American Thinker | Marc Sheppard | Jun. 9, 2008
Last week Democrats tried to kill the economy in the name of solving a problem that doesn’t exist. Republicans should hang this bill around their necks in every district where an incumbent voted for the woefully misnamed and deservedly DOA Climate Security Act, technically S.3036.
Asking Americans to pony up even more at the pump with already record gasoline prices creeping higher almost daily seems offensive enough. But compelling such burden under the guise of moral imperative to curb global warming at a time when the planet is actually cooling rings downright obscene.
And that’s why last week’s cavalcade of Senators opposing the Act — which would have directed the EPA to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases — entirely on economic grounds was so confounding.
Don’t get me wrong — the fiscal arguments against the bill’s draconian business regulations were inexorable — its massive consequent spike in energy costs would be nothing short of ruinous to the nation. An April EPA analysis of the bill estimated a 53 cents per gallon increase in the price of gasoline and a 44% jump in electricity costs by 2030 should it become law. Even those figures precariously assumed a 150% increase in nuclear and “significant use of biomass” for electricity generation; otherwise costs will be “significantly higher.” Add a projected net loss of almost a trillion dollars in GDP by that very same year and this blatantly socialistic power-grab attempt deserved the pauper’s funeral it received on financial grounds alone.
That’s without even considering that there’s no proof whatsoever that the actions of mankind can influence global temperatures even one degree Celsius in either direction.
With Americans struggling to keep food on the table in lighted rooms of solvent homes as soaring energy costs drive prices painfully northward across the board, a bill that would hemorrhage thousands of additional dollars from each family’s survival-chest annually would seem inopportune at best. Indeed, this public display of politicians debating climate science in terms of macroeconomics, while betraying a comprehension of neither by a disturbing majority within their ranks, was a wonder to behold in these truly trying times.
Green dreams were peddled. Imagine the insolence of countering the economic-suicide predicted from arbitrary and inherently unmonitorable CO2 limits with unfounded promises of some imaginary “green job” boom. Or basing short-term impact projections on the advent of renewable energy “technological advances,” naively citing alternately the Apollo Mission and Manhattan Project as prognosticators of success’s inevitability. And amid all these fantasies, legislating likewise non-existent Carbon capture and sequestration technology shackles upon the only energy source realistically capable of providing the nation’s electricity for decades to come: Coal.
It’s no secret how much liberals covet European models for just about everything. Yet, Europe’s even less intrusive attempts at cap-and-trade have failed miserably, wreaking havoc upon economies with no significant decrease in atmospheric carbon levels. Britain’s efforts to legislate carbon limits have sparked trucker and taxi-driver strikes and protests and even threaten Labor’s majority. In fact, climate legislation across the pond has failed so miserably that a new poll found “more than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change.”
Yet, despite all the consumer misery endured, CO2 levels in Great Britain still increased by 3.39% between Kyoto ratification in 1997 and 2004. True, the global average was 18.05%, but the United States, whose refusal to ratify allowed continued economic growth, managed a mere 6.57% increase. Compare that to other Kyoto signers like Japan (10.61%), Russia (15.61%) or Italy (15.53%). In fact, lib-beloved France, with all its Carbon pontification, barely beat the US (6.21%), despite deriving the majority of its electricity from carbon-neutral nuclear plants.
. . . more