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: I'm not going to pay for it
By astralsolace on 6/12/2009 11:19:46 PM , Rating: -1
More like--you want to ignore the problem, pretend it doesn't exist and continue to gain massive profit off of exploiting limited resources--and then, poof, once demand blows up in your face and you're unable to function.. who are you going to run to for a bailout? That's right.

RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By someguy123 on 6/13/2009 12:07:33 AM , Rating: 2
except this has nothing to do with developing alternative fuels....this is about reducing emissions to stop "climate change". first off how can people believe in something that the researchers themselves seem to be unsure about (global warming to climate change)? secondly we'll still be using the same sources of fuel, the only difference is that the cost will be higher and will be taken directly from our pockets to line the pockets of the people paid to oversee this bill.

RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By astralsolace on 6/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By someguy123 on 6/13/2009 1:08:41 AM , Rating: 3
if the issue was alternative fuels, why not just have a bill pushing alternative fuels/research in these fields? putting a carbon cap will not necessarily force companies to adopt lower emitting sources of energy since current alternatives are much less efficient and cost much more, with the exception of nuclear.

i am a supporter of nuclear power, but there is absolutely no way the US is getting more nuclear plants thanks to hippie/environmentalist propaganda. everyone assumes a nuclear holocaust whenever someone mentions nuclear power.

RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By General Disturbance on 6/13/2009 12:41:53 PM , Rating: 5
The problem is that carbon output in CO2 is not pollution.

Do you realize that the only channel by which carbon enters the biosphere, allowing the ENTIRE biosphere to exist, is through the CO2 in the atmosphere?

CO2 is actually wonderful stuff. The CO2 that is locked away in fossil fuels through the calamities of geological history used to be available for life (plants) to sustain a much more lush biosphere than we have today.

I am doing MY part to save the planet. This means giving as much CO2 back to the biosphere as possible. We need to do this in a clean way, through clean coal and clean gas etc.

RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By William Gaatjes on 6/15/2009 2:16:53 PM , Rating: 1
You sound just as like a global warning fanatic.
Right winged or left winged. Both lost control and the ability to think.

A very simple statement :
Too much of anything is not good for you.

By therealnickdanger on 6/16/2009 6:31:47 AM , Rating: 2
So you're saying I should apply LESS carbon directly to my skin?

RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By atlmann10 on 6/13/2009 3:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
Power plants emit 40% of total U.S. carbon dioxide pollution, the primary global warming pollutant.36 Although coal-fired power plants account for just over half of the electricity produced in the U.S. each year, they have been responsible for over 83% of the CO2 pollution since 1990.37 Coal-fired power plants have the highest output rate of CO2 per unit of electricity among all fossil fuels.38

RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By amanojaku on 6/13/2009 4:29:19 PM , Rating: 5
carbon dioxide pollution, the primary global warming pollutant
WRONG!!! The greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and chlorofluorocarbons. Their immediate contribution to the greenhouse effect is as follows:

1) H2O - 36–72%
2) CO2 - 9–26%
3) CH4 - 4–9%
4) O3 - 3–7%

That means good ol' H2O is the worst offender, both in volume and in part because we can't easily reduce the amount of water in the atmosphere without adverse impact on the environment.

CO2 is a scapegoat because it's the largest MAN-MADE greenhouse gas in terms of the greenhouse effect. However, at 26% that's a pittance. More importantly, studies show that N2O has a longer lasting effect on global warming than CO2 does. Over 20 years N2O has 289 times the global warming potential of CO2; over 100 years N2O has 298 times the global warming potential of CO2!!! That means that all naturally occurring greenhouse gases are worse than the man-made gases.

RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By Viditor on 6/14/2009 5:39:06 AM , Rating: 2
People, pay attention to the fine print!

They are saying that the cost of gasoline and diesel will increase under this bill by 58% over the next 26 years...

If that is true, I say this would be a HUGE cost savings, not an expense!!!
We've already increased by >150% over the last 16 years ...58% over 26 years would be a massive reduction in that rate!

RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By mdogs444 on 6/14/2009 8:11:07 AM , Rating: 2
58% over and above what the normal cost increases of gasoline would be under supply/demand.

Don't be naive. Electricity and natural gas bills would basically double the first year. What kind of savings is that?

RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By Viditor on 6/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By mdogs444 on 6/15/2009 6:39:54 AM , Rating: 4
Wrong. Do a little research and reading. It was the non partisan CBO that released the figures stating between $700 and $2200 per family, with an average of $1600.
The CBO analysis released Thursday updates research of previous cap and trade proposals and estimates that a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses would cost American families between $700 and $2,200 a year in increased energy and consumer goods prices. The average cost to families would be $1,600, according to the analysis.

RE: I'm not going to pay for it
By coolkev99 on 6/24/2009 2:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know how liberals often think increases are decreases, and decreases are increases.

If your increasing the cost X amount under the plan , then the cost would be LESS if the plan were not implemented. Any 1st grader will know this. Quit twisting with your illogic.

"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 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