Even though no one expects it to become law this year, a desperate effort is underway to enact the so-called "Climate Security Act", the brainchild of Senators Lieberman and Warner. As I have written before, among other horrors it would impose "cap-and-trade" mandates on anything that generates carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and that pretty much includes everything in our daily lives from electricity to cars.
Every time the words "security" or "independence" appear in the title of a Democrat sponsored bill (and I consider Joe Lieberman a Democrat even though the Democrat party threw him under the bus), you can be sure neither security nor independence are involved. You may recall the "Energy Security and Independence Act" passed into law not long ago did not provide security or independence, just a mandate to use compact fluorescent bulbs instead of the ones like Thomas Edison invented.
The same thing will happen after the Lieberman-Warner bill becomes law, not in this administration but surely the next. Just what "climate security" is remains an unanswerable question. The bill being discussed this week is based on the hopelessly false premise that mankind actually has the ability to change the planet’s climate in one way or another. If we really had such power wouldn’t we dispense with hurricanes, tornados, droughts and other nasty weather conditions? Why stop at changing the earth’s temperature?
What these political global warming useful idiots ignore is the earth is actually in a cooling cycle that even government agencies have acknowledged. Furthermore the simple scientific truth is that the earth’s atmosphere contains 0.038% carbon dioxide and water vapor makes up most of the rest. If the earth is warming, and obviously it has not during the last decade, any role played by carbon dioxide is negligible. But of course the politicos and leftists won’t accept that because their entire agenda depends on selling it to a gullible public.
Not long ago more than 31,000 real scientists, not the political kind, signed petitions declaring global warming to be a hoax; over 9,000 of them were PhDs and all of them were ignored.
It seems the only opposition in congress, such as it is, concerns the costs of implementing the Lieberman-Warner bill rather than on questioning the basic premise of the global warming claimants. Although the economic arguments are sound, it is incredible that even opponents are fearful of challenging the idea that discussion on the merits is closed because of the political ramifications of telling the world the Emperor has no clothes.
It is of course true that the costs of combating global warming by implementing Lieberman-Warner are high. A study by the Heritage Foundation predicts the following:
"The impact on the economy would be horrendous. Heritage estimates that cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of at least $1.7 trillion that could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars)."
"Single-year GDP losses of at least $155 billion could exceed $500 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars)."
"Annual job losses that would exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could exceed a million."
"The annual cost of emission permits to energy users to cost at least $100 billion by 2020."
"The average household will pay $467 more each year for its natural gas and electricity (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). That means that the average household will spend an additional $8,870 to purchase energy over the period 2012 to 2030."
It is absolutely amazing that congress thinks it is sound to destroy our economy in the name of the false premise behind the impetus for enacting some kind of law to be in lock-step with the international community and avoid their political slings and arrows. Just as we are trying to recover from the sub prime mortgage debacle and are facing huge increases in the price of gasoline (don’t tell me it's still cheaper than in Europe, we can do better than that if left to our own devices), we will be hugely burdened by taxes placed on productive business fulfilling basic living needs.
It is common for law makers to ignore the will of the majority of voters who put them in office; the illegal immigration and border issues being just one example. But the fact is that a majority of Americans also oppose the higher energy costs that Lieberman-Warner would impose. A press release from the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) reported a poll that found 65% of Americans reject spending even a penny more for gasoline in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The number rejecting raising gas prices in an effort to combat global warming has increased by 17 percentage points -- or 35% -- in just over two months since the previous poll in February. An additional 13% oppose spending more than 5% more for gasoline (at $4 a gallon that’s just 20 cents) to attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Regarding electricity costs, the NCPPR found that 71% of Americans reject spending more for electricity at all, and16% opposing spending any more than 12% extra for electricity.
[The National Center is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation based in Washington, DC established in 1982. It is an independent foundation; approximately 99% of its funding comes from some 72,000 active donors. The poll referenced here was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies, which surveyed 802 people who are likely to vote in the 2008 general elections. It included 37% registered Democrats, 30% Independents and 29% Republicans. It has a margin of error of +-3.46% at 95% confidence interval.]
The Lieberman-Warner bill if enacted into law would increase petroleum prices by 5.9% by 2015, according to Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions but other studies indicate prices would increase even more.
The American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers jointly conducted a study which estimated that the Lieberman-Warner bill would increase electricity prices by between 13% and 14% by 2014. Other economic studies indicate that Lieberman-Warner would push electricity costs even higher.
When gasoline and electricity price increases are taken together, 90% of Americans reject Lieberman-Warner's costs -- even the low-range of the projected costs.
As incredible as it sounds that 90% of Americans reject the Lieberman-Warner plan's costs, according to the National Center the actual number who reject it may be even higher. Electricity and gasoline price hikes are only two of the costs of this bill.
David A. Ridenour, vice president of NCPPR said:
"The price for food and consumer goods would also be pushed higher and many Americans would lose their jobs. You can't merely accept energy price increases and opt out of all the other costs. As amazing as it is that 90% of the public agrees on anything, is the fact that all three of the major presidential candidates -- Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama -- favor a proposal the public appears to be almost unanimously against. Americans oppose Warner-Lieberman".
Ridenour noted three separate studies were conducted with some predicting somewhat lower cost increases but he added "Just 6% would be willing to accept the gasoline and electricity price increase ranges forecast by any of the three studies."
The Lieberman-Warner plan would increase petroleum prices by 5.9% by 2015, according to Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. Other studies indicate the plan would drive prices even higher. The survey also found that 71% of Americans reject spending more for electricity, with 16% opposing spending any more than 12% extra for electricity to "cure" global warming.
These estimated, but realistic, costs form the basis of the current opposition to Lieberman-Warner. However, Lieberman-Warner should fail not only because of the outrageous impact on our country's economy, but because it is a product of one of the greatest frauds in the history of the world; it ranks right up there with communism and other schemes in the socialist Pandora's