Quick! Raise energy prices! An election is coming!

While I've complained about (and even tried to analyze -- ugh!) the Lieberman-Warner "cap and trade" bill, I worried that it might pass, because it was a bipartisan bill that most voters didn't even know about.

So naturally was delighted today to see apparent evidence that the vast majority of voters oppose it:

As the Senate is poised to vote on the Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act, a new poll finds an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the higher energy costs the bill would impose.

The poll, conducted by the National Center for Public Policy Research, found 65% of Americans reject spending even a penny more for gasoline in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The number rejecting raising gas prices to combat global warming has increased by 17 percentage points -- or 35% -- in just over two months. The National Center conducted a similar survey in late February.

An additional 13% oppose spending more than 5% more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Lieberman-Warner would increase petroleum prices by 5.9% by 2015, according to Duke University. Other studies indicate the plan would push prices higher.

The survey found 71% of Americans reject spending more for electricity, with 16% opposing spending any more than 12% extra for electricity.

A study commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers estimated Lieberman-Warner would increase electricity prices by 13%-14% by 2014. Other studies estimated higher increases.

There are also profound philosophical objections.
The Lieberman-Warner bill is a cap-and-tax energy scheme, a carbon-emissions rationing program, a new tax on businesses and consumers, a new big government central agency and new career opportunities for thousands of new lobbyists specializing in greenhouse gas regulations...

... The bill also establishes the Carbon Market Efficiency Board, which shall report on the national greenhouse gas emission market and provide cost relief measures if it determines significant harm to the U.S. economy.

Give me a break!

The people who conceived and wrote this crap are obviously descendants of the same people who wrote the original tax code in 1913, the Social Security legislation in 1935, the Medicare bill of 1965 and the out-of-control prescription drug legislation of 2004.

Just look at how well all of these "the government knows best" programs are working today, and we have a good idea of where this latest giant leap for mankind will work for our grandchildren.

And here's CATO's Patrick Michaels:
It's going to cost trillions and do nothing measurable about climate change in the foreseeable future. Maybe it should be named the "Economic Insecurity Act" of the 21st Century.

Lieberman-Warner mandates that we reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide--the major human "greenhouse" emission--to 2005 levels by the year 2012. They've risen an average of 1% per year since 1990, depending upon the weather (in cold years we use more energy to heat our homes) and our economy. Not surprisingly, the more it grows, the more carbon dioxide is emitted. That's a screaming red flag about what S. 2191 will do for our prosperity.

The 2012 target is nothing compared to its long-term goals, which are a 15% reduction below 2005 levels in 2020, growing year-by-year to a 70% reduction in 2050.

No one -- including Lieberman-Warner's proponents -- has a clue how to achieve such a change in our energy system. There simply is no known, workable suite of technologies available. But it could become law. Welcome to Washington.

All of this means that they'd never dare pass it, right?

Not in an election year?

Or would they?

posted by Eric on 06.02.08 at 11:59 AM


Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits