Thread: Dear Senator: Please Vote Against Cap-and-Trade

James Manzi: Dear Senator: Why you should vote against cap-and-trade

By: James Manzi
Op-Ed Contributor
September 30, 2009

Earlier this year the U.S House of Representatives approved the Waxman-Markey bill to establish a so-called cap-and-trade program designed to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.

Cap-and-trade is a gee whiz name, but all it means is that the government would establish a total limit for annual CO2 emissions, auction or otherwise distribute ration coupons for the right to emit, and then allow the holders to buy and sell coupons in a legal secondary market.

This would impose costs on the economy, but the theory of the case is that the reduction in climate change damages would more than offset this.

The Senate is considering a vote on similar legislation this fall. Without regard to party or ideology, I believe that the evidence is clear that such a law, if it is anything like Waxman-Markey, would be contrary to the public interest.

For one thing, it would be a terrible deal for American taxpayers. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's own projections, Waxman-Markey would impose annual costs of about $1,100 per household (a little less than 1 percent of total consumption) by 2050.

The benefits we will get in return? If the law works precisely as intended, in about 100 years we should expect surface temperatures to be a about one-tenth of one degree Celsius lower than they otherwise would be. The expected costs are at least 10 times the expected benefits, even using the EPA's cost estimates and assuming achievement of the primary goal of the legislation.

There are other reasons to be wary of Waxman-Markey as well. Contrary to early expectations that auctioning cap-and-trade permits would generate $80 billion per year of government revenue, it would not contribute materially to deficit reduction.

Because so many allowances have been given away to special interests to try to get the votes needed to pass the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office now estimates that it will bring in a net of a little over $2 billion per year over the next decade. This is about one one-thousandth of this year's budget deficit.

A further effect of all of these deals (which are entirely predictable in a democracy) is that Waxman-Markey is very unlikely to achieve even the limited benefits that are claimed for it. The details of the bill mean that there is now not a hard cap on emissions for at least the first decade of its existence.

What do you think the odds are that this will change at some undetermined point in the far future when all of the normal interest-group pressures of a democracy are supposed to magically disappear?

Some argue that though Waxman-Markey isn't perfect, it is important to set an example for other nations to follow. But the effectiveness of that strategy seems questionable. Unilaterally cutting emissions amounts to giving away our most obvious leverage with other nations to get them to curb their greenhouse gas emissions.

Can we seriously expect China to be guilted into sacrificing its perceived economic self-interest just because we did it first? More fundamentally, the global deal that we would theoretically be chasing isn't even attractive, even if we assume every technical climate change prediction by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is correct.

As Capitol Hill prepares to take up climate change legislation once again, senators should cast a far more critical eye at the chief cap-and-trade proposal than their House counterparts did in June. Waxman-Markey would impose costs at least 10 times as large as its benefits, would not reduce the deficit, and wouldn't even really cap emissions. What, then, is the point?


James Manzi is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 18987.html

Cap and Trade should be directly linked with foreign aid the U S offers. If Cap and Trade passes, all foreign aid, minus emergency assistance, should be cut complketely. The ONLY way we can afford the ability to offer so much foreign aid is because of our industriousness. If you tax that then you must compensate by lowering taxes somewhere else...

Remember: Obama told the Unions after his election, "I owe you!" Well, he is certainly giving them PAYBACK by passing Cap and Trade... this bill is coming up for vote real soon... you should contact your sentators and tell them NO on cap and trade:

Petition To
(Your Senator's Name)

Whereas: Big Labor's Card Check Forced Unionism Bill would greatly empower union bosses by allowing them to impose forced unionism card checks automatically with no secret ballot election and no recourse for workers; and

Whereas: Under a card check system, union militants would know which workers have signed cards and which haven't, so independent-minded workers are lied to, intimidated -- and worse -- into signing themselves and all their fellow non-union employees over to union boss control; and

Whereas: Passage of the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill would force millions more workers under union boss control; and

Whereas: Passage of the Card Check Forced Unionism Bill would dramatically increase the number of bitter strikes that shut down businesses and destroy jobs, ensure that even more plants are closed and more jobs are shipped overseas or lost forever, and shackle small businesses and our economy with a union-label ball and chain.

Therefore: In the interests of a strong economy, workers' freedom and more jobs, I urge you to oppose Big Labor's Card Check Forced Unionism Bill.

Signed: _____________________ City ______________ State ____

"You can use this and fax/email your State senators and representatives but DO IT SOON... they are planning on a quick vote on this one!!!!!!!!

Cap and trade,Health care all about redistribution of wealth and tearing
down capitalism in America nothing more nothing less.

Originally Posted by oldguy

Cap and trade,Health care all about redistribution of wealth and tearing
down capitalism in America nothing more nothing less.

I agree. There is no health crises in America. Employers want government run health care so they can keep their cheap labor without having to offer costly benefits. Its also another scare tatic to get all of us in a panic so they can own us. They will know everyone's personal information that should be kept between family and doctors only. They will be able to access our bank accounts for payments that are overdue or if someone dies they will be able to keep their money for any unpaid bills. Cap and Trade is another hoax so they can collect as much money from the middle class and spread it all over poor communities and give uneducated poor people green jobs that dont even exist. They are both scams and just as corrupt as the TARP, Stimilus, Bail outs, or whatever you wish to call these schemes. Obama is taking us down.