| Author |
Message |
    
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Monday, May 18, 2009 - 08:27 pm: | 
|
The Costs and Benefits of Waxman-Markey
Today the House Energy and Commerce Committee will begin
a multi-day markup on the
Waxman-Markey energy tax bill.
Committee Chairman Henry Waxman
(D-CA) has been busy lobbying his
own caucus for the necessary
30 votes to get the bill
out of committee for weeks,
but the bill’s fate is
still in doubt.
Considering that global warming
legislation is a cornerstone
of President Barack Obama’s
agenda (he needs the tax
revenues to fund his other
big spending priorities),
why can’t the Obama
administration convince their
own party that their energy
tax is a good deal for the
American people?
First let’s look at the
economic costs of Waxman-Markey.
Waxman-Markey attempts to limit
greenhouse gas emissions by
making it more expensive for
greenhouse gas emitters to
operate. Instead of a direct
tax on greenhouse emissions,
Waxman-Markey issues permits
(mostly for free but some at
a price paid to the federal government)
that allow businesses to emit
greenhouse gasses. Businesses
that fail to lobby the federal
government for enough permits
to cover their current emission
levels will then have to buy
them from either the federal
government or other businesses
that have better lobbyists
in Washington, DC.
The net effect of these permits
is higher costs for businesses
and consumers that emit
greenhouse gasses, the most
prevalent being CO2.
As then-candidate Barack Obama
explained to the San Francisco
Chronicle, this policy will
cause electricity prices
to “skyrocket.”
Since everything you consume
requires energy, the higher
energy costs caused by
Waxman-Markey will spread
throughout the entire economy.
The Heritage Foundation’s
Center for Data Analysis
has crunched the numbers
and found that by 2035,
last week’s version of
Waxman-Markey would:
1) reduce aggregate gross
domestic product (GDP) by
$7.4 trillion; 2) destroy
844,000 jobs on average;
and 3) raise an average
family’s annual energy
bill by $1,500.
And this week’s version
of the bill appears to
have an even greater
catastrophic effect on
the economy.
That’s a pretty steep cost.
So what do Americans get
for being $7.4 trillion poorer
in 2035? Other environmental
legislation has helped reduce
acid rain and slow the growth
of asthma, so Waxman-Markey
must offer some tangible benefits
to the American people right?
Wrong. Waxman-Markey is a
truly unique piece of
environmental legislation in
that it does not offer a
single tangible benefit to
the American people.
Global warming is just that:
global. The United States
still has the largest economy
in the world, but China is now
the world’s largest emitter
of greenhouse gasses.
India also has a rapidly growing
economy and neither they,
nor China, have any plans to
reduce their carbon emissions.
So, using the left’s own global
warming theory, how much
would Waxman-Markey actually
cool the earth? Climatologist
Chip Knappenberger crunched
the numbers and found that
even the strictest version
of Waxman-Markey would
reduce projected global
temperatures by just
0.044ºC by 2050. That is
less than one-tenth of
one degree.So as this week
progresses, and you hear
scary story after scary
story of all the hurricanes,
wildfires, and flooding
that will occur because
of global warming,
remember this:
according to the left’s own
computer models Waxman-Markey
would not prevent any of it.
Stuck on stupid again..tax mongers delight.
|
Bubby
Starlite Member
Username: Bubby
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 08:22 am: |
|
The Waxman-Markey Pay to Play
When Congress passed its last major energy legislation in 2005, a minor provision was added late in the legislative process that created a $1-per-gallon tax credit for “renewable diesel” fuel created through “thermal depolymerization.” The measure was included to benefit a single firm that produced boiler fuel from turkey waste, but in 2007 the Internal Revenue Service ruled that the tax credit also applied to other livestock waste. This led corporate giants ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods to form a joint venture that turned chicken, cow, and pig fat into diesel fuel.
Recent Entries
But just as ethanol mandates drove up the price of food, diverting Tyson’s animal fat into the energy market drove up the costs of manufacturing soap. So the soap lobby fought back and earlier this year Congress cut the thermal depolymerization tax credit in half. This made the Conoco/Tyson venture unprofitable, which they have since discontinued.
What does this have to do with the Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation currently being debated in Congress? Everything. In order to win enough votes to pass cap and trade, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has given the corporate members of the United States Climate Action Partnership (which includes both private and government-controlled firms like General Electric, Duke energy, Chrysler, and General Motors) a front-row seat in writing the legislation. The motives of these major corporations are simple: if they cooperate with big government in drafting the legislation, they can cut deals to protect their bottom line. If they don’t play ball, then big government will just tilt the regulatory scheme in their competitors favor. As the New York Times reports, this is exactly what is happening in the House now:
Cap and trade, by contrast, is almost perfectly designed for the buying and selling of political support through the granting of valuable emissions permits to favor specific industries and even specific Congressional districts. That is precisely what is taking place now in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has used such concessions to patch together a Democratic majority to pass a far-reaching bill to regulate carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade plan.
The Center for Public Integrity released a study today showing that lobbying on the Waxman-Markey bill has been dominated by just 10 major lobbying firms. And yesterday the United States Climate Action Partnership released a statement in support of Waxman-Markey explaining:
As USCAP has indicated, there are several key linked issues that must fit together to ensure a climate protection program is environmentally effective, economically sustainable and fair. In some instances, that does not occur in this legislation. … Individual USCAP members will continue to work with Congress to address these matters in a satisfactory manner.
Oh, we’re sure they will.
|
|
