My take on: Cap-and-Trade (Waxman-Markey) Global Warming Bill, Part #1

A new study conducted by a scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency shows that global warming might not be as serious as Al Gore has made it out to be. It just so happens that this senior analyst's 98-page study was suppressed by the EPA, right after President Obama had promised more transparency from government agencies (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html). Another study shows that this last June is the 8th COOLEST on record since the late 1800s. However, for the benefit of the Obama Administration, let's all assume that global warming is actually as serious as he says it is, and that the attempt to pass the Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill isn't simply a huge power grab by the government. So if global warming were serious enough to implement a giant 1,500-page bill, would the bill actually help the situation? And would it encourage countries such as China and India to control their emissions, and thus make a difference on the global climate?

Well, first, the meaning of "Cap-and-Trade" should be explained. "Cap" means to put a government-imposed limit on carbon emissions. "Trade" means a government created market to buy and sell greenhouse gas credits (http://www.anjec.org). Basically, government will be given more power to regulate private business than ever, and this new legislation (if it passes in the Senate) will be a gateway bill to even more government control in our lives... And if it goes much further, we will easily be named among the socialist nations of the world.

It should also be noted that most of Europe has already tried the whole cap and trade thing, and so has Australia. At the same time that the Democrats and our President are trying to pass this massive bill, Australia is completely scrapping theirs. In Spain, cap and trade has resulted in an unemployment rate of 18.1% and a loss of 2.2 jobs for every single "green" job that is created (http://www.westernroundtable.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100037119.124182.44&gen=1). Not to mention the fact that Spain's annual carbon emissions have increased 50 percent since the subsidized "green jobs" program was launched. In Germany, instead of permitting large energy companies to emit 3 percent less carbon than they had the year before, cap and trade allowed some companies to buy permits allowing them to emit 3 percent more. They then traded the excess capacity on the open market, earning billions. The power companies then claimed that the permits were costing them money, so prices went up 5 percent in a year. Finally, the entire system ended up doing more harm than good for the environment. In particular, one power company ended up emitting 38 million tons over the first two years; an increase of 32 percent! (Beck) There are countless other serious problems with the progressive ideas contained in the Waxman-Markey bill... But I'll save those inconvenient truths for another day.

By the way, if you'd like to read all 1,500 pages of the bill, here you go: http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/hr2454-text.pdf or http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2454

Sources:
Glenn Beck, "An Inconvenient Book"
The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/News/Cap-and-Trade-Global-Warming-Bill.cfm)

ARC