George Porter is a fellow columnist at The Duncan Banner.
This well written column desires wide distribution.
Global warming and fiscal reality
by George Porter
by George Porter
The Senate was to take up a cap-and-trade greenhouse gasses reduction bill last week, but gas prices around $4 a gallon helped defeat the measure before it got started. Only 48 senators voted to bring the issue up for a vote – 12 shy of the 60 needed. The Lieberman-Warner bill had no chance of being passed this year, and President Bush had promised to veto any cap-and-trade bill that might reach his desk. But backers had hoped to elevate carbon dioxide reduction as a major campaign issue and for the passage of a bill in 2009 under an Obama or McCain administration.
Both McCain and Obama have endorsed cap-and-trade greenhouse gas reduction legislation, but their proposals differ widely and this difference needs far greater publicity than the media has so far provided.
Under cap-and-trade, the government sets emission standards and issues permits at no charge to companies that produce greenhouse gas emissions. Those companies that are able to produce less greenhouse gasses than they have permits for may sell the permits to companies that would otherwise exceed the government imposed limits. This is how western European nations have operated under the Kyoto treaty.
The McCain plan essentially copies the European system. Obama proposes to auction these permits to the highest bidder, which would bring in an estimated $7 trillion to the U.S. treasury by 2050. That $7 trillion is a tax on business that would have to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report stated: “Most of the cost of meeting the cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. These prices would be regressive in that poorer households would have a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households.”
Senator Jim Inhofe in an op/ed in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) commented we don’t need a climate tax on the poor, citing that while most Americans spend about 4 percent of their incomes on heating their homes or other energy needs, the poorest fifth of Americans spend 19 percent.
How to spend this $7 trillion of new tax revenue is the new game for Washington politicians, and this would be the largest redistribution system since the adoption of the income tax in 1913.
Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Clinton, had a novel recommendation in the June 4 WSJ – to return all the new revenue to every adult citizen in the form of a check from the U.S. Treasury. If in the first year the revenue were $150 billion, each of the 150 million adult citizens would receive a check for $1,000. If that revenue were 300 billion, the check would be for $2,000. An IRS that pays you annually, based solely on what companies have paid the government for greenhouse gas emission permits!
Problem is, more and more scientists are speaking out – there is no scientific basis to believe changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming. Other non man-made factors determine the earth’s warming and cooler patterns.
Further, most of the recent growth in CO2 emissions comes from rapidly expanding economies in China, India and Brazil. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lieberman-Warner would reduce world levels of CO2 by 2050 by only 1.4 percent if the U.S. were to act alone.
A June 7 WSJ column reported on the recently concluded Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Conference, where about 50 leading world economists including five Nobel laureates ranked about forty of the world’s problems that could be fixed with an “extra” $75 billion spread over four years. Supplements of vitamin A and zinc for the world’s undernourished children ranked first – with an annual cost of $60 million yielding benefits in health and cognitive development of over $1 billion.
The entire rankings are receiving world media coverage. It is irritating to some that global warming as a world problem came in dead last on this list. The report of the Copenhagen Conference 2008 concludes the cost is astronomical for an insignificant reduction in temperature.
Inhofe is a leading opponent of the global warming alarmists, and concluded his WSJ column “Tomorrow’s energy mix must include more natural gas, wind and geothermal, but it must also include more oil, coal and nuclear power – which is the world’s largest source of emission-free energy. Developing and expanding domestic energy sources will translate into energy security and ensure stable supplies and well-paying jobs for Americans.”
The debate on greenhouse gas emission will return to the Senate in 2009. It first came up when the Kyoto protocol was being drafted in the 1990’s, and the Senate voted 98 to 0 against considering the treaty. Last week they again voted not to consider. Next year may be the third straight loss for environmental alarmists as the world continues its’ present cooling trend.
George Porter is a retired insurance company executive and a Duncan Banner columnist. He may be reached at geo.porter@att.net
Both McCain and Obama have endorsed cap-and-trade greenhouse gas reduction legislation, but their proposals differ widely and this difference needs far greater publicity than the media has so far provided.
Under cap-and-trade, the government sets emission standards and issues permits at no charge to companies that produce greenhouse gas emissions. Those companies that are able to produce less greenhouse gasses than they have permits for may sell the permits to companies that would otherwise exceed the government imposed limits. This is how western European nations have operated under the Kyoto treaty.
The McCain plan essentially copies the European system. Obama proposes to auction these permits to the highest bidder, which would bring in an estimated $7 trillion to the U.S. treasury by 2050. That $7 trillion is a tax on business that would have to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report stated: “Most of the cost of meeting the cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. These prices would be regressive in that poorer households would have a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households.”
Senator Jim Inhofe in an op/ed in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) commented we don’t need a climate tax on the poor, citing that while most Americans spend about 4 percent of their incomes on heating their homes or other energy needs, the poorest fifth of Americans spend 19 percent.
How to spend this $7 trillion of new tax revenue is the new game for Washington politicians, and this would be the largest redistribution system since the adoption of the income tax in 1913.
Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Clinton, had a novel recommendation in the June 4 WSJ – to return all the new revenue to every adult citizen in the form of a check from the U.S. Treasury. If in the first year the revenue were $150 billion, each of the 150 million adult citizens would receive a check for $1,000. If that revenue were 300 billion, the check would be for $2,000. An IRS that pays you annually, based solely on what companies have paid the government for greenhouse gas emission permits!
Problem is, more and more scientists are speaking out – there is no scientific basis to believe changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming. Other non man-made factors determine the earth’s warming and cooler patterns.
Further, most of the recent growth in CO2 emissions comes from rapidly expanding economies in China, India and Brazil. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lieberman-Warner would reduce world levels of CO2 by 2050 by only 1.4 percent if the U.S. were to act alone.
A June 7 WSJ column reported on the recently concluded Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Conference, where about 50 leading world economists including five Nobel laureates ranked about forty of the world’s problems that could be fixed with an “extra” $75 billion spread over four years. Supplements of vitamin A and zinc for the world’s undernourished children ranked first – with an annual cost of $60 million yielding benefits in health and cognitive development of over $1 billion.
The entire rankings are receiving world media coverage. It is irritating to some that global warming as a world problem came in dead last on this list. The report of the Copenhagen Conference 2008 concludes the cost is astronomical for an insignificant reduction in temperature.
Inhofe is a leading opponent of the global warming alarmists, and concluded his WSJ column “Tomorrow’s energy mix must include more natural gas, wind and geothermal, but it must also include more oil, coal and nuclear power – which is the world’s largest source of emission-free energy. Developing and expanding domestic energy sources will translate into energy security and ensure stable supplies and well-paying jobs for Americans.”
The debate on greenhouse gas emission will return to the Senate in 2009. It first came up when the Kyoto protocol was being drafted in the 1990’s, and the Senate voted 98 to 0 against considering the treaty. Last week they again voted not to consider. Next year may be the third straight loss for environmental alarmists as the world continues its’ present cooling trend.
George Porter is a retired insurance company executive and a Duncan Banner columnist. He may be reached at geo.porter@att.net
Wallbuilders has an excellent article on this issue. Click on link to read: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/05/07/environmentalists_wild_predictions
No comments:
Post a Comment