Hot Air: Five myths about the Lieberman-Warner global-warming legislation

NRO ^ | June 2, 2008 | Ben Lieberman

[Tolik]

This week, the Senate debates America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191), sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I., Conn.) and John Warner (R., Va). The Lieberman-Warner bill (LW) would restrict energy use to combat global warming. Like global warming itself, the bill has undergone considerable hype and little hard-nosed analysis. Several myths need to be dispelled.

Myth #1: LW wouldn’t be expensive.

Fact: LW works like a massive energy tax. By restricting carbon-dioxide emissions from coal, oil, and natural gas — with a freeze at 2005 levels beginning in 2012, to a 70-percent reduction in 2050 — the bill forces down supply and thus boosts the price of energy. In fact, if energy prices didn’t go up, then the targets in the bill wouldn’t be met. As energy is the economy’s lifeblood, and 85 percent of it comes from these fossil fuels, the impact will be substantial. Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030, according to an analysis conducted by the Heritage Foundation. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Environmental Protection Agency, Charles River Associates, and the National Association of Manufacturers have all conducted studies predicting significant economic burdens on consumers if the bill is enacted.

Myth #2: The costs fall on industry, not consumers.

Fact: Virtually all the burden imposed by LW falls upon consumers. The bill would spur net job losses well into the hundreds of thousands, and possibly nearing one million. Particularly hard hit is the manufacturing sector — one million jobs would be lost by 2022 and two million by 2027. The losses in household incomes could reach $1,026 per year by 2015. Annual household energy-price increases could hit $1,000 by 2030, including a 29-percent increase in the price of gasoline from 2008 levels.

Myth #3: Global warming is a crisis that must be addressed at all costs.

Fact: Global warming is a concern, not a crisis. Both the seriousness and the imminence of the threat are overstated. For example, the recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report estimates 7 to 23 inches of sea level rise by the end of the century — far less than the widely popularized claims of 18 to 20 feet and little more than ongoing trends over the past several centuries. The attempt to link Hurricane Katrina with climate change is directly contradicted by the World Meteorological Organization and many scientists. Overall, current and expected future temperatures are far from unprecedented, and are highly unlikely to lead to catastrophes.

Myth #4: LW effectively addresses the threat of climate change.

Fact: Even assuming the worst of global warming, LW reduces the threat by a minuscule amount. The bill reduces emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the United States only. China has overtaken America as the world’s largest emitter, and its emissions growth is several times greater than that of the U.S. India and other fast-developing nations are on a similar trajectory. Thus, the unilateral impact of the bill on global emissions would be inconsequential. At most, it would reduce the earth’s future temperature by one or two tenths of a degree Celsius — too small to even verify. In other words, LW is all economic pain for no environmental gain.

Myth #5: LW’s cap-and-trade approach is a proven success.

Fact: Critics of the cap-and-trade approach in LW — in which emissions are capped and regulated entities may trade their rights to emit — point to the European Union’s substantial difficulties since initiating its own cap-and-trade program in 2005. Most E.U. nations aren’t on track to meet their targets, and many are seeing their emissions rise faster than those in the U.S. The program is furthermore plagued by accusations of fraud and unfairness. LW essentially adopts the European approach wholesale.

Overall, the Lieberman-Warner bill promises substantial hardship for the economy overall, for jobs, and for energy costs. Given current economic concerns and energy prices, this is the last thing the American people need. At the same time, the environmental benefits would likely be small to nonexistent. The Lieberman-Warner bill fails any reasonable cost-benefit test.

  — Ben Lieberman is senior policy analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
 

[Tolik]

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[Tolik]

PING

[massgopguy]

Correction: Global Warming is a Natural Phenomenon.

[Oldpuppymax]

That Warner is a smack off has been far from a secret for some time. But can we now please stop construction of the altar republicans have been building for Lieberman over the past several years? He is not a moderate. He is a typical leftist.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - Back On The Net!!(Mash Here!)

---

I believe this is a repost - forgive if it is.

[Ronaldus Magnus Reagan]

1998 was the last warmest year, so doesn’t that mean we are in Global Cooling since then? Yes/No?

[BubbaBasher]

1998 was the last warmest year, so doesn’t that mean we are in Global Cooling since then? Yes/No?

The 1998 data was misinterpreted by NASA. A 15 year old German kid found the error and NASA was forced to correct the date. That made a much earlier year the hotest. The global warmers still claim 1998 even though they know better.

But to answer your question, if 1998 were the hotest year ever, it would prove there has been no warming over the last 10 years.

[lesser_satan]

When is this Warner idiot up for reelection? We have to get rid of this dunce. I’ll send money to his Dem opponent if necessary.

[palmer]

1998 was the hottest year globally and still is. The error was with US data and some year in the 30’s is now the hottest. But the heat in 1998 was due to El Nino. Temperatures have been basically flat since, but I pay little attention to temperatures since their recording has been so screwed up.

[javachip]

John Warner is retiring after this term. Replacement will be elected in November.

[GOPJ]

If liberals can get control over energy -

(the power to make our lives better)

- then dole that power out...

"by the teaspoon" to those they deem "deserving",

they'll finally have the control freak culture they've always wanted.

[lesser_satan]

Thanks, and good riddance to this Warner bum.

[Tolik]

“I pay little attention to temperatures since their recording has been so screwed up”

I am fascinated, how they average global temperature when density of temperature measuring points around the globe is uneven. And what is the historical global temperature is about?

A temperature history in one separately taken point is another thing all-together. That’s understandable. Like analysis of tree records. Or ice drilled out in Antarctica. But how they come up with historic global temperature without gross estimation and myriad of assumptions?

[steelyourfaith]

 

Calculate your one-day Carbon Belch !

[darkwing104]

After getting familiar with this bill I am convinced that the object of this Congress is to completely drive out all manufacturing jobs out of the U.S. by 2010.

[kitkat]

BUMP

[Ronaldus Magnus Reagan]

But to answer your question, if 1998 were the hottest year ever, it would prove there has been no warming over the last 10 years

Well, yes, (if you use the word "ever"), but that's not my point. My point was that since there have not been any warmer years since 1998, we have technically been cooling since 1998.

Anyone seen any sunspots lately? Theory is that we will keep cooling until we see some spots.

[Ronaldus Magnus Reagan]

After getting familiar with this bill I am convinced that the object of this Congress is to completely drive out all manufacturing jobs out of the U.S. by 2010.

Hope springs eternal, and I am hoping that this bill (since it is by Lieberman-Warner, not exactly two left-wing wackos) is a back door way to mandate nuclear energy power plants. But I havn't read the bill.

[Atchafalaya]

Don’t forget they will also control health care delivery.