We’ve growled on several occasions about global warming, or climate change if you prefer the latest word du jour, including January 20, 2009, January 16, 2009, November 17, 2008, August 18, 2008, July 15, 2008, and April 22, 2008.
Before discussing the so-called “cap-and-trade” legislation now on a fast-track in Congress, let me first address the scientific side of global warming. There are many sources for “warming skeptics,” but the SEPP (Science & Environmental Policy Project) website is one that I regularly frequent. It was founded by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer.
In the book, “Unstoppable Every 1,500 Years Global Warming,” Dr. Singer wrote with Dennis Avery, and updated and expanded in 2008, the authors write in the dedication:
“The public has remained virtually unaware that the 1,500-year cycle offers the only explanation for the modern warming that is supported by physical evidence.”
And in August 2008, Dr. Singer wrote: “Climate will continue to change -- as it always has -- both warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, completely unrelated to any human action. I will also argue that, should it occur, a modest warming on the whole is beneficial.”
The Congress, under Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) and Ed Markey (D-Mass), “have modified their cap-and-trade global warming bill, but that’s not good news. The new legislation will increase U.S. economic losses by $2 trillion,” according to an editorial in today's Investor's Business Dailyl, which goes on to say:
“As energy prices rise, income and employment will fall. Because families will spend larger portions of their incomes on energy — as much as $1,500 a year for a typical family of four — they will have less to spend on basic needs, less to invest, less to buy luxury items. (emphasis added)
“Economic activity won't be wiped out by the higher energy costs. But it will be severely jarred. The White House itself, through the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, concedes that restricting carbon emissions "is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy."
“It's conceivable that a cap-and-trade regime — or a carbon tax, which would likely generate similar GDP losses — could create permanent economic stagnation.
“Economies grow best when the tax burden is low. But economies are handicapped when the burden is high, and cap-and-trade (indirectly) and a carbon tax (directly) increase that burden. As Myron Ebell, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's director of energy and global warming policy, noted, this would be the "biggest tax increase in history.
"It's alarming that the economic problems that will be created by CO2 emission restrictions mean nothing to the global warming bill's sponsors and those who'll support it. They know carbon caps will carry heavy costs. Yet they traffic in the myth that such legislation will create "green" jobs and revive the economy."
Let’s bring the economic costs down to a family level. According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, published May 13, 2009, “The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. Waxman-Markey drives up the national debt 29 percent by 2035. This is 29 percent above what it would be without the legislation and represents an additional $33,400 per person, or more than $133,000 for a family of four. To reiterate, these burdens come after adjusting for inflation and are in addition to the $450,000 per family of federal debt that will accrue over this period even without cap and trade.” And here’s that statement in chart form (emphasis added):
Your representatives in Congress need to hear from you. You can send them e-mail by using the following “Web Forms” or phone them on Capital Hill at (202) 224-3121.
IBD and Heritage Foundation have other articles and studies on global warming, not to mention other warming skeptic websites that are available.