Non-Solutions to Non-Problems

A desperate push is underway to
enact the Climate Security Act sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CN) and Sen.
John Warner (R-VA). It would impose cap-and-trade mandates on anything that
generates carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and that pretty much
includes everything involving energy use, including backyard barbequing.
Just what “climate security” is remains a mystery. It suggests that humans
actually have something to do with the climate, and only idiots believe that.
If that were true, there would be no tornadoes tearing up the
The Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the most virulent environmental
organizations, famed for finding ways to impede any kind of development
nationwide, whether it’s housing for a growing population, ranching and farming
to feed it, or anything industrial that might provide jobs, is sponsoring a May
29 briefing for “America’s editorial board members and op-ed page editors, via
a conference via phone.
You can expect newspapers to publish a raft of editorials and op-eds praising
legislation based on the notion that CO2 must be reduced to stop
global warming.
The problem for the environmentalists is that the Earth is now a decade into a
cooling cycle that even
Among those participating in the NRDC conference call will be Sen, John Kerry
of
The Senate would be better off to pay some attention to the estimates of the
costs involved in establishing a program to reduce “greenhouse gases.” A study
by the Heritage Foundation predicts the following:
# The impact on the economy would be horrendous. Heritage estimates that
cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of at least $1.7 trillion that
could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
# Single-year GDP losses of at least $155 billion that could exceed $500
billion (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
# Annual job losses that would exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could exceed a
million.
# The annual cost of emission permits to energy users to cost at least $100
billion by 2020.
# The average household will pay $467 more each year for its natural gas and
electricity (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). That means that the average
household will spend an additional $8,870 to purchase energy over the period
2012 to 2030.
It’s worth noting that a similar bill in 2005 was defeated by a vote of 60-38,
an even larger margin that an earlier 2003 vote.
Cap-and-trade legislation is a non-solution to a non-problem, and this vote
will take place at a time when most of the public has wisely concluded that
global warming, except for Al Gore’s fulminations about the coming end of the
world, is just so much hot air. Such carbon credits, however, would likely make
him and his fellow conspirators very wealthy through the creation of exchanges
for their sale and trade.
What makes this legislation so utterly wicked, inane, and insane is that it
would wreck what is left of our already injured economy, trying to pull itself
together after the mortgage loan debacle of our financial institutions, and
facing the rising costs of oil whose full effects have yet to be felt as they
ripple through the economy.
The fact that environmental organizations would try to get such legislation
imposed tells you everything you need to know about their true agenda regarding
Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the website
of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com.
He blogs at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.
Click here to return to TRA's Issue CLIX Index.
Learn about Mr. Stolyarov's novel, Eden against the Colossus, here.Read Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, here.
Disclaimer: The presence of the following advertisement serves as an attempt to eventually enable The Rational Argumentator to generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs of its domain name. TRA does not foresee making an actual profit with these advertisements for a long time. The advertisement does not necessarily reflect the views of TRA or any of its contributors, and the readers are encouraged to judge it on its own merits.
The
Rational Argumentator