Sep 29 2009
“Cap and Trade” may become “Pollution Reduction” bill.
Just as a tax has now become a “fee” and restricting freedom has become social diversity, so the cap and trade bill in the house may become the pollution reduction bill in the Senate. That’s the preferred language of John Kerry “insisting it is not a "cap and trade" proposal but a "pollution reduction" bill. "I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means. I don’t think the average American does," Kerry said.” Kerry is right on one point. He IS ignorant.
All Kerry would have to do is read a bit and he’d get an understanding of what all of this none sense is all about. Kerry and the rest of the democrats should put the Heritage Foundation on their reading list and it would open some thought processes, raise some questions and possibly even advance into some critical thinking and a little bit of understanding of both sides to such an important issue that would drastically change the economic situation of the entire economy.
The Wall Street Journal tracks down three of the economists who originally helped come up with the idea of cap and trade and finds that all three do not believe the system can be used to stop global warming. Then University of Wisconsin graduate student and now University of Wyoming professor outlines two problems with carbon cap and trade:
The first is that carbon emissions are a global problem with myriad sources. Cap-and-trade, he says, is better suited for discrete, local pollution problems.
The other problem, Mr. Crocker says, is that quantifying the economic damage of climate change — from floods to failing crops — is fraught with uncertainty.
Heritage has a clickable map of each state and how a cap and trade bill as envisioned by pollution control freak politicians would effect that states economy. My home state of Oklahoma would take a hit of $1.317 million loss in personal income. A hit of a decrease in GDP for the state of $3.188 million, and a loss of 12,622 non-farm jobs throughout the state. How will your state stack up?
That’s not all.
- A family of four can expect its per-year energy costs to rise by $1,241;
- Including taxes, a family of four will pay an additional $4,609 per year;
- Aggregate GDP losses will be $9.4 trillion;
- Aggregate cap-and-trade energy taxes will be $5.7 trillion; and
- Job losses will be nearly 2.5 million;
If politicians would REALLY investigate all issues thoroughly, rather than listening only to the one side that sends the most cash their way, then this entire scenario would never have gone this far. But, then the dictionary would be stable and stability is boring.
