"With all the irrefutable evidence we now have corroborating that climate change is real, dangerous, and proceeding faster than many scientists predicted, this is the year for Congress to move this critical legislation. If we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation."
And so, on December 5, 2007, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) was approved 11-8 by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
This was not the first senate effort to legalize the global warming hoax but it is the first to have a chance of passage. Likely success is assured because it is labeled ‘bipartisan’ and has the support of numerous Republican senators who are also taken in by the socialist/liberal agenda to reshape the United States by diminishing our quality of life and bring America down to if not the lowest common denominator, one close to it.
In January , 2007, a global warming bill was introduced by Senators Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer (good socialist/liberals) along with nine other senators which would set targets to cut the alleged “heat-trapping pollution that causes global warming” (‘The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act’). Its intention was to freeze global warming emissions in 2010 and then gradually cut emissions each year, reaching about 83 percent below current levels in the year 2050 (80 percent below 1990 levels). The ‘cost’ in impact on Americans’ lives would be devastating. Two years ago the McCain-Lieberman bill was introduced but that was voted down by the senate. It seems with each passing year new ‘solutions’ to ‘man-made’ global warming are produced with ever-expanding ‘costs’ and the likelihood of passage increases with the cost to Americans.
Here is what Senator Inhofe, one of the few Republican senators resisting the surge to protect the planet:
“We have had approximately 20 climate hearings on the impacts of climate change, but none on so called ‘solutions.’ Differing approaches to reducing emissions were never discussed. Instead, the Committee rushed to a single approach, without the aid of government analyses. Within seven years, electricity prices are estimated to skyrocket 35 to 65 percent and will have a huge economic hit on households. These costs are far greater than the McCain-Lieberman bill that was voted down by the Senate two years ago. Additionally, the poor will be the hardest hit as they pay about five times more per month, as a percentage of their monthly expenditures, compared to wealthier Americans. By 2015 this bill is estimated to cost up to 2.3 million jobs, and these lost jobs will go to China, India, and other emerging nations without carbon limits.”
Studies by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) issued February 19, 2008 analyze the economic costs of the Lieberman/Warner Climate Security Act (S.2191) at the state and household level for the 19 states and for the USA as a whole. They report the bill would enforce a nationwide cap and trade program for the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Here is a summary of the results stated by the ACCF (and taken from the report) based on current projections of baseline greenhouse gas emissions and other recently passed legislation which are incorporated into the analysis (1). Among the findings directly from the report are:
- Energy prices would rise
- Higher energy costs would reduce jobs
- Household income would fall as energy and other prices rise
- Economic growth would slow
- Higher energy prices would reduce jobs
"The United States would lose 3.7 million jobs in 2020 and 13.1 million jobs by 2050 relative to the baseline forecast (in other words, what would happen without cap and trade or carbon tax legislation).
Household income falls as energy and other prices rise
Costs per household rise over time as emission caps become more difficult to meet. Relative to its current real spending power (year 2010), an average house hold would lose, 760 per year in 2020, rising to $3,476 by 2050 (2).
Energy prices rise
Prices rise because the additional cost of carbon emissions directly impacts the prices paid by consumers for energy. It is estimated U.S. consumers will have to pay 49% more for natural gas and 30% more for retail gasoline by 2020. By the year 2050, those prices will be twice those of the baseline. The wholesale price of electricity rises by 94% relative to the baseline in 2020. Households and businesses will pay more at the retail level.
Why do electricity prices rise?
Electricity prices rise between 2010 and 2020 for two primary reasons: 1) the L/W bill adds a cost for emitting CO2, and 2) there is a related shift away from coal-fired generation (53% decrease by 2020) to higher cost natural gas-fired generation (97% increase by 2020). In the long term, however, natural gas-fired generation falls to 90% below the 2020 level as coal-fired generators equipped with carbon capture and storage replace more carbon-emitting natural gas.
Economic growth would slow
The loss in the gross national product (GNP) causes the U.S. economy to grow more slowly over time, falling to 2.6% below the baseline forecast in 2020. GSP will remain well below baseline levels after 2020 unless new, affordable GHG-control technologies become available over time.
Most industries suffer losses in production
The output of goods and services would decline in almost all U.S. industries. The largest sector, services, falls almost 1% by 2020 relative to the baseline. The greatest impacts are on the electricity and oil sectors, which decline 17% and 21% respectively by 2020. There is a small gain in the gas industry by 2020 that is significantly reduced by 2030. The U.S. agriculture sector’s output falls 3% by 2020."
"1 These are preliminary results using the MRN-NEEM model that Dr. Anne Smith used as the basis of her November 8, 2007 testimony to the Senate EPW Committee concerning the costs and impacts of S.2191. The results\summarized above reflect provisions of S.2191 as it was reported out of the EPW Committee; as originally introduced. For more information on the model, see http://www.crai.com/pubs/pub_7748.pdf
2 All dollar figures in this summary are presented in constant 2007 dollars."
It should be clear from the report summary above, the projected increases in U.S. population and energy use will make GHG emission reductions unlikely since more people means more energy needed for home heating and cooling, job growth, transportation, etc.
Forecasts of baseline covered emissions show emissions growing by 30 percent from 2012 to 2030. Sharp cutbacks in U.S. energy use would be necessary to close the 55 percent gap in 2030 between projected emissions and the Lieberman-Warner bill target. To meet the emission reduction targets in S. 2191, U.S. per capita emissions would have to fall by 50 percent from 2000 to 2030.
The bill’s required reductions in per capita emissions are about 25 to 35 times greater than what occurred from 1990 to 2000. Technologies do not exist to reduce emissions over the next 17 years by the amounts mandated in S .2191 without severely reducing the growth in the U.S. economy and in employment.
Contrary to the popular belief, and the premise of the Lieberman-Warner bill, that the European Union's Emission Trading System is a model for the U.S., the cap and trade approach of Kyoto Protocol isn't working as reported by the EU's own data. Europe has negligible population growth so the EU-15 countries are having extreme difficulty meeting their targets.
I have found in researching this subject that the European Environmental Agency's latest projections show that without strong new measures, the EU-15's greenhouse gas emissions will be 7.4 percent above 1990 levels in 2010 which is far short of the 8 percent below required by Kyoto. These EU countries would have to pay an extremely high economic cost to meet their emission reduction target as much as 3 percent of GDP by 2010, according to economic research firm Global Insight, Inc.; and yet that is what the Lieberman-Warner 'Climate Security Act' would do to us.
If you want to read what some other misguided senators, and the usual suspects, said about this subject, continue on below (do so at your own risk of getting ill); but you will likely lose respect for these folks unless you have also bought into the global warming hoax.
"The science is clear and compelling -- we must act to control and reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said Senator Harkin. "This bill is an excellent starting point for formulating a national climate change strategy. I am especially pleased that it recognizes the critical role that the agricultural sector can play in that strategy through reductions in farm emissions and sequestration of carbon in soils."
"The solution to this serious problem is not inaction," said Senator Elizabeth Dole. "We must ensure clean air for future generations, and this is a responsible, market-driven approach that strengthens our economy, competitiveness and security."
"Climate change is one of the most daunting challenges we face and we must develop reasonable solutions to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. That is why I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act. This bi-partisan bill presents a practical, economically-sound approach to reducing America's greenhouse gas emissions 70 percent over 2005 levels by 2050," said Senator Susan Collins.
Several key environmental groups, companies, and other organizations, including the National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense and the National Resources Defense Council, have unsurprisingly also expressed support for the Lieberman-Warner bill.
Larry Schweiger, President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation:
"This is a bipartisan breakthrough on global warming that takes us a giant step closer to a historic vote in the United States Senate. I commend Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner for drafting a strong bill to protect wildlife from global warming."
John Rowe, Chairman and CEO, Exelon Corporation:
"As an early and vocal advocate for climate change legislation, Exelon applauds the bipartisan leadership of Senators Lieberman and Warner to introduce a bill that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions to address global warming as soon as possible. The legislation represents another important step towards developing the bipartisan consensus necessary to enact legislation this Congress. We are especially pleased that the bill recognizes the need to protect electricity consumers by allocating part of the allowances to local utilities for the benefit of their customers."
Steve Cochran, National Climate Campaign Director, Environmental Defense:
"Lieberman and Warner have paved the way for a historic committee vote on a bill that promises to make great strides toward climate security and economic growth. Thanks to their thoughtful approach we're moving beyond talk and quickly toward action."
Steven Kline, Vice President for Corporate Environmental and Federal Affairs, PGE Corp:
"We believe America's Climate Security Act provides a solid starting point for constructively advancing a comprehensive, national response to and policy on climate change. Senators Lieberman and Warner have developed a thoughtful proposal that recognizes the urgent need for action by designing a program to achieve significant emission reductions from all sectors of the economy. The bill includes provisions that prioritize energy efficiency and technology development and deployment, as well as innovative ideas to protect electricity consumers, manage overall program costs, and provide states with the resources to help address the unique needs of their communities and citizens as we transition to a low-carbon economy and adapt to a changing environment. America's Climate Security Act takes significant steps toward recognizing that a national program must balance the economic, technology, and environmental challenges of combating climate change."
Frances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council:
"The introduction and planned markup of America's Climate Security Act by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) represents an important step forward in the overdue process to enact comprehensive, mandatory global warming legislation. Committee consideration of this legislation will help move us toward the substantial reductions in global warming pollution we need to protect our climate. The bill also recognizes the need to direct proceeds from the pollution allowance market to important policy objectives, including promoting clean energy solutions, protecting the poor and other consumers, ensuring a just transition for workers in affected industries, and preventing impacts abroad that lead to conflicts and threats to security."
The Members of the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies:
"[O]ur organizations, representing millions of American sportsmen and sportswomen, thank you again for working with us to help address the challenge of climate change by both reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and providing important new resources to assist fish and wildlife survive in the face of this unprecedented challenge."