| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| The Costs of the Cap-and-Trade Bill |
| 2009-07-02 |
| On June 25, the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate stabilization act, which would institute a cap-and-trade system to restrict Americans carbon emissions. While proponents of the bill have sought to argue that the costs of such a system would be negligible, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the bill proposes a massive and highly regressive tax on the U.S. economy, and could potentially cause not only extensive business failures, unemployment and privation within our borders, but starvation among poorer populations elsewhere. To understand this, it is only necessary to look at the numbers. According to a report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in April, by 2015 the price of carbon emission indulgences required by the bill for industries to operate could be expected to run between $13 and $17 per ton of CO2 emitted. It may be noted that this estimate was made by an Obama administration agency highly favorable to the bill and that it did not take into account the very real possibility that speculators might act aggressively to buy up all the available indulgences and then, acting like ticket scalpers, force industrial users to purchase them at greatly inflated prices. So these EPA figures for carbon emission costs should be viewed as minimal. That said, lets stipulate the $15/ton midrange of the EPA estimate, and see what it implies. The United States emits about 9 billion tons of CO2 per year. Therefore, at a rate of $15/ton fee for emission indulgences, the bill would impose a tax of $135 billion per year on the nation. Divided by the U.S. population of 300 million, that works out to a cost of $450 per year levied on every American man, woman or child, or $1,800 for a family of four. While for wealthy individuals like Al Gore such an impost might represent a mere pittance, for working families struggling hard to make ends meet it would be a very significant burden. But that is not even the worst part of it. As a result of the markup of carbon costs, a lot of those working families will be out of work and unable to pay their existing bills, let alone new ones. Consider: Burning one ton of coal produces about three tons of CO2. So a tax of $15 per ton of CO2 emitted is equivalent to a tax of $45/ton on coal. The price of Eastern anthracite coal runs in the neighborhood of $45/ton, so under the proposed system, such coal would be taxed at a rate of about 100 percent. The price of Western bituminous coal is currently about $12/ton. This coal would therefore be taxed at a rate of almost 400 percent. Coal provides half of Americas electricity, so such extraordinary imposts could easily double the electric bills paid by consumers and businesses across half the nation. In addition, many businesses, such as the metals and chemical industries, use a great deal of coal directly. By doubling or potentially even quadrupling the cost of their most basic feedstock, the cap-and-trade systems indulgence fees could make many such businesses uncompetitive and ultimately throw millions of working men and women onto the unemployment line |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #10 I'm going to copy that into my PalmPilot to take everywhere with me, Black Bart Ebberens7700. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-07-02 23:52 |
| #9 How to quickly end an argument with a global warming zealot. Simply state that you don’t debate religion, and if you’re to be expected to treat it like science, your green friend has to do so first. They can accomplish this by answering three simple questions: 1) Given the age of the planet and how widely the temperature has fluctuated over time, what is the ideal temperature that the Earth must be, and how will we maintain it over time? 2) One of the foundations of scientific theory is that it stands up to defeating theories that prove it wrong. We’ve heard how shrinking glaciers prove global warming, growing glaciers prove global warming, more storms prove global warming, and fewer storms prove global warming. What events prove their theories false? 3) Every few years a new threat comes along that threatens our very existence unless drastic action is taken yesterday. Of course, the media provides sensational screaming headlines backed up by irrefutable scientific evidence to promote these scares. Off of the top of my head here are a few from the last 40 years: * Population would outgrow food supply causing mass starvation * Oil reserves would be depleted by 1980 * Global Cooling * Dioxin threatened us all (until it was discovered a pint of Ben & Jerry’s contains 3,000 times the “safe” level) * Oil reserves would be depleted by 2000 * The hole in the ozone layer would continue to grow at an exponential rate Since all of these crises turned out to be wrong, why is it that this time is different? |
| Posted by: Black Bart Ebberens7700 2009-07-02 16:23 |
| #8 When was the last time our government did the work of the people? 1776 |
| Posted by: AzCat 2009-07-02 15:45 |
| #7 Not Without a Warrant. This is where some federal agents will get killed especially in the back country. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-07-02 14:47 |
| #6 every building in the US have an "Energy Efficient Inspection". This includes homes. Very progressive indeed! The Federal Revenuers could check on private ownership of newly outlawed "gas guzzlers" and conduct firearms inventories and confiscations at the same time. Home Schooling text books could also be inspected along with "surrender gardens," excess tillage and watering, proper crop rotation, grass clippings, proper septic tank and soil sperk, etc. Toilet pipe ventage and wax ring replacement. The list is virtually endless. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-07-02 13:05 |
| #5 There is also a provision in the Bill that would require every building in the US have an "Energy Efficient Inspection". This includes homes. Homeowners would be required to let Federal Inspectors into their homes to do the evaluations and then mandate bringing those homes up to Federal Standards at the homeowners' expense. Privacy will no longer be possible. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2009-07-02 10:57 |
| #4 Dolly Parton was interviewed locally a few months back and asked if she would consider running for office and going to Washington? She said: "No, there are enough boobs in Washington already." When was the last time our government did the work of the people? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-07-02 10:41 |
| #3 Double the electric bill of everyone, while the economy is inflating, Yeah that'll work. Liberals in Congress and Obama are pushing us ever closer to pitchforks, tar and feathers. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-07-02 10:09 |
| #2 It's not only direct CO2 taxes consumers will pay, but increases in all the competing technologies. For instance coal and nuclear electricity directly compete. For example, double the price of coal gen electricity and the price of nuclear power will also double. Billions/year in windfall for the nuke industry, higher costs for consumers courtesy of the our leaders in Washington DC. Repeat throughout the entire economy. BTW, when did the proposed CO2 tax go to $15/ton? The politicians have have clambering for $30/ton forever. Strategy to get half the cake now, the rest later? |
| Posted by: ed 2009-07-02 09:26 |
| #1 If the dhimocrats push this through, it will be their political death for the next 20 years. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-07-02 08:08 |