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: Global warming
By someguy123 on 6/13/2009 9:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
By amanojaku

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.

By General Disturbance
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.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

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