| Here they go
again — our faithful representatives in Washington,
that is. They're about to pass, without reading its
1,200-plus pages, an incredibly expensive and
destructive cap-and-trade bill, which has little
prayer of accomplishing what it sets out to
accomplish but satisfies their urgent need to pay
homage to their liberal ideology and secular
humanist worldview.
Do you remember when President Barack Obama was
forced to give an answer to justify his advocacy of
a capital gains tax increase in view of such taxes'
history of actually decreasing revenues? The revenue
reductions are worth it because it's a matter of
"fairness," he said. Spread the misery. Likewise,
with cap-and-trade, Obama and his congressional
cohorts will wreak untold destruction on the economy
and get little benefit in return.
I'm not exaggerating here. Doesn't it make sense
that before enacting legislation to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions for the purpose of reducing
man-made global warming, Congress would investigate
whether significant man-made global warming is
occurring (as opposed to watching Al Gore's
propaganda film and simply declaring, by fiat, that
scientists have reached a consensus on the issue
when they clearly have not)?
And if, after a thorough and balanced inquiry,
they determine that it is occurring, shouldn't they
next examine whether their proposed legislative
remedy is likely to significantly ameliorate the
problem?
But they not only have not conducted a bona fide
examination of the man-made warming issue but also
have not attempted to examine, in any remotely
scientific way, how much their proposed bill would
reduce global warming (assuming it exists to the
extent they contend) or whether any such reductions
would make any difference at all to humanity's
short- or long-term health or happiness or anything
else.
All of this would be outrageous enough if there
were no economic costs associated with their
proposal. But in fact, the costs would be
astronomical and way beyond the calculations they
are presenting — fraudulently — to the American
people to stunt the opposition they'd encounter if
the truth were revealed.
The truth is that there is no crisis, and all the
hysteria they're generating is solely for the
purpose of ramrodding this odious bill through
Congress before the public realizes it has, once
again, been duped and betrayed.
The Heritage Foundation's senior policy analyst
for energy and environment, Ben Lieberman, has
produced a stellar paper on these questions —
reproduced from his remarks at The Heartland
Institute's Third International Conference on
Climate Change on June 2.
Let me share a few of the highlights and
encourage you to read the rest of his report — and
others like it — online.
Based on available evidence and analysis,
Lieberman concludes "that both the seriousness and
imminence of anthropogenic global warming has been
overstated." But even if we assume the problem is as
bad as the hysterics claim, the proposed bill "would
have a trivial impact on future concentrations of
greenhouse gases. … (It) would reduce the earth's
future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree C by 2100,
an amount too small to even notice." The bill would
bind only the U.S., not other nations, many of
which, like China, are "polluting" at a record pace.
Also note that many European nations that have
already imposed similar emissions restrictions have
seen their emissions rise.
But what would the costs be for this quixotic
legislative paean to earth goddess Gaia? Contrary to
the flawed analyses being advanced by the bill's
proponents, Heritage estimates that the direct costs
would be an average of $829 per year for a household
of four, totaling $20,000 between 2012 and 2035. But
when considering the total cost as reflected in the
cost of allocations and offsets, the average cost to
that family unit would be $2,979 annually from 2012
to 2035. Adding insult and hypocrisy to injury, the
bill would hurt the poor the worst because they
would bear a disproportionate burden of the higher
energy costs the bill would trigger.
Now here's the kicker. The bill is also projected
to harm the manufacturing sector and cause estimated
"net" job losses, averaging about 1.15 million
between 2012 and 2030. The overall gross domestic
product losses would average $393 billion per year
from 2012 to 2035, and the cumulative loss in gross
domestic product would be $9.4 trillion by 2035. The
national debt for a family of four would increase by
$115,000 by 2035.
Enough already. Throw the bums out.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and
attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and
Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" was
released recently in paperback. To find out more
about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at
www.DavidLimbaugh.com.
© 2009 Creator's Syndicate Inc. |