Today was the deadline that the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, set for having a vote on the climate change legislation, better known as “Cap and Trade.”
This is a really big deal. It represents one of the biggest tax increases in this country’s history.
How it Works
From what I’ve read, my understanding is that the government would outlaw carbon emissions, but turn around and sell carbon credits. Over time the amount of credits that would be available would shrink, and the price of them would go up.
Since all utilities have some degree of carbon emissions, the result of the purchasing of the “right to emit carbon” would be that your utility bill would increase.
The idea is to stimulate companies into finding “greener” ways of producing energy and the like. The problem is that, so far, we haven’t really found one. Perhaps there’s one or more to be found—obviously, we have nuclear power, but the government has regulated that such that it’s difficult to get permits, and from the time someone says “ok” until the plant comes online is significant.
So, if things stayed the same, or had only minor moves toward greenness, as the plan ratchets up the price of the credits, American families and business suffer.
Why it is Taxation
It’s just another means for the government to take the people’s and businesses money, which would cost jobs, which would add to the burden on the government, which would increase taxes, etc.
The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result. [The Cap and Tax Fiction (WSJ)]
And it’s removal of freedom, because the government is telling business how to operate, what they can produce, etc.
And the more people are becoming man made climate change skeptics
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 Climate Change Climate Change (WSJ)]
I’ve always been a skeptic of man-made global warming, and I’ve believed it was government’s way of gaining more and more control. And the speed of which the Congress and President are trying to push this legislation through should concern every citizen in the U.S.
I mean, if we even have to ask the question “Will Congress Read Bills Before Voting?” we should know that something’s wrong. How can our representatives represent us without even reading what they’re voting on?