Even global climate change can get taxed!

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#1
Morning Bell: Waxman-Markey an Energy Tax That Doesn’t Work

Posted June 26th, 2009 at 8.42am in Energy and Environment.

Later today, the House of Representatives is slated to vote on the most convoluted attempt at economic central-planning this nation has ever attempted: cap and trade. The 1,200-plus page Waxman-Markey climate change legislation is nothing more than an energy tax in disguise that by 2035 will raise:

  • Gasoline prices by 58 percent
  • Natural gas prices by 55 percent
  • Home heating oil by 56 percent
  • Worst of all, electricity prices by 90 percent

Although proponents of the bill are pointing to grossly underestimated and incorrect costs, the reality is when all the tax impacts have been added up, the average per-family-of-four costs rise by $2,979 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493.

But on second thought, cap and trade is much more than that.

It Kills Jobs: Over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill). Particularly hard-hit are sectors of the economy that are very energy-intensive: Manufacturers, farmers, construction, machinery, electrical equipment and appliances, transportation, textiles, paper products, chemicals, plastics and rubbers, and retail trade would face staggering employment losses as a result of Waxman-Markey. It’s worth noting the job losses come after accounting for the green jobs policymakers are so adamant about creating. But don’t worry, because the architects of the bill built in unemployment insurance; too bad it will only help 1.5% of those losing their jobs from the bill.

It Destroys Our Economy: Just about everything we do and produce uses energy. As energy prices increase, those costs will be passed onto the consumer and reflected in the higher prices we pay for products. Higher energy prices will cause reduced income, less production, and an economy that falls way short of its potential. The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012-2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion. The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an almost unbelievable $114,915 by 2035.

It Provides Red Meat for Lobbyists: Businesses, knowing very well this would impose a severe cost on their bottom line, sent their lobbyists to Washington to protect them. And it worked. Most of the allowances (the right to emit carbon dioxide) have been promised to industry, meaning less money will be rebated back to the consumer. Free allowances do not lower the costs of Waxman-Markey; they just shift them around. In other words, everyday Americans are going to be footing the bill. Although the government awarded handouts to businesses, the carbon dioxide reduction targets are still there, and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy and thereby inflicting more economic pain. Prices have to go up enough to force people to use less energy, and so if anyone is bought off with free allowances, the costs for everyone else are that much higher.

There’s one thing the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill doesn’t do: Work. All of the above-mentioned costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree Celsius in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree Celsius at the end of the century. In the name of saving the planet for future generations, Waxman-Markey does not sound like a great deal: millions of lost jobs, trillions of lost income, 50-90 percent higher energy prices, and stunning increases in the national debt, all for undetectable changes in world temperature. Who’s buying that?

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/26...arkey-bill-is-an-energy-tax-that-doesnt-work/
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#2
You're going at it from the wrong angle. I was about to make a thread about it, but I will post here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jun/26/us-obama-climate-monbiot

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=134813

http://masterresource.org/?p=2367



P.S. I don't agree with the general views of some of the sites above, but the analysis in the last one is quite on point


________________________________________________________________________

The last thing people should be concerned about are jobs and economy. Infinite growth is impossible and it has to stop because we have been in overshoot mode for decades now and we only have another one or two top stop before it's too late. A responsible politician who realizes the full scale of the problems (if such an animal exists) should come out and say the truth - that the party is over and we need to shrink, not grow.

Instead, this is what you get (from wikipedia):

Republicans proposed over 400 amendments to the bill, the majority of which many think were proposed to delay passage.[7] Some of the more prominent from both parties are listed below:
Accepted
John Dingell (D-MI) offered an amendment that establishes a bank to assist with loans for clean energy development.
Betty Sutton (D-OH) offered an amendment establishing a "Cash for Clunkers" program, giving $3,500 or $4,500 toward the purchase or lease of more fuel efficient vehicles if anyone trades in qualifying, less-efficient vehicles.
Kathy Castor (D-FL) offered an amendment giving states the ability to adopt feed-in tariffs for renewable energy as defined in the bill.
Defeated
Mike J. Rogers (R-MI) offered an amendment that cancels the law unless China and India adopt similar standards.
Roy Blunt (R-MO) offered an amendment that cancels the law if the average price of electricity in a residential sector increases by 10% or more. After defeat, he offered a second amendment that would cancel only Title III (the cap-and-trade scheme) of the law if residential electricity prices rise by 20%. After defeat of this measure, George Radanovich (R-CA) offered a similar amendment that would cancel only Title III if electricity prices in the residential sector rise by 100%. This measure was also defeated. In the hearing, Bart Stupak (D-MI) called into question the seriousness of these "message amendments." He stated they are only offered to be used by the Republicans to spur sensational headlines about lack of sympathy by Democrats. Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX) responded that they were indeed "message amendments" to the American people in an attempt to convey that supporters of the bill care nothing about cost to the ratepayer.
Lee Terry (R-NE) offered an amendment that cancels the law if average gas prices reach $5 per gallon.
Fred Upton (R-MI) offered an amendment that suspends the law if the nation's unemployment rate for the prior year reaches 15% as a result of the law.
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) offered an amendment requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‎ (EPA) to label energy bills, food, manufactured products and fuels with the price impact this law has on the item.
Cliff Stearns (R-FL) offered an amendment to remove existing nuclear power from the baseline of the Renewable Electricity Standard. (Although nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gasses, this amendment would have potentially reduced the overall implementation of renewable energy under this act by around 20%, the amount of nuclear electricity generation in the United States).[8]
We simply don't have any time to waste with bullshit, and what this bill made sure is that we will waste whatever time we had and it will be too late to do anything when shit hits the fan and people finally wake up.

Why do I care? Because the highly likely possibility that I myself (and everybody who was smart enough to foresee what's coming) will die by being cannibalized by some starving mob somewhere in the middle of the century, and the "small matter" that civilization will never appear again on this planet after we're finished with it, will make it impossible to just sit and laugh "I told you so" while billions die
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#3
"human-induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated by the scientific community."
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#4
The last thing people should be concerned about are jobs and economy. Infinite growth is impossible and it has to stop because we have been in overshoot mode for decades now and we only have another one or two top stop before it's too late
Truth


Betty Sutton (D-OH) offered an amendment establishing a "Cash for Clunkers" program, giving $3,500 or $4,500 toward the purchase or lease of more fuel efficient vehicles if anyone trades in qualifying, less-efficient vehicles.
:dead:

ThaG said:
Because the highly likely possibility that I myself (and everybody who was smart enough to foresee what's coming) will die by being cannibalized by some starving mob somewhere in the middle of the century
Don't you think people will be dying from lack of clean water before they die from lack of food?
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#5
"human-induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated by the scientific community."


Whether or not you believe that what do you say to the fact that the mentality that contributes to global warming is based on an unsustainable infinite growth concept that assumes infinite resources in a finite environment?


How do you propose to supply the resources to continue the growth of the world when the Earth could not even come close to physically sustaining the world population living at the current standard of a poor American?


Great global warming doesn't exist. The factors that supposedly cause global warming still pollute our environment, causes illness, deplete natural resources, contaminate our water, kill other species, and overall decrease the habitability of our environment.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#7
Whether or not you believe that what do you say to the fact that the mentality that contributes to global warming is based on an unsustainable infinite growth concept that assumes infinite resources in a finite environment?


How do you propose to supply the resources to continue the growth of the world when the Earth could not even come close to physically sustaining the world population living at the current standard of a poor American?


Great global warming doesn't exist. The factors that supposedly cause global warming still pollute our environment, causes illness, deplete natural resources, contaminate our water, kill other species, and overall decrease the habitability of our environment.
The fact that the vast majority of people can't understand the exponential function should serve as one of the best illustrations of how unfounded our pride in our intelligence as a species is.

Then we have all those engineers and generally science-minded people who for some unknown reason have an unshakeable fate in the power of technology to bail us out from any mess we create, despite the obvious limits to growth that exist and the short time we have to do something.

Even worse, the limits to growth appear on both sides - there is only so much resources and only so much that the waste sinks can take, and both are currently converging on us. However, not everyone that understands that there are resource limits (let's call them the "Resource-depletion concerned") understand that there are also sink limits. On the other side, the majority of those that are "Climate-concerned" tend to underappreciate the resource problem. The overlap between the two while not insignificant is smaller than one would think. And that's not everything one needs to understand to fully grasp the situation, a fundamental understanding of human nature (i.e. NOT the falsehoods that our culture has imposed on us from the very moment of our birth and that have nothing to do with reality) is needed. For only it allows one to see the true motivations behind people's actions and makes it possible to propose somewhat working solutions. That's possessed by a small portion of that small overlap of the two small groups of people we stated with.

So is it surprising that the ignorance dominates the discussion?
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#9
Whether or not you believe that what do you say to the fact that the mentality that contributes to global warming is based on an unsustainable infinite growth concept that assumes infinite resources in a finite environment?


How do you propose to supply the resources to continue the growth of the world when the Earth could not even come close to physically sustaining the world population living at the current standard of a poor American?


Great global warming doesn't exist. The factors that supposedly cause global warming still pollute our environment, causes illness, deplete natural resources, contaminate our water, kill other species, and overall decrease the habitability of our environment.
You just killed your own argument and don't even know it.
 
Dec 2, 2006
6,161
44
0
#14
this is just another way for the government and corporations to profit from the environment they really care nothing about. passing the price to the consumer in the name of the environment while these energy/oil companies rake in billions in profit. right on good ole government. we were put on this earth to eventually become extinct at some point. these asses are speeding that process up and trying to place the blame on the people. the oil reserves will dwindle down to a point of no return around 2050 at our current pace, this will be a last ditch effort to rake in the dough before we have no choice but to use an alternative energy source. capitalism at its finest.

edit* go green i say.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#15
That's for you to figure out, I'm about to go contribute to global warming. 91 octane for the win!

Is that 91 with ethanol or without lol?


OK lets be more specific and maybe you can tell me where I am killing my own argument.

For clarity, my argument is that we live in an economic model that assumes & requires infinite growth in an environment that has finite resources and in order to sustain that growth we need mass quantities of energy which we derive from fossil fuels etc which whether or not they contribute to global warming (or global warming even exists) they negatively impact our environment and temporarily maintain a growth that is leading us to our own destruction.

____________________________________________________________

Is our current economic model not based on infinite growth?

Do we not live in environment with finite resources?

Could the earth support more people living at the level of Americans?

Do many of the same things that people argue create global warning not also contribute to destroying our environment in ways other than changing the temperature?
 

DubbC415

Mickey Fallon
Sep 10, 2002
22,620
6,984
0
38
Tomato Alley
#17
"Mike J. Rogers (R-MI) offered an amendment that cancels the law unless China and India adopt similar standards."


I just found that hilarious, its like thanks for the help, asshole.

"We're not doing it unless they do it too!"
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#19
"Mike J. Rogers (R-MI) offered an amendment that cancels the law unless China and India adopt similar standards."


I just found that hilarious, its like thanks for the help, asshole.

"We're not doing it unless they do it too!"
There is grain of truth in that suggestion, it really doesn't matter at all if the USA reduces its emissions even to zero starting tomorrow, if China and India continue with BAU.

The problem is that the motivation behind it is different
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#20
this is just another way for the government and corporations to profit from the environment they really care nothing about. passing the price to the consumer in the name of the environment while these energy/oil companies rake in billions in profit. right on good ole government. we were put on this earth to eventually become extinct at some point. these asses are speeding that process up and trying to place the blame on the people. the oil reserves will dwindle down to a point of no return around 2050 at our current pace, this will be a last ditch effort to rake in the dough before we have no choice but to use an alternative energy source. capitalism at its finest.

edit* go green i say.
The blame is entirely on the people.

People need to understand several things:

1. There is no difference between "them" (the big companies + the government) and "us" (the people). It is all the same civilization with the same mentality, and it is the mentality that matters. There is no difference in the behavior of the rich and the poor, it is equally destructive, and if the poor were rich, they would be doing exactly the same things as the rich are doing

2. If just one person is shitting in the river, there isn't really a problem; if a million are doing it, then we have a problem. The people on top that the people on the bottom like to blame for everything are very few; the majority of the damage has been and is being done by the huge masses of middle-class consumers in the West, not by those who ruled them. Of course, it is to a certain extent the people on top's fault that the masses behave that way, however what I am repeatedly trying to drive home is that both groups share the same kind of ecologically illiterate mentality that is the root of the crisis.

3. That's why I am also repeatedly stressing how important it is to understand human nature in its proper context, and how without that understanding any attempts to fix things are doomed to fail. That is definitely not the view of human nature that we have been conditioned to accept uncritically from the very beginning of our life by the culture we live in.

4. If we don't change our culture into something that is radically different from what it is right now, there is no hope. The problem is that people are so attached to it that there seems to be no way that this can realistically happen. One problem is religion, the magical thinking associated with it and the "specialness" it attributes to us. All of that, especially the latter part, has to go. The second problem is that Western civilization has developed by detaching itself from reality and propagating that detachment further and further during history, a tragic misallocation of intellectual resources. If you think about it, our present culture was developed by the nobility and other people who had no connection with the land, but who, precisely because of that had the time to engage in other activities. The result is that most of our literature, arts and philosophy that we cherish so much is dealing with totally irrelevant problems such as love, morality, politics, etc. None of that really matters for our survival - all that matters is that in the end our energy balance is positive and we haven't decreased the carrying capacity of the environment by achieving that. You can see the evolutionary psychology roots of our obsession with some of those things, but in general they are a huge distraction from reality, and now when we have to face reality, they aren't helping at all.