Carbon Scam Ping - (POGW)
Posted on 03/20/2008 11:38:59 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Depending on whom you talked to Wednesday, a proposal aimed at cutting U.S. carbon emissions will either have dire consequences for Montana's economy or will create ample business opportunities that also better the environment.
For much of the day, Billings was the latest stage for an ongoing national debate about the potential costs of curbing carbon dioxide emissions linked to the earth's warming climate.
Later this year, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on the Climate Security Act of 2008, which would impose a mandatory cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions covering coal-burning plants and other facilities that account for about 80 percent of the country's greenhouse gases.
The Lieberman-Warner bill, as it's more commonly called, is aimed at reducing carbon emissions to 70 percent of 2005 levels by 2050. Ahead of that vote, industry groups have started a multistate tour discussing the economic effects of the bill, including what they say will be a loss of 3,700 to 5,900 jobs in Montana by 2020 and gasoline prices that could jump 140 percent.
"It's not a market-based system. It's a rationing scheme," said George Landrith, president of Frontiers of Freedom, a Virginia-based policy group that supports private property rights and businesses.
Landrith was one of several speakers Wednesday at a Billings conference hosted by the Montana Chamber of Commerce and sponsored by industry groups to discuss the economic impacts of proposals to curb climate change.
Claims of dramatic job losses and rising prices for consumers were quickly dismissed by environmentalists, Gov. Brian Schweitzer's office, Montana economists and others. Those forecasts fail to account for new technology and emerging economies that will reduce carbon emissions and keep Montana's economy humming.
"It's fake and it's not realistic," Eric Stern, senior counselor to Gov. Brian Schweitzer, said of the industry forecast. "There is a clean-energy future, and Montana sits at the center of that."
Much of the discussion Wednesday was about an economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner bill by business-supported groups, the American Council for Capital Formation ACCF and the National Association of Manufacturers NAM.
If the bill is enacted, the nation's gross domestic product could take a 2.7 percent hit by 2030, the groups said. Four million jobs could be lost, annual household income could be reduced by $7,000 a year and home electricity prices could rise by 129 percent.
On top of that, net gains in carbon reductions would be minimized because there's no similar requirement for China and India, said Margo Thorning, chief economist at the ACCF.
"Without a global solution, what we do here hardly matters," Thorning said.
Critics of the study said it overstates the economic costs and understates the benefits.
"It's not a perfect bill, but it is a very clear step in the right direction," said Rick Duke, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Center for Market Innovation.
Tom Power, economist and professor emeritus at the University of Montana, said the ACCF/NAM analysis focused only on the costs of the bill and ignores how Montana and other states will respond, including steps to make current industries more efficient and to drive up production of alternative-energy sources.
"We are entrepreneurial, technologically savvy and capable of adapting to the new energy reality we face," Power said.
The groups' projection of 11,000 to 15,000 lost jobs in Montana because of the climate bill also deserves some context, he said. What the groups label as job loss is actually just a slightly lower rate of job growth, "which is altogether different," Power said.
What's also not being calculated is the cost of doing nothing about global warming which, in Montana, could lead to increased wildfires and increased costs to fight them, changes in irrigation and agricultural practices, more beetle-killed trees and other damage to the state's natural resources, he said.
"The cost of aggressively acting now to end our wasteful use of energy will be quite bearable," he said.
Part of the problem in forecasting is that there are so many uncertainties, especially about which technology is best for reducing carbon emissions at coal plants like those in Montana, said Mark Lambrecht, regulatory affairs manager for PPL Montana.
"The big problem is we don't know what the cost would be," Lambrecht said, adding later: "It's safe to say it's definitely going to be more expensive."
Although Wednesday's forum wasn't meant to discuss the science of global warming, Landrith, of the Frontiers of Freedom, questioned whether the current warming trend is continuing and whether people are responsible for any change taking place.
Even if temperatures are rising, he asked, "is it a bad thing?"
In the audience, former Billings Mayor Chuck Tooley, who began offering public presentations on climate change and the need for action two years ago, said he was taken aback.
"He's from upside-down land," Tooley said of Landrith. "I wasn't sure if he was serious or not."
20 years ago this scheme would have been laughed out of existence.
No, 20 years ago this scheme was called "pollution credits" and is still in operation today.
Carbon Scam Ping - (POGW)
The Clean Air Act wasn't. I believe it's a similar concept.
It seems to be easier to rip up huge expanses of Montana for coal-to-synfuel than add insulation to windows, walls, roofs of existing houses. Doing just that would eliminate the need for new coal fired power plants. And of course there would be no CO2 input into the atmosphere, insulation is a passive energy saver, and a permanent PLUS to a house.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.html
Seems the sun has taken a breather and we are cooling at record rates. The left knew this would happen and changed the mantra from global warming to climate change so they wont miss a beat on the drum to Marxism. warm colder matters not its mans fault specifically capitalistic white mans fault and he must be punished and his wealth redistributed. I sure hope the angry white man votes in force this election.
The Clean Air Act wasn't. I believe it's a similar concept.
Except that the clean air act regulated fuel combustion pollutants (questionable or real - you decide), not the actual products of combustion of the fuel.
These schemes are simply attempts to regulate the use of carbon based fuels out of existence. The economic consequences are real and ridiculous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.