The Future Cap and Trade of Our Livelyhoods

Submitted by david.reagan on Sat, 10/17/2009 - 17:58

Two men were standing outside the Unemployment Office. One said to the other, "You hear about Global Warming? The Government is going to save us from by increasing energy costs!"

"Really? That must be why I was fired for turning up the heat." The other replied as he jumped up and down to warm himself.

Heh, I wish I were a cartoonist, that'd make a pretty good cartoon. Anyway, let's look at Cap and Trade seriously. Cap and Trade is a bill designed to limit the amount of carbon that the United States produces. Carbon is a common by product of many different reactions. If you burn something, you probably make carbon, heck, every time you breath you produce carbon. The US produces 20.2% of the worlds CO2 emissions, according to this Wikipedia article. CO2 is one of the atmospheres trace elements. It also is considered a greenhouse gas. The way Cap and Trade limits carbon emissions is by placing a cap on the amount of carbon the US can emit. Any company that emits carbon buys carbon credits to cover the carbon they emit. If they go over their current credit limit, they have to buy more credits from whoever has them for sale. In other words, the cost of anything created with a carbon byproduct with go up. Especially energy. The CBO estimates that by 2020 the average household energy cost will go up by $175. The report ignored the increased cost of energy for manufacturers, and thus the increased cost of just about everything. An alternative analysis placed the cost around $1,870, a very big difference. Now, if Global Warming/Climate Change really is a disaster that we have to stop now, that kind of money would be fine, if Cap and Trade was successful in making a big difference. The thing is, it will not make much of a difference at all. Here is an analysis of the House bill's actual effect on the climate. The quote below is from that article:

By the year 2050, the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result in a global temperature “savings” of about 0.05ºC regardless of the IPCC scenario used—this is equivalent to about 2 years’ worth of warming.

The author of the article is Chip Knappenberger. He has a M. S. degree in Environmental Sciences. So, why is the Government wanting to pass a bill that will do great economic harm for no gain? Think about it. P.S. If you're confused about why the men were cold in the scene at the start of post, it's because Global Warming doesn't exist. It's a giant farce.

For those of you who don’t know, the surface temperature of the globe, as a whole, has not warmed-up by anyone’s calculation since at least the turn of the century (January 2001) and depending on your dataset and statistical technique of choice, perhaps as far back as January 1997. And all of this non-warming occurred over a period of time during which the global emissions of CO2 increased faster than ever before (thanks primarily to China). In fact, anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing is about 5 percent greater now than a decade ago (about 16 parts per million).

From here.