rssOrszag’s Weak Defense of Cap-and-Trade
Monday, March 02, 2009 at 10:06 am
- 9 Comments
After President Obama outlined an ambitiously reasonable cap-and-trade program for reducing carbon emissions in his budget proposal last week, the White House made the mistake of sending an accountant to defend it on the Sunday chat shows.
After former House Speaker Newt Gingrich attacked the idea as an “energy tax,” Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag mounted the economist’s defense, saying there would be costs and benefits — but never mentioned the words “global warming” or “climate change” — as if the costs imposed by cap and trade had no purpose. Orszag explained that energy costs would rise to offset health reforms, which is right in a big picture sort of way — but not as appealing or precise as the details in the Obama’s plan. The budget summary says $192.5 billion of the estimated $237 billion from auctioning off the right to emit carbon will go toward funding a permanent version of the “Making Pay Work Pay” tax credit (pdf; see p. 115) in the stimulus bill. In other words, higher energy costs would be offset by middle-class tax relief.
Yes, reducing carbon emissions is a complex subject to reduce to a sound byte. But is it so hard to say, “We’re doing something about global warming?”
9 Comments
Comment posted March 2, 2009 @ 7:58 am
Global warming stopped in1998, it has cooled since then. None of the computer models predicted this. The scientific consensus now is the CO2 has little or no effect on the climate. Those who say it does are lying to protect their Government grants, or, like Al Gore, expect to skim off billions of dollars from the scheme or are selling carbon credits to do nothing and defraud the public.
But since when did it matter whether global warming existed or not — the reason is the tax revenue. We are talking trillions of dollars out of the pockets of the middle and lower classes. Schemes like Obama's resembles the Kyoto Protocols — the biggest fraud ever. It did not help lower CO2 emissions, it made electricity costs skyrocket and forced businesses to move or shut down.
This is the mechanism Obama will use to bankrupt the coal industry and the electric utilities who are dependent on coal for almost 50% of all power. Alternative sources are a joke, just replacing one megawatt plant takes a wind farm occupying 60,000 acres, and when the wind does not blow — coal power is needed to keep the lights on.
This whole thing is a colosal fraud and is aimed at taking away money from the poor and middle class. Oh, sure Obama is cutting taxes– it's like he is giving a candy to keep people quiet while chopping off the arms and legs.
Kyoto will not be extended — the whole sstem will be revealed to be the biggest fraud of the 10th century. Remember it's not the principle, it's the money.
Comment posted March 2, 2009 @ 8:01 am
SAVING LIVES / SAVING THE PLANET / DITCHING THE EXCESS CARS:
– How many lives can be saved? Over Ten Thousand Annually In The USA
Over One Hundred Thousand Worldwide
– What will be done to save these lives? Reduce The Number Of Cars On The Road:
By preparing and distributing a glossy brochure summarizing the ideas
contained in the recent book;
“HOW TO LIVE WELL WITHOUT OWNING A CAR” by Chris Balish
– The basis (scientific research, past experience, etc.) on which we believe these many lives can be saved:
–The U. S. National Highway Safety Administration (NHSA) states that 41,059 People per year are
killed in traffic accidents in the USA–February 2009 data
–There are over 134 Million cars registered in the USA–2006 data
–The World Health Organization (WHO) states that over One Million People per year are killed in traffic
accidents Worldwide–2007 data
– How many dollars do we need to accomplish this objective?
–$200,000 would be required to prepare the brochure and mail to all households in one state
–Costs for printing and mailing to households in each of the other 49 states would require $100,000 per
state and $100,000 for each country selected outside the USA.
Comment posted March 2, 2009 @ 8:05 am
Double the size of this bill, it's simply not big enough. We need to invest more in America instead of wasting our tax dollars on Iraq, costly republican war toys and corrupt republican contractors.
Comment posted March 2, 2009 @ 9:03 am
Like your energy bills now?
Wait till Cap and Trade gets in.
Your electric bill will double.
Forget air conditioning. You won't be able to afford it.
Enjoy that 101 degree weather the old fashioned way.
Think you'll switch to something else for heat.
Not after the coming “carbon taxes”
Wait till you need a permit for your fireplace or woodstove.
Obama and the Democrats think they own you. Slavery is back.
Pingback posted March 2, 2009 @ 11:24 am
[...] The Washington Independent » Orszag’s Weak Defense of Cap-and-Trade Jefferson Morley [...]
Comment posted March 2, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Newt may be a famous politician, however he isn't known for giving his honest opinions about anything.
Comment posted March 3, 2009 @ 5:31 am
Capping emissions–through a cap and trade scheme or a carbon tax–is necessary to solve the ever-growing climate change problem. And to sell it to the public, we have to be talking about decreasing something harmful: emissions, and increasing something good: money in their pocket from payroll or income tax cuts.
Comment posted March 3, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Capping emissions–through a cap and trade scheme or a carbon tax–is necessary to solve the ever-growing climate change problem. And to sell it to the public, we have to be talking about decreasing something harmful: emissions, and increasing something good: money in their pocket from payroll or income tax cuts.
Comment posted July 1, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
Fortunately, the republicans will be back in power via the midterm elections and put a halt to this looney left madness.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
