Calculate your one-day Carbon Belch !
Posted on 06/05/2008 2:31:19 AM PDT by markomalley
BALTIMORE, June 4 (UPI) -- A U.S. economist praises Congress for planning to fight global warming, but he says the plan being considered would hasten environmental calamity.
Peter Morici, former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission, is concerned about the Warner-Lieberman bill pending in the Senate. It would limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 to 2005 levels, and reduce those by 70 percent in 2050.
"Unfortunately, by encouraging energy-intensive American industries to flee to developing countries, this bill would penalize U.S. businesses that could contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and thus accelerate global warming," said Morici in an op-ed article posted at baltimoresun.com. "Working toward a global set of standards for such industries would be a better approach.
"Reducing emissions in industrialized countries by moving carbon-intensive manufacturing to developing countries only raises emission levels worldwide, because China and others use fossil fuels so inefficiently."
The costs of controlling greenhouse gas emissions would best be minimized by regulating fossil-fuel use the same way everywhere, and encouraging carbon-intensive industries to locate where they can best meet those standards, he said.
Morici is now a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business.
But this is typical of the private-jet flying, limousine-riding liberal elite.
(And no, btw, I don't buy into manmade global warming, thank you)
US heavy industry is the most efficient producer per unit of CO2 release in the World, by far. If CO2 production were the only standard, all heavy industry should be transferred to the US, where it can be done cleanly and efficiently.
Warner/Lieberman would have exactly the opposite effect, and would transfer industry to China and other Asian countries, where coal-based industries do not operate efficiently at all. Uncontrolled coal mine fires in China release more CO2 than all US automobiles East of the Mississippi River. They just don't care.
Of course, it's all BS. My tomatoes are shivering out in the garden wondering when they are going to get a little taste of that Global Warming they've been hearing so much about.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions” comes to mind.
The law of unintended consequences, is not unlike other such laws that reside in the forest of life, where the blind can’t see reality for all the trees in the way.
He’s green, but at least he can do some of the math.
How would we move our power plants to other countries?
However it would have exactly the intended effect of further diminishing the US economy and hobbling the US to be competitive against the third world in actual production.
Ultimately, the factor that will tip the balance toward equalizing "fairness" in industry will be the outrage of the third-world residents themselves, such as those in China who are living in a cloud of toxic pollution and drinking poisoned water. As they attain middle-class status they will demand that the pollution be stopped, but until then, only the major ex-industrial nations will be devastated by this carbon crisis crap, and the real polluters will continue to run amok.
The whole global warming fallacy is an economic and political ploy for "fairness" and wealth redistribution. Show me what good is done for the Earth with all the money from those "carbon offsets".
This has always been the hole in cap & trade. Net global emissions rise. Net pollution rises. Not only do third world countries have less standards at the factory smoke stack, but their electricity (at least in the case of China) comes from untreated coal power plants, so it’s a double whammy.
Plus, from the U.S. perspective, the company that moves production off shore reduces its carbon emissions domestically and can sell the credit. In short, cap & trade gives American industry a direct incentive and subsidy to move jobs overseas.
This has been the experience of the Europeans. It’s been discussed on Free Republic for over a week. Glad to see some economists and journalists are finely connecting the dots are the emissions growth aspect. Let’s see if they pick up on the subsidy to export jobs. We need more people to advance and repeat both arguments.
Hard to imagine that. I assume we would either pay a harsh penalty for using too much, or shut the plant down when you reach your CO2 limit for the day. Either way, we are screwed.
The US uses energy much more efficiently than China.
any bill to de-industrialize the US will only hasten the economic and environmental disaster of a dominant China.
“How would we move our power plants to other countries?”
We move our INDUSTRIES overseas. The US aluminum smelters used to be the biggest users of electricity. Alcoa was in the pacific northwest specifically to use the low-cost hydro power out of Oregon and Washington.
Move that to China, and 100 other industrial plants besides, and you have effectively ‘moved’ the power plants overseas as well.
You’ve also managed to move our technology, wealth, jobs and economy overseas as well.
These bozo eco-fascists and tax-and-regulate liberals don’t seem to mind doing that at all.
Move that to Saudi Arabia. That is, after all, where the oil is.
“Move that to China, and 100 other industrial plants besides
Move that to Saudi Arabia. That is, after all, where the oil is.”
No, we are are talking about electrical generation. We use coal or nuclear or hydro for that, not oil.
If we clamp down on CO2 in USA, it means our coal power plants shut down and we import electricity. It also means electric rates go up and industry moves to China.
China is building more new coal plants each year than we’ve built in a decade.
The REAL answer is to junk this awful CO2 regulation bill, and simply move to nuclear power for all new power plants. Problem solved.
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.