Like an old joke turned ironically true, it seems that the government is now preparing to actually tax us for breathing. This comes in the form of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 sponsored by Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) which is likely to come to the floor of the Congress as early as this Friday. It is the legislative culmination of the ongoing eco-madness based on the idea that carbon dioxide is a form of toxic pollution, despite the fact that it is produced in nature, is part of the atmospheric cycle on which all life is based, and is shown to stimulate plant growth and the replenishment of the atmosphere.
Of course, the truth is that carbon dioxide is not an environmental threat, but is merely being raised as a bogeyman to allow for the passage of laws like this new energy bill whose real purpose is social engineering and anti-capitalism. It's the perfect bogeyman because it's everywhere and can never actually be eliminated plus it's produced by almost every human activity — we even breathe it out with every breath. This means that a "carbon tax" can be applied to almost anything and becomes an excuse for raising taxes on everyone through indirect methods where the taxes end up being passed on to consumers in the form of energy price increases. John Dingell (D-MI) who is the senior Democrat in the House admitted recently that "nobody in the country realizes cap and trade is a tax, and it's a great big one."
The heart of this energy bill is the idea of a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide and other more serious pollutants, specifically targeting fossil fuels and making it costlier to use them, thereby pushing energy businesses to move into more earth-friendly sources of power. This is combined with the idea of "cap and trade" which allows companies which produce high emissions to buy offsets from companies which produce low emissions, thereby subsidizing the low polluters at the cost of the high polluters.
This all sounds great in abstract, but the problem is that 85% of America's energy currently comes from fossil fuels of one sort or another, so the initial aggregate cost of the program will be huge. The other problem is that cap and trade just doesn't work. As has been demonstrated in those nations where it has been used, energy companies find it more practical to just pass on the additional cost to consumers so the net result of all of this is not a reduction in pollution, just a massive increase in prices for energy consumers — effectively a big additional personal tax on every man woman and child in the nation, something they can ill afford in hard economic times.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clavos
A small addendum to your excellent article, Dave.
One of the people who has already made a fortune from the so-called "Green Revolution," and who stands to make an enormous amount of money from cap and trade, is one of its loudest, most visible advocates, Al Gore.
When Gore left office, his net worth was estimated at about $2 million. Now, in 2009, after several years of selling "carbon offsets" (a form of shell game) through his company, Generation Investment Mnanagement, his personal net worth is estimated at $100 million (in just eight years) and climbing rapidly. He is also a partner in the venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which has just announced a half billion dollar investment in a green technology fund called the Green Growth Fund.
So, while, as you point out, the rest of us will be impoverished by the cap and trade tax, Mr. Gore, already a wealthy man by anybody's standards, will become rich as Croesus on the backs of the taxpayers.
2 - Clavos
I forgot to put in the link I had for the above comment #1.
3 - Dr Dreadful
"...despite the fact that it is produced in nature, is part of the atmospheric cycle on which all life is based, and is shown to stimulate plant growth and the replenishment of the atmosphere."
An absence of feces, Mr Holmes.
You do realize, don't you (of course you do) that the eco movement is well aware of this? The point is that any substance can become harmful or poisonous if its levels are excessive. Here, drink this 1000-gallon tank of water and let's see how you get on.
"...so the net result of all of this is not a reduction in pollution, just a massive increase in prices for energy consumers -- effectively a big additional personal tax on every man woman and child in the nation, something they can ill afford in hard economic times."
Something you almost never hear from those on your side of this argument is anything beyond the short-term implications of action. Such as, for instance, the long-term implications of inaction.
"Meanwhile the nation is enjoying what is reported to be one of the the coolest summers on record..."
And the temperature in the Sahara Desert sometimes drops below freezing at night. So what?
4 - roger nowosielski
Seasonal variations in temperature have always been a piss-poor argument on behalf of global warming or against it.
5 - Dan(Miller)
I seem to recall having read somewhere (perhaps in a comic book) that methane emissions are far more harmful to the environment than carbon dioxide emissions. Hence, we should tax methane emitters heavily. This may not be easy, but We Can Do It! There is no need to begin with expensive and uncomfortable cow bags. Prohibitive taxes on meat and milk producers would be a good start; they would also excite PETA and the vegetarian voters while simultaneously reducing health care costs. President Obama evidently needs all the help he can get on this bold initiative.
I do have one question, however: will the new Green taxes go to help the protesters in Iran?
Dan(Miller)
6 - Dr Dreadful
Of course, Dan. The protesters in Iran are tax-exempt, since they need all the methane they can get. The personal emissions of thousands of demonstrators all gathered in one place can be a highly-effective countermeasure against tear gas or water cannon.
7 - Clavos
Two things about the whole global warming thing:
1. The prophecies (they are certainly not scientific forecasts) are based on computer models designed by scientists anxious to prove their pet theory. One such model, the infamous "hockey stick," has already been proven to be claptrap.
2. Ever notice how inaccurate the predictions by the hurricane experts as to how many hurricanes and how severe they will be during the coming season are?
The atmosphere is a huge mass of gases, constantly in motion, and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict with any degree of accuracy, and there are scientists with impeccable credentials who say this.
But now, what was simply The Church of Global Warming has become the juggernaut industry of climatology, and too many rich men like Al Gore stand to make fortunes from it, so it's full speed ahead for every crackpot idea on which someone thinks they can make a buck.
8 - roger nowosielski
#6,
Do you mean one big massive fart?
9 - Deano
"a growing group of scientests..."
Oh dear Lord, you aren't trotting out that tired and long-since defenestrated Petition Project as a proof of a scientific groundswell against global warming again are you Dave?
Leaving aside the fact that there was a dubious sign-up process, no effort to check or verify credentials of the signatories, that a lousy BS qualifies you as an eligable "scientist" and that the vast majority of the signatories are NOT from anything related to climatology....
I'm not going to bother to comment on the rest of this article because, bluntly, life is too short, but you should realize that using such dubious, biased and spurious sources doesn't make the rest of the claims of this article particularly credible.
10 - Dr Dreadful
The atmosphere is a huge mass of gases, constantly in motion, and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict with any degree of accuracy, and there are scientists with impeccable credentials who say this.
Yes, there are. They are quite correctly pointing out that climate should not be confused with weather.
So Dave's comment about it being a cool summer (tell that to Fresno, where it was 102 yesterday) is bullshit. I suspect he knows this perfectly well, and was simply wisecracking.
Modern short-term weather forecasts are in fact extremely accurate, although they're mostly based on air movements that are already in play. It's a bit like looking at a demolition engineer with his hands on the plunger and predicting that there's going to be a big bang in a moment. Anything further out than about a week is still highly speculative.
However, it is quite reasonable to look at, say, this month over the next ten years and predict that the weather in general is going to look fairly similar to this year's. Especially if your data for the last ten years shows the same thing.
11 - Dave Nalle
However, it is quite reasonable to look at, say, this month over the next ten years and predict that the weather in general is going to look fairly similar to this year's. Especially if your data for the last ten years shows the same thing.
And the root problem is that if you take a sample even that small, the impact of global warming is difficult to identify at all.
Dave
12 - Dr Dreadful
And the root problem is that if you take a sample even that small, the impact of global warming is difficult to identify at all.
I was simplifying to make a point. Please don't try to pretend that the larger data isn't there. As I've said repeatedly, I wish you and the GW skeptics were right and that the data didn't exist, I really do. But they do exist.
13 - Jordan Richardson
The ability of the same group of people to continually politicize every single issue to the point of denying actual scientific proof is just astounding. The price of going green? I'm more concerned about the cost of NOT going green.
Climate change is not a religion. You don't just "believe" in it or not.
Oh, and I'm glad the guy that advocated nuclear weapons and helped Israel get the H-bomb supports the "petition" Dave posted. Why is it not surprising that a guy who died in 2003 would be touted as a key voice against man-made global warming (who cares if it's man-made or not?) several years after his death? Also, notice in the comments section on the "petition" Dave linked to how the author of the post noted that the entire thing was "dubious."
Brilliant. How much further do we have to let our planet go down the shitter before we realize that this isn't political?
14 - Jonathan Scanlan
Just because you can't put exact numbers on a thing does not mean you can't make predictions in the ball park. Besides, a carbon tax is something you can sell to the community - and if there was ever a time for taxes, then now is the time.
Dave, the unfortunate thing about your analysis is that it's focused entirely on the present, rather than long term impacts.
Oh, and BTW, I just found these guys...
Anyone else ever heard of them?
15 - Jordan Richardson
As for the continued paranoid commentary that this is all some idea dreamt up with the notion of earning money as the ultimate goal....
WHAT?
This continued insistence that Al Gore is somehow "behind global warming" because he's rich and has some more money to make with every "crackpot idea" he thinks of is idiotic. Fuck Al Gore, he's got nothing to do with this.
It's not expensive to "go green." It costs less, it's more efficient, it's healthier for your body and the earth, and it doesn't suddenly create a cottage industry of bean-eating weirdos to simply live in a sustainable fashion. Since when is conservation a bad thing?
16 - Clavos
This continued insistence that Al Gore is somehow "behind global warming" because he's rich and has some more money to make with every "crackpot idea" he thinks of is idiotic. Fuck Al Gore, he's got nothing to do with this.
I don't think I said he is "behind global warming."
What I do say is he's a sanctimonious, hypocritical phony whose holier-than-thou attitude tarnishes in the light of his wheeling and dealing to make money on GW, all the while generating the enormous carbon footprint he does.
No wonder he didn't get elected.
17 - Clavos
Here's an interesting insight into Spain's headlong rush into alternative energy and the creation of green jobs, which Obama so rhapsodically endorses.
An excerpt:
For fervent believers in governments' abilities to control the climate and in the urgent need for them to do so, believing is seeing: They see, through their ideological lenses, governments' green spending as always paying for itself. This is a free-lunch faith comparable to that of those few conservatives who believe that tax cuts always completely pay for themselves by stimulating compensating revenues from economic growth.
18 - Dave Nalle
Data of various sorts exist, analyzed in a variety of different ways to produce a great many results, some more convincing than others.
The question here has nothing to do with that. The question is whether it is worth driving people into poverty and unemployment for an infinitessimal improvement in global temperatures when the highest those temperatures might go is still far lower than temperatures we have had in other periods of recorded history?
IMO it's not worth the economic and social devastation which this bill will cause to achieve nothing meaningful except enriching Al Gore and further empowering the out of control government.
Dave
19 - Ruvy
Like any other Obamanation, "going green" has nothing to do with the environment or doing anybody any good. It has everything to do with the "green" in your pockets going away, and that is really what "going green" is all about.
Yup!! You guys really got the government you deserve! And I complain about Netanyahu?! I should shut up about the traitor and say to myself, "there, but for the Grace of G-d, go I."
Oh, by the way, global warming is real - but is being hidden by something called "glabal dimming"....
20 - Jeannie Danna
Yet another country bashing article in the politics section of this mag.
maybe that's what's causing global warming?
21 - Jordan Richardson
Clavos, you said this:
too many rich men like Al Gore stand to make fortunes from it, so it's full speed ahead for every crackpot idea on which someone thinks they can make a buck.
Surely you can see where I might have pulled that inferred some sort of "foul play" regarding Gore and the facts of global warming. Your statement above goes beyond his obvious personality problems and hypocrisy and into suggesting that this is some sort of "for-profit" ideology.
My point is that it is not. My point is to encourage people to look beyond the politics. This is a scientific issue, not a political one. It has nothing to do with Al Gore, the United States, Barack Obama, Democrats, or anything else. To suggest that it does is just arrogance.
22 - Jordan Richardson
Jeannie, this isn't a country bashing article.
This is another alarmist article by Dave suggesting that somehow "going green" in terms of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (sponsored by Democrats, of course) is going to make everybody broke. It is yet another example of Dave using a scientific fact and his government's approach to it to drum up support for his own ideology as opposed to investigated the issues objectively.
It's a shame, but at least he's honest....sometimes.
23 - Arch conservative
"This continued insistence that Al Gore is somehow "behind global warming" because he's rich and has some more money to make with every "crackpot idea" he thinks of is idiotic."
Yet every moonbat and his mother finds it perfectly acceptable to label any scientist with respectable credentials that dares question global warming as "bought by the oil companies."
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
24 - MarkSaleski
What I do say is he's a sanctimonious, hypocritical phony whose holier-than-thou attitude...
ooh, delicious irony. it must be friday.
25 - Dave Nalle
It is yet another example of Dave using a scientific fact
Jordan, even most proponents of global warming don't go this far. They still call it a "theory" because if they are scientists they understand the difference between theory and fact. Plus there is a huge difference between identifying a trend of slight global warming and thinking that it's man-made, reversible or a serious problem. On a lot of those issues the jury is still out.
and his government's approach to it to drum up support for his own ideology as opposed to investigated the issues objectively.
What you seem not to get is that the global warming hysteria really has nothing to do with science or even global warming. It's all about redesigning society on a less capitalist model and directing revenue towards government and away from people.
When cap and trade makes energy so expensive that the average citizen can no longer afford it, then the government will come to us with energy subsidies and pretty soon our electric bill will be added to our list of entitlements, rationed and metered and underwritten by tax dollars taken from the "fortunate" (hard working) and given to the growing body of dolists who are more and more dependent on the state. THIS is what the ultimate objective here is.
Dave