Subscribe to RSS via Email:

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

YouCMSAndBlog Module Generator Wizard Plugin

Syndicate

Cap-And-Trade Folly Print E-mail
Written by INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY   
Friday, 16 May 2008
 

Climate Change: Legislation pending in the Senate might warm environmentalists' hearts, but not because of potential cuts in carbon emissions. Their interest is in the heavy economic costs the plans would inflict.

Each bill uses the cap-and-trade scheme to control carbon dioxide emissions. Each establishes limits, then prescribes how to distribute or sell to the private sector the rights to emit specific amounts of greenhouse gases under the cap.

The bill sponsored by Sens. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., is the least egregious. It would force greenhouse gas emissions to be cut to about 3% below last year's level.

The others, one from Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Independent from Connecticut, and Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, another from Lieberman and Sen. John Warner, Republican of Virginia, are more draconian. The former would cut emissions to 16% below the 2007 output, the latter 44%.

None would affect climate change. All, however, would carry heavy economic losses. Naturally, the environmentalists, having pushed the environment down their list of concerns, like that.

It's no surprise that the most expensive of the three is the Warner-Lieberman bill. The Environmental Protection Agency reckons it could cost as much as $3 trillion a year in lost GDP. In an economy of roughly $14 trillion, that's a significant loss.

But even the Bingaman-Specter legislation, the least costly of the three, would hit the economy for about $1 trillion a year.

Much of the pain would be caused by increases in gasoline and electricity prices. The Science Applications International Corporation calculates that Lieberman-Warner by 2030 would boost gasoline prices from 60% to 144% while electricity prices would be up 77% to 129%.

Hit hardest by higher energy prices: The poor. The National Center for Policy Analysis points out that energy costs consume 15% of the poorest households' income while the average household spends 3% on energy. Who is going to feel the pinch more?

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that even a 15% reduction in carbon emissions by 2010 — a third of the cut required by Lieberman-Warner — through a cap-and-trade scheme would trim the disposable income of the poor by an additional 3.3%. The hit for the richest Americans: 1.7%.

All this economic wreckage done in the name of reducing environmentally benign greenhouse gases by men who should know better — and likely do. But they have politics to think about, as well as invitations to Georgetown cocktail parties that probably are not being sent to GOP Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, who in his skepticism of global warming is performing a valuable public service.   Source

Quote this article on your site

Users' Comments  
 

Average user rating

 

No comment posted

Add your comment



mXcomment 1.0.8 © 2007-2008 - visualclinic.fr
License Creative Commons - Some rights reserved
< Prev   Next >

Need to log in? Not registered?