The last gasp for "global warming taxes will hurt the economy" alarmists?

Question

http://www.grist.org/news/2008/03/17/EPArpt/

"The U.S. EPA has released its economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, concluding that implementing the bill, which includes a carbon cap-and-trade system, would not significantly harm the U.S. economy over the next 20 years. The agency estimated the bill would likely cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 11 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and about 56 percent below by 2050. The EPA also forecast that the U.S. gross domestic product would grow by some 80 percent between 2010 and 2030 under the bill -- only 1 percent below what it would otherwise have been."

Here's the kicker:

"...environmentalists interpreted the report as confirmation that climate bills can coexist with economic growth, and also stressed that the EPA analysis didn't calculate the economic benefits of reducing emissions."

So there's minimal negative impact, even if your don't add in the positive savings and new industries created.

Answer 1

I must I agree with Jim z ,and Eric, jlebalnc, Heretic, Pedro, Bob326, and Crazycon, (and Newt Gingrich)  This approach may or may not be well intentioned, but it does not address the problem.  No one has a clear idea where we need to put our money, so I can't support a new tax without a goal.  The only thing that is clear is we need to stop using petroleum immediately.  That's something we could have done at any point in the past 20 years, and I don't see how a tax is needed to do it.  We need to repeal Bush's alternate energy legislation that killed all funding for any technology less than 50 years from the marketplace and directed it all into Hydrogen.  The federal government needs to override the patent rights Chevron and GM bought that allows them to suppress the NiMH battery technology.  That is critical even if it meant nationalizing the whole d**n car and petroleum industries, but that shouldn't be necessary.  The government has abrogated patent rights before in time of National Emergency, and there has never been a bigger one.  Those two steps alone would get us halfway to becoming petroleum independent, which is the first and most necessary step to deal with Global Warming.

Answer 2

great...more restrictions in usa and europe....no wonder the companys are shiping all the jobs to india and china...no koto there!!!!!!

Answer 3

Since when has the EPA become experts on economic matters?  

The worlds top economists, including several Nobel laureates do not agree.  They did a cost benefit analysis and said it is not worth it.  

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Defau...

Answer 4

Gee, a government agency reports that government regulations won't cause harm.  Quelle surprise!

Answer 5

Now the scientists are saying the earth is naturally cooling and will delay "global warming" until 2015.

That won't stop the extra taxation, but at least we know the planet handles itself and humans have no effect on climate.

Answer 6

Anybody who is an actual conservative and informed would realize what nonsense that is.  I often wonder why leftists won't just come out and admit it, but for some reason they like to pretend that they are conservative.  I am as liberal as I think is reasonable.  Perhaps that is their excuse too, they pretend to be as conservative as they believe is reasonable.  An informed person would realize that government bureaucracies always, (not sometimes), overestimate benefits and underestimate costs and are always surprised by the unintended consequences.

Answer 7

South Africa doesn't share that opinion. But I guess each to their own. Kinda reminds me of the (NAFTA) agreements."Whoops!", major boo boo.

Answer 8

So it's all good!

Answer 9

Tell that to all the people currently starving and rioting because of the biofuel idea. That was some more genius coming from the idiotic environmentalist (and Bush). h**l, even I knew their ideas would raise food and gas prices. Of course, they thought it was a good idea. So yea, you go ahead and believe that their cap and trade stupidity will be good for us.

By the way, in terms of temp decline, what will that $30 billion (1% of 3 trillion) in lost market really buy?

How about this report which says this stupid plan (made by stupid people) will cost each family over $10,000 per year.

http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl...

Answer 10

Isn't that over a month old?

Anyhow, here are some "highlights" from the report:

-"Under S.2191, GDP is modeled to be between 0.9% ($238 billion) and 3.8% ($983 billion) lower in 2030 and between 2.4% ($1,012 billion) and 6.9% ($2,856 billion) lower in2050 than in the Reference Scenario.  "

Sounds like a joy

-"The average annual growth rate of consumption is ~0.08 percentage points lower than the reference case. In 2030 per household average annual consumption is ~$1,375 lower and gasoline prices increase ~$0.53 per gallon.  In 2050 per household average annual consumption is ~$4,377 lower and gasoline prices increase ~$1.40 per gallon. "

-"Electricity prices are projected to increase 44% in 2030 and 26% in 2050"

Yeah, lets hurt the poor!

-"In the core scenarios, nuclear power grows by ~150% by 2050 from 2005 levels.  In

scenarios where technologies were constrained, i.e., nuclear power growth limited to ~ 75%,

delay of CCS deployment until 2030 or limited use of biomass forelectricity generation, costs

were significantly higher: GHG allowances prices increased more than 80% in 2030 and

2050 and GDP losses increased by more than 150% in 2030 and 80% in 2050. "

-"Under the core S. 2191 international assumptions, no international emissions leakage occurs.  In fact, emissions in Group 2 countries fall by over 12,000 million metric tons CO2equivalent (MtCO2e) as they adopt emission targets beginning in 2025."

Lets be overly optimistic

-"There are many uncertainties that affect the economic

impacts of S. 2191. This analysis contains a set of scenarios that cover some of the most important uncertainties:

– The extent and stringency of international actions to reduce GHG emissions by developed and developing countries.

– The availability of foreign credits and international offset projects.

– The availability of domestic offset projects.

– The degree to which new nuclear power is technically, politically, and socially feasible.

– Whether or not carbon capture and storage technology will be available at a large scale."

etc...

I suggest that everyone read the report and then make a judgement: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloa...

J.S. said:

"What I don't understand though is why a new tax is needed. Surely most of the military budget can be re-allocated if we simply stop looking for fights to start and enemies to make."

The second sentence shows great naivete. I suggest you do a little research.