The Case Against Cap and Trade

Al Gore and James Hansen would have us believe that catastrophe is assured if we do not take drastic action immediately to reduce greenhouse gases. They claim that the argument is settled - that there is irrefutable scientific proof of their claims. They are wrong.

At The Petition Project, 31,478 scientists have signed a petition refuting global warming alarmist claims. The petition reads, in part:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

There is a great deal of data at this site to back up this claim, including a fairly exhaustive study of the "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," which takes into account solar activity, rainfall averages over the centuries, tornadic severity and a great deal more. I could quote extensively from the paper, but you would be much better served by perusing the whole thing.

According to geocraft.com, human activity is responsible for approximately 0.28% of all greenhouse gases. Water vapor, 99.999% of which is naturally occurring, is the most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide, including both naturally occurring and manmade contributions, accounts for 3.618% of all greenhouse gases. Only 3.225% of this 3.618% is anthropogenic in origin - in other words, man-made carbon dioxide accounts for 0.117% of all greenhouse gases! Just over one-tenth of one percent. If you throw in all the other greenhouse gases man produces, a grand total of 0.28% of all greenhouse gases are anthropomorphic in origin. Just over one-quarter of one percent - this is an important number to keep in mind as you read the remainder of this post.

According to David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate Change, Karen Campbell, Ph.D., Policy Analyst, Macroecomomics and Nicolas Loris, Research Assistant, all at The Heritage Foundation, the costs of this legislation are much greater than just dollars scooped from our collective pocket. They enumerate a number of flaws in the CBO's (Congressional Budget Office's) analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (please click the link above to read the details - there is a great deal more technical detail than I feel compelled to directly include here), concluding that

In The Heritage Foundation's analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP hit in 2020 was $161 billion (2009 dollars). For a family of four, that translates into $1,870--a pretty big chunk of change that the CBO is ignoring.

It is also worth noting that, of the 24 years analyzed by The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis (CDA), 2020 had the second lowest GDP loss. Furthermore, the CDA found that for all years the average GDP loss was $393 billion, or over double the 2020 hit. In 2035 (the last year analyzed by Heritage) the inflation adjusted GDP loss works out to $6,790 per family of four--and that is before they pay their $4,600 share of the carbon taxes. The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an astounding $114,915 by 2035.

And what is the grand gain we receive for this further devastation of our economy? Negligible to the point of being non-existent. Again from Heritage:

Regardless of the CBO's cost estimates of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade program, the necessary second part of the question--what benefits do the costs generate?--remains unanswered. Americans will get almost nothing in exchange for these higher taxes, and the legislation will provide nothing for future generations except more debt and less economic opportunity. According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century. This does not sound like a great deal for the next generation--millions of lost jobs, trillions of lost income, 50-90 percent higher energy prices, and stunning increases in the national debt, all for undetectable changes in world temperature.

Also relevant is the fact that the 0.28% of anthropomorphic contribution to greenhouse gases represents the contribution of all humans, not just Americans. Take a look at Dr. Kreutzer's testimony before the House Ways and Mean Committee in September, 2008:

Some argue that if the United States adopted a sufficiently severe cap on CO2 emissions that would induce the rest of the world to do the same. The same EPA analysis runs through just such a scenario and finds with the “leadership” effect the drop in CO2 concentrations are larger—perhaps enough to reduce world temperature by 1-2 degrees C.

However, the assumptions made to achieve even this reduction are entirely unrealistic. It is assumed that our leadership causes the developed world to reduce their emissions by 50 percent by 2050 and that the developing world would cut its emissions to the 2000 level by 2035.

Seeing what that means for just two countries, India and China, illustrates how unlikely it will be to meet that goal.

In 2000, China’s CO2 emissions per capita were about 2 tons per year. In India the 2000 per capita emissions were barely above 1 ton per year. Currently the U.S. emits about 20 tons. With no population growth, a 70 percent cut would bring us down to about 6 tons per capita per year. Expecting China and India to cut back to levels that are 1/3 or 1/6 of ours is unrealistic. Even holding them to our limit of 6 tons per capita would cause their emissions to grow more than enough to offset our 70 percent cut. The rest of the developing world would be no more inclined to abide by similarly stringent limits.

In summary, cap and trade legislation will cripple this country economically, costing millions of jobs and billions of dollars, and will not make any significant change in the global climate.

This is business as usual in Washington, D.C. these days - terrify the populace in every possible way to justify more dollars in the government coffers while returning no measurable benefit to the country. Wake up, America! Don't believe everything politicians tell you anymore - regardless of party. They have completely lost touch with the American people and are living in a bubble in D.C., feeding each other's lust for power and control at any cost. Think critically about what you hear or read in the news. If a doctor told you that you had an incurable disease and less than a year to live, would you just accept it and go home, or would you seek a second, and maybe a third or fourth, opinion? Global warming is not significantly impacted by human activity, and we are powerless to impact the climate. All we are doing when we try is padding the bank accounts of the Al Gore's of this world who have found the best money making scheme in recorded history.

One final point about Al Gore. If he really believed what he preaches, wouldn't he be doing everything humanly possible to reduce his own energy consumption? According to USA Today, that is anything but the case:

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Here's the inconvenient truth: Global warming is a scam. The polar bears know how to swim. Nature happens. Evidence is mounting that we are actually entering a mini-ice age...soon it will be like the 1970's all over again, and they'll be warning us all that we are all going to starve to death because the planet will be too cold to support farming. Use your heads, and call your Senators today and tell them to vote NO on cap and trade.