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 6/13/2009 12:37:33 AM , Rating: -1
It has a lot to do with alternative fuels. A lot of the carbon released into the air comes from the manufacture of or operation of gasoline/diesel vehicles. Eliminate gas and diesel from the picture, you save a huge chunk.

Another huge chunk of the carbon released is via coal/oil production of power. Replace it cleaner technology like nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric, and you're pretty much all of the way there.

Someone always benefits from energy bills, regardless of which side it goes to. Who do you think benefited from the tax breaks on oil companies? Oil companies, and theoretically the consumer. The same is true for other energy industries, except without the added carbon baggage.

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?

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

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