The numerous energy taxes and regulatory schemes being proposed internationally, federally, and locally in the name of fighting global warming are a dire threat to freedom and prosperity. The costs associated with some of these proposals — both in dollars and lost liberty — are staggering. But the political costs of "being green," and taxing green, may be just as high.
A recent Gallup poll reveals that the general economic situation is far and away the top concern among voters, and that high energy prices are tied with health care as the third biggest concern. Global warming, as such, doesn't even register on the list. And related though ambiguous issues like "lack of energy sources" and "environment/pollution" rank near the bottom, registering just 1 or 2 percent.
An analysis commissioned by the American Council on Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers projects the economic impact of the [Lieberman-Warner bill currently in the Senate] by 2030: 3 to 4 million fewer jobs, $4,022 to $6,752 in lower annual disposable income per household, an annual hit to GDP of between $631 billion and $669 billion, and much higher energy prices — 60 percent to 144 percent higher for gasoline and 77 percent to 129 percent higher for electricity.
These figures are all adjusted for inflation. The study also found that lower-income families — people who are least able to absorb higher energy costs — will be the hardest hit.
But these costs are not unfortunate side effects of the bill; they are intended effects. The bill's key regulatory scheme is called "cap and trade," which is a complicated, indirect way of levying an energy tax. Instead of charging a set amount for carbon-dioxide emissions, the government would sell a fixed number of permits, with prices set at auction and then determined by trading on Wall Street. This has all the costs of a tax, with price uncertainty and administrative costs thrown in.
And what do we buy, environmentally, with this $600 billion hit to the economy? Basically, nothing.
Cap-and-trade is already failing to reduce emissions in Europe. And even if emissions targets are met, climate models show that the reductions would have only a miniscule impact on global temperature and would not be detectable against the background of natural variation. That's why leading climate alarmists have hailed a Kyoto-style cap-and-trade regime as just the first step of thirty to curb global economic activity.
Fortunately, there are alternatives.
One common-sense idea would be to expand alternative-energy generating capacity, including nuclear power, by lowering regulatory barriers. Another good idea would be to invest in traffic-light coordination, so that drivers don't get stuck at corner after corner idling unnecessarily.
Climate change can only be effectively addressed with the luxury of wealth that a free-market provides. That's why it would be such a mistake to impose tax-and-rationing schemes on energy that would only undermine our prosperity.
According to Gallup, voters seem to have a better grasp than politicians on which issues are most important today.
There are already proposals in the works around the country to give government more and more control over the personal lives and property of citizens (I've blogged about several) in the name of global warming. And, it is plain to see that the primary purpose of 'green' legislation is to re-distribute wealth. As a matter of history, Jimmy Carter tried this same sort of cap-and-trade policy in the late 1970s, and the effects were disastrous: gas shortages, prices skyrocketed, inflation, recession. This is not speculation, this is reality that has already happened!
Sadly, all three of the presidential candidates favor huge new spending to combat global warming. It is very well established that both Clinton and Obama are going to spend your money like no President has ever spent before, but I'd love to hear someone ask the question of John McCain -- who is supposedly a very fiscally responsible Senator -- why he favors this kind of disastrous economic policy. We have nothing to gain, and everything to lose by going forward with it.
The only good news here is that, as Kerpen points out, the voters seem to have their heads screwed on straight (for the most part). A spend-ready President and a Democrat-controlled Congress is a potentially devastating combination, but the voters can keep them in check...IF WE PAY ATTENTION AND TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE.
Gear up, people, the fight is coming...no matter who sits in the Oval Office next.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment