There has been so much written about Cap and Trade that it can make ones head spin. We have Nancy Pelosi promising the president to pass this bill before the July 4th recess, which happened Friday night.




650px Coal power plant Datteln 2 Crop1

Are you ready to spend $10K more for energy?


In the end 40 Democrats did voted with Republicans against the bill. However there were 8 RHINOS that broke rank and voted with the Democrats.The 8 are Mary Bono Mack R (CA), Mike Castle R (DW), Mark Steven Kirk R (IL), Leonard Lance R (NJ), Frank LoBiondo R (NJ), John McHugh R (NY), Dave Reichert R (WA) and Chris Smith R (NJ) — under House rules, they can change their votes on Cap and Trade until Wed, July 2.

Keep calling, faxing and emailing. Make them hear you.

Now it goes to the Senate which may not pass as easily as in the House. Now is the time to put the pressure on and stop this from becoming law.

The damage it will cause is of no concern to Obama. He is more interested in kissing the worlds butt with this. All of this goes back to the Kyoto mumbo jumbo about global warming. He is more interested in being liked by the world then doing the right thing for America.

Things like letting the free market drive this. Let it develop new methods of energy and stop forcing his and only his choice on us. For all the talk about creating jobs, he has not yet created one. It is business and the inventive minds of working people that create jobs.
This will not make us energy independence. It will only make us pay more for what we already have.

Remember there is a reason Al Gore did not run in 2008. He did not want to take a huge pay cut to be President. He is said to be worth $100 million. Most made on the Global Warming lie and scare. Now we are going to forced to pay increased energy cost.

In the meantime, write or call your Senator and tell them not to vote for this bill. Be professional, don’t yell or cruse. Phone calls and emails do make a different.

Cap and Trade will not only tax us more then we can afford, it will cause massive unemployment. One estimate says 1,000,000 by 2030.

This is an energy tax. Don’t be fooled.

Below are summaries and links to the full articles written by some of the best economist in the country on this subject.

The Adverse Economic Impacts of Cap-and-Trade Regulations
Arthur Laffer and Wayne Winegarden September 2007

The eminent economist Arthur Laffer and his colleague Wayne Winegarden offer perhaps the best analysis of the economic impacts of cap-and-trade systems in this piece. The economists report that the U.S. economy would decline by up to 4.2% if the system were implemented to achieve Kyoto Protocol targets. Laffer and Winegarden also note that the cap-and-trade system could result in an energy supply shock, given that fossil fuels provide 86% of our current energy needs and that such shocks in the past 30 years have resulted in slow economic growth, increased unemployment, and declines in the stock market. Moreover, the economists report that under their projections the potential income loss for a family of four in 2020 would be $10,800 under a cap-and-trade system with Kyoto targets.
http://www.junkscience.com
Cap_and_Trade_Economic_Analysis_September_2007.pdf

Cap and Trade Would Stifle Economy, Delay Transition to Cleaner Fuels
Summary: This commentary emphasizes the arbitrary and economically-harmful qualities begat by cap-and-trade. Beyond subjecting the changing cap levels over time to political influences rather than market or scientific forces, the authors write that there are no cost-competitive alternatives to coal-generated energy available today to achieve these reductions. O’Keefe and Kueter argue that the caps on carbon emissions may freeze technological development and cause companies to “resist replacing their capital stock before the end of its economic life” since they will be coerced into meeting arbitrary goals. The authors also explain that cap-and-trade does not increase the cost of carbon (and thereby create an incentive to end use of carbon) and would increase the cost to businesses by forcing them to opt for more expensive fuels and to implement monitoring and reporting mechanisms to track their emissions and to acquire additional allowances if they exceed the emissions limit. O’Keefe and Kueter instead advocate for the continued development and use of new technologies and “rapid turnover of equipment.”
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22944

The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation
Summary: This Heritage Foundation Study proffers a stark critique of the Lieberman-Warner legislation and its drastic impact on the U.S. economy. The study is rather extensive but provides eyebrow-raising cost projections of the legislation’s impact, namely job losses exceeding 500,000 before 2030 and even approaching 1,000,000 and the extra $467 per year the average household would pay for natural gas and electricity, a figure that compounds to $8,870 over the 2012-2030 period. This study also includes the job loss numbers Minnesota would experience where the bill to become law. Minnesota earns the dubious ranking of #1 nationwide, losing the most jobs per 1 million people in 2025 at 5,166 jobs per 1 million people.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda08-02.cfm