PrintJune 22, 2009
Economic downside of Waxman-Markey bill
President Obama is urging U.S. lawmakers before their month-long summer vacation on Aug. 3rd to come up with bills on health care reform and global warming.
The 942-page Waxman-Markey energy bill in the House -- known as "The American Clean Energy and Security Act" (H.R. 2454) -- aims to create new jobs, save Americans hundreds of billions in energy costs, reduce global warming and pollution, and wean the country off imported oil. If passed it would fail in every way.
Already environmental activists and interest groups are involved in propaganda campaigns to scare people into clamoring for climate legislation to avoid "climate catastrophe." Not only is my 10th District Congressman Rep. Mark Kirk being pressured through telephone calls to his constituents to support health care reform that includes a government public plan, but Kirk is also the target of TV ads on Fox News urging him to vote for "The American Clean Energy and Security Act."
A study at the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis in Washington, D.C. has found that by 2035 the proposed Waxman-Markey global warming legislation would inflict GDP losses of $9.4 trillion, raise an average family's energy bill by $1,241, and destroy on the average 1,145,000 jobs. (Morning Bell: What is the Bigger Threat? Global Warming or Global Warming Legislation). Meanwhile China and India will be firing up coal-fired power plants, benefiting economically, while this nation's regulates itself to death.
Given the possible economic down side of enacting the Waxman-Markey energy bill and how its "cap-and-trade" provision would control and penalize large industrial sources that emit carbon dioxide, it would seem prudent to first examine the urgency for enacting global warming legislation
On Wednesday, June 17, an interesting graph appeared in the Wall Street Journal. (Building Up /Total Carbon-Dioxide Emissions). It indicated that even if the U.S. were to reduce its output of CO2 by 50%, it would have no perceptible effect on the world environment as enormous amounts of CO2 is produced by nature every year. Further stated was that such an effort "will probably destroy the economy, reduce the dollar to junk status, and end the U.S. as a free and productive country as we know it."
Not to be overlooked, especially by Chicagoans, is The Heartland Institute, a 25 year old non-partisan think tank located in Chicago, IL. On June 2nd it sponsored the Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.C. Released at the conference was a 880-page report -- Climate Change Reconsidered -- that challenges point by point the flawed claims of a 2007 U.N document embraced by the Obama administration. The appendix lists the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition-- including 9,029 with PhD's, which states in part: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of Earth's climate." (The Climate-Change Report the UN Failed to Write).
There is massive deceit taking place among advocates of global warming through doctored data, misrepresented study findings, and flawed computer simulations that amounts to a government-created Ponzi scam that surpasses the shame of the Madoff scandal. As such global warming is not and never was the crisis so many politicians and activists claim it is. Fraud by investment gurus earn them jail and fines; no punishment awaits fraud on the public by government officials.
Efforts made to control emissions of greenhouse gases would not only be ineffective and completely pointless as carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant, but also extremely expensive. The net result of the Waxman-Markey energy bill would be to vastly expand power in Washington, D.C., while functioning as a tax on the American people by raising the cost of energy and the price paid for all goods and services.
