reduction levels anticipated by the legislation were met, the net effect of these lower levels would be negligible on lowering worldwide temperatures. As Peter Ferara of the American Spectator notes:
But even if the bill works exactly as envisioned, the most radical environmentalists admit that it will only slow temperature increases by 2050 by a ridiculous 9/100th of one degree Fahrenheit! Even after all the costs of reducing the use of fossil fuels by 83%, that is all that would result.
But not to worry, President Barack Obama and his global warming sidekick, eco-messiah Al Gore, have decreed the "science is settled." So who are you going to believe? Two politicians, or actual atmospheric observations that have contradicted the temperature predictions of computer model simulations of the IPCC?
The Charles River Associates, a Harvard based economics consulting firm, estimates a net loss of jobs from the bill of about 2.5 million each year. But this should be no cause for concern since Nancy Pelosi has assured us that this bill is about, "jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs", ostensibly to be created from alternative energy sources, for which at present, there is no commercially feasibly technology sufficient with which to propel our automobiles and other transportation vehicles from wind or solar power.
What possible justification could there be for enacting into law punitive measures aimed at the American consumer's use of carbon based energy sources that in the end, will have no impact on global warming?
Ask your Congressman who voted for this mindless, economically deleterious legislation.
Related Articles:
Comments
