The Cost of Cap and Trade? Would it even work?

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

<object width=&quot;518&quot; height=&quot;419&quot;><param name=&quot;movie&quot; value=&quot;http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyebla...6U2Gnzpr&quot; /><param name=&quot;allowFullScreen&quot; value=&quot;true&quot; /><embed src=&quot;http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyebla...6U2Gnzpr&quot; allowfullscreen=&quot;true&quot; width=&quot;518&quot; height=&quot;419&quot; /></object>
Today, Obama insisted that (in the future?), this system would cost the taxpayer 'A postage stamp a day'

Cap and Trade is a stupid idea. It'll necessitate all sorts of regulations, it'll make a market out of it, people can cheat it out, bureaucracies need to be expanded, etc. etc.

What we need is a simple, good, old, effective CARBON TAX and be done with it.

So my next question is this: is it stupidity or malevolence that guides these assholes?

The audacity & arrogance of man to believe that since he has been on this planet a blink of an eye--in earth terms--to be able to control mother nature is beyond comprehension.

This bill is nothing more than "fear mongering" that is used to tax-tax-tax.

When someone can prove to me that by simply exhaling the air we breath is a cause of Global warming--that will be the day. To date there is absolutely no scientic evidence of that.

In fact, today--temperatures all over this country are below normal. I would consider that global cooling.

Another 300 pages were added to this bill at 3 a.m. last night. WHY? They pulled the "extra" goodies off of the shelf-- to get democrats who would have voted against this insanity to now vote for it.

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

I actually agree with that.

The CAP and TRADE law appears to me to be a cheat waiting to happen.

How Big Is the Tax?

The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis (CDA) found that, after adjusting for inflation, the government would collect $5.7 trillion in tax revenue between 2012 and 2035. CDA's economic analysis found that, by 2035, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation would also:

Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent;
Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent; and
Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,241.[2]
But the $1,241 annual energy bill is just the direct increase in energy prices that consumers face. As energy prices increase, the cost of making products becomes more expensive. Businesses will pass the higher costs of operating onto the consumer, which will be reflected in the higher prices Americans pay for products.

Higher energy prices also result in a slower economy, which means less production, higher unemployment, and reduced income. As the higher production costs ripple through the economy, household pocketbooks get hit again and again. When all the direct and indirect energy tax impacts have been added up, family-of-four costs rise by $2,979 per year on average over the 2012-2035 timeframe. In 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609.[3]

Over the same timeframe, gross domestic product losses--the excess burden or deadweight loss of taxation--totals $9.4 trillion. It is important to note that these higher energy bills come after people have to use much less energy as a result of increased prices.
Cap and Trade: A Handout for Corporations and a Huge Tax on Consumers

So my next question is this: is it stupidity or malevolence that guides these assholes?

The Cost of Cap and Trade? Would it even work?