Print 73 comment(s) - last by KaTaR.. on Jun 24 at 4:11 PM

The new bill is estimated to cut farmers' profits by 57 percent by 2035.  (Source: FreePeople Blog)
Want to stop an unverified theory? Be prepared to pay up...

Proponents of the AGW theory have always viewed the United Nations as a sterling example of action at any cost.  The UN's IPCC, chaired by Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian economist with no formal climatology training, has made extraordinary demands, such as suggesting that the world's citizens give up meat consumption to fight climate change.

Perhaps, those who believe that we must sacrifice the standard of living of our citizens to stop theoretical climate change should now look to the U.S. for guidance.

The Democratic controlled Congress is currently considering the Waxman-Markey bill, a measure praised by President Obama.  Obama states that the bill will "create millions of new jobs all across America."  However, the bill will likely increase yearly power bills of the average U.S. citizen by as much as $1,600, according to the US News & World Report.  Further, it will like have deleterious effects on American agriculture.

The bill seeks to replace carbon taxes with a "free market" where carbon credits are auctioned and traded.  The government says the bill will create a $60B USD artificial "free market" and will cut carbon emissions by 15 percent by 2020.

However, the Congressional Budget Office warns that the cost of this market will be "passed along to consumers of energy and energy-intensive products."  The CBO says that the bill will particularly impact low income households.

Gary Swan, Director of Governmental Affairs and Communications with the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, says the bill will spell disaster for hard-working farmers as well.  States Swan, "On average, 65 percent of farmers' input costs are fuel, electricity, fertilizer and chemicals."

According to the Heritage Foundation, under the bill gasoline and diesel costs would grow 58 percent by 2035.  This, combined with higher prices on farm equipment, would drop farm profits by 28 percent by 2012 and by 57 percent by 2035.

The Heritage Foundation estimates that the bill will leave America $9.4 trillion poorer by 2035.  AGW supporters, though, argue that Americans must endure any amount of pain and economic hardship in years ahead to stop climate change.

Meanwhile, the accuracy of AGW theory continues to be debated.  Several recent studies have suggested that the sun may have a larger role than man in climate change.  Even a 2008 NASA study acknowledged that the solar activity caused past climate change, though it failed to make the easy connection between the sharp increase in solar activity in the 1990s to current climate change.

In other news, alarmists now a new fear to race to prevent -- French astronomers using "arcane math" methods predicted that there's a 1 in 100 chance that the Earth could collide with Mars in the next 5 billion years.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: $9.4 trillion
By TomZ on 6/12/2009 5:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
Bush didn't ratify Kyoto. Neither did Clinton. Neither has Obama.

They are right about Kyoto - the science is not clear on CO2, and changes in policy that have such a large economic effect should be deferred until the science becomes clear.

And so far, it looks like the final outcome will be that there is no need to waste money to reduce CO2. I guess Bush may have the last laugh and the expense of fools like you who believe all that "tripping point" crap.

RE: $9.4 trillion
By mdogs444 on 6/12/2009 7:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
Neither has Obama.

he science is not clear on CO2, and changes in policy that have such a large economic effect should be deferred until the science becomes clear.

While technically right regarding Kyoto, and I agree on the second point...the fact is that they don't need Kyoto to implement cap & trade in order to increase our energy prices, decrease our standard of living through economic regulation and policies - which they are trying to do as we speak.

RE: $9.4 trillion
By gconor on 6/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: $9.4 trillion
By someguy123 on 6/13/2009 5:58:41 AM , Rating: 2
the same "scientific societies" that decided to change global warming to "climate change" after the trends started to go towards LOWER temperatures?

yeah, they're definitely trustworthy.

RE: $9.4 trillion
By arazok on 6/13/2009 9:43:20 AM , Rating: 2
Wikipedia is a horrible source of information when it comes to hot button topics like abortion or climate change.

People with agendas monitor the articles and ensure dissenting opinions never make it into the article.

Try for yourself. Edit a climate change article to include a reference to some study that casts doubt on the theory and it will be scrubbed out in minutes.

RE: $9.4 trillion
By JDHack42 on 6/15/2009 4:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
should be deferred until the science becomes clear

Clear or not, how about we wait until we stop blowing all our money on military efforts and propping up failed institutions across the country?

"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki