backtop


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: misleading
By Masospaghetti on 6/13/2009 1:49:48 AM , Rating: 1
You really think that people won't become more efficient with their energy resources if the cost of power and fuel triples, regardless of whether the price increase is regulatory or market pressure?

Maybe in the short term there would be backlash from increasing energy prices but in the short-long term the country as a whole would become more efficient. Think about it - if electricity costs 4x what it currently does, a LOT more people are going to buy energy-saving light bulbs and high efficiency air conditioners over the following few years because it makes economic sense, and this reduces total consumption. Since the increase in price is tax, we have a net decrease in consumption (and thus a decrease in money being sent overseas to producers of fossil fuel) while the revenue from these price increases stay within the country, albeit within the government.


RE: misleading
By Keeir on 6/13/2009 2:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
albeit within the government.


Yes, who already have plans about how to waste the money. The underlying problem with this bill is that very little to nothing besides "reduced" consumption is actually gained. It doesn't sound like large portions of the proceeds will go to cleaning pollution or offseting taxes. Rather toward wealth transfer and idiotic projects.

Overall peoples utility will be reduced from previous optimal levels so the government gets to spend more random money.... Overall this is yet another shift blame by the government

The government gets to spend more money
The government gets to say it is doing something about climate change
The people blame the power companies for raising prices

reminds me of the CAFE standard. The government gets to claim it is doing something meaninful, while allowing people to blame the car companies for the actual implementation of the standards.


RE: misleading
By captainpierce on 6/16/2009 7:49:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think about it - if electricity costs 4x what it currently does, a LOT more people are going to buy energy-saving light bulbs and high efficiency air conditioners over the following few years because it makes economic sense, and this reduces total consumption.


So while people have less money due to sky high energy costs they're simultaneously going to go out and buy energy efficient appliances?


RE: misleading
By Spuke on 6/16/2009 1:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So while people have less money due to sky high energy costs they're simultaneously going to go out and buy energy efficient appliances?
I agree here. When people have less money to spend, they spend less. Look at our current economic environment. Are people spending loads of money right now? NO! This isn't rocket science.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki