Cap-and-trade, one of the most expansive government efforts to control the U.S. economy, requires Americans to make sacrifices based on assumptions underpinned by dubious data. These economic and scientific claims made by politicians and advocacy groups should undergo close scrutiny. Data used to justify policy changes, especially those as monumental as cap-and-trade, should be analyzed critically to ensure validity.
(more ...)
Monday, September 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Mr. Harding lauds the importance of using reliable sources and scientific data, yet doesn't take his own advice in this article. The Heartland Institute, which he cites, is a conservative thinktank that has in the past been funded by corporate sources such as Philip Morris and ExxonMobil. Regardless of the ideas this thinktank publicizes, it's a little hypocritical to take the moral high ground on one's sources and talk about "close scrutiny" of data, only to quote an information source whose biases and alliances are clear.
And the cited Anthony Watts is just one scientist. Meanwhile, there are currently no scientific bodies of national or international standing arguing global warming is not man-made. IPCC-associated scientists from across the globe, not just those who work for the NOAA, have taken thousands of measurements on everything from ice caps to sea levels, and their evidence points to the seriousness of anthropogenic climate change.
Meanwhile, the carbon cap bill that Stabenow and Levin will hopefully vote for promises vast economic benefits for Michigan. The clean energy industry in this state is already growing at 10.7%, even without federal stimulus, and the carbon cap will encourage further free market competition between clean energy firms as they innovate their technology and lower their prices, seeking new customers.
Taking action on climate change hardly requires "sacrificing economic prosperity." Rather, it will add thousands of jobs to the 22,000+ Michigan already has in clean energy, and offer our manufacturing and other industrial sectors a chance to save millions of dollars by tapping opportunities for energy efficiency.
If the Mackinac Center really wants to help Michigan's economy and job market, they should be encouraging Senators Levin and Stabenow to vote for capping carbon.
The mere fact that the Heartland Institute receives support from ExxonMobil and Philip Morris does not mean its research is flawed or biased. Just about every think tank and university in this country receives corporate support in one form or another. The research must stand or fall on its own merits.
I'm amazed at this statement: "Meanwhile, the carbon cap bill that Stabenow and Levin will hopefully vote for promises vast economic benefits for Michigan. The clean energy industry in this state is already growing at 10.7%, even without federal stimulus, and the carbon cap will encourage further free market competition between clean energy firms..."
The carbon cap bill will pour huge federal (taxpayer) subsidies into so-called "clean energy" industries. To say that this is "free market competition" is to remove all meaning from the words. It is definitely NOT free market competition for the government to subsidize one type of industry over another.
Furthermore, a recent study of Spain's efforts to create "green" jobs in clean energy found that for every clean energy job created, 2.2 jobs in other industries were destroyed.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0
Thus, the whole idea of creating a vibrant economy through government subsidies of "green jobs" appears to be false.
Nora - Carbon Cap-and-Trade is a dirty deal whose main effect will be to transfer wealth from the public to rent-seeking special interests, and power from citizens to politicians and bureaucrats. For all that, it will have virtually no effect on climate.
If those who want to reduce carbon burning for whatever reason are really sincere, and honest, they would instead support a revenue-nuetral carbon tax. It would make every consumer a conservation maniac, and supercharge innovation in providing both new conservation tools and new non-carbon energy sources (including nukes). In the aggregate it would not cost consumers a dime, because the money they pay in carbon tax would be returned through cuts in other taxes.
It doesn't suprise me that the self-serving political class supports C&T, but sincere grass-roots folks who are genuinely concerned about this issue should reject it.
Hey sincere global warming warriors - if you want to create an honest, transparent and non-economically descructive policy alternative, throw-over the dishonest, non-transparent and destructive C&T and start talking about revenue-neutral carbon taxes. Until you do your real motives and goals are suspect.
Post a Comment