What scientific facts from proven historical records that can be shown to support the need for more money to be spent on something that might not exist? At what point in the debate do recorded facts become the center point to bring about a common sense conclusion?
It seems the environmentalists and the progressive socialist liberal democrats, one and the same, believe there is no need to use facts in the debate, this is about trusting the 'changers and warmers' knowing what is best for humanity and the planet. What reason do we have to believe anything they say as fact?
That all of the money that has been spent, all of the misinformation and outright lies that the environmentalists have used to persuade the public that the end of all civilization is near, has done nothing of any consequence to stop a supposed warming problem.
The facts support the planet is not warming but actually cooling, but pay no attention to facts, this again as with most any other program that is supposedly designed to help humanity, is just about the continuing drive to gain more power to control outcomes.
The bottom line in the ideology of the progressive socialist liberal is to establishing absolute control over others. Once the progressives have driven enough people into dependency through scarcity, then the control of all outcomes will be complete.
Obama's Cap-and-Trade to Worsen Poverty
Source: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, "Obama's Plan to Make the Poor Even Poorer," Real Clear Markets, May 27, 2014.
June 2, 2014
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, explains why the EPA's new cap-and-trade regulations will make the poor a lot poorer.
Americans in the bottom fifth of the income distribution spend almost one quarter of their income on energy. Those in the top fifth, on the other hand, spend just 4 percent of their income on energy costs. The president's cap-and-trade proposal will raise the cost of energy, particularly electricity, thus hitting the poor the hardest.
The cap-and-trade program requires power plant emissions to fall by a certain rate, but it does not require each plant to reduce its emissions by the same rate. The proposal is said to cut emissions from utilities by 25 percent. Because these cuts in carbon emissions will raise the cost of electricity, they will also slow economic growth.
While everyone would like cleaner air, says Furchtgott-Roth, they would also like to be employed, and employment is generated by industrial activity. Regulation should strike a balance between the economy and the environment:
Americans in the bottom fifth of the income distribution spend almost one quarter of their income on energy. Those in the top fifth, on the other hand, spend just 4 percent of their income on energy costs. The president's cap-and-trade proposal will raise the cost of energy, particularly electricity, thus hitting the poor the hardest.
The cap-and-trade program requires power plant emissions to fall by a certain rate, but it does not require each plant to reduce its emissions by the same rate. The proposal is said to cut emissions from utilities by 25 percent. Because these cuts in carbon emissions will raise the cost of electricity, they will also slow economic growth.
While everyone would like cleaner air, says Furchtgott-Roth, they would also like to be employed, and employment is generated by industrial activity. Regulation should strike a balance between the economy and the environment:
- Currently, air quality is improving, and greenhouse gas emissions from power plants have declined 16 percent between 2005 and 2012.
- To meet the EPA's new standards, states would have to cut power plant emissions, reduce consumer demand for energy or invest in renewables, which are expensive. All of these options create economic costs in the form of fewer jobs and fewer factories.
- In 2012, coal-fired electricity generations accounted for 37 percent of total U.S. electricity generation, according to the Energy Information Administration. New coal plants would have to install controls to meet the EPA standards that would cost consumers billions of dollars each year.
- The Congressional Budget Office (2013) has reported that emissions reduction programs in general would cause job losses in coal mining, oil and gas extraction, gas utilities and petroleum refining. Wages would also drop.
- A December 2013 report from the CBO concluded that cap-and-trade would put emission-intensive American firms at a disadvantage compared to foreign competitors.
No comments:
Post a Comment