The Climate Change Push: From Capitol Hill to Copenhagen
- Oct 6, 2009 - 7
The push toward enacting sweeping energy regulations in a vain attempt to minimally lower the Earth’s thermostat is alive and well in Washington and beyond.
Last week, the Senate unveiled legislation that would require massive cuts in carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases emitted by industry sectors large and small. Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), following the House’s lead, introduced a cap-and-trade bill that would mandate a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 compared to 2005 levels. That’s the “cap.”
The pain to industry sectors would grow more acute over time. Under the 801-page Kerry-Boxer draft (S. 1733), carbon emissions must be slashed to 83 percent of 2005 levels by 2050, a ceiling on par with the companion House bill, which passed narrowly in June by a 219-212 vote. To remain compliant, emitters that exceed the government-imposed cap would be forced to buy “credits” from companies that manage to discharge less carbon than their allotment. That’s the “trade.”
The cap-and-trade proposals are better termed cap-and-tax. America would see its largest tax increase in history. While cap-and-tax imposes restrictions directly on industries, costs incurred would be passed on to consumers. Anyone who flips on a light switch would take a hit to the pocketbook.
President Obama, speaking about his proposal to editors at the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008, said, “[E]lectricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” A Heritage Foundation study found that a family of four could expect to see their inflation-adjusted energy prices soar an additional $1,870 per year by 2020 and $6,800 per year by 2035 under the House-passed bill.
But most fundamentally, the premise of the bills—that humans are the main culprits for global warming—rests on a flawed interpretation of science. Contrary to some of the global warming hype, the last decade saw cooler, not warmer, temperatures globally, and the warmest decade on record was the 1930s. Regions of Arctic ice caps are expanding, not shrinking. Polar bear populations are growing, not declining.
Yet supporters of a cap-and-trade policy are moving forward with increasing speed. Allies are trying to show U.S. progress ahead of a climate summit in Copenhagen in December, where the Obama administration hopes to reach agreement on a global emissions reduction plan. The White House reportedly reinforced its commitment to a cap-and-trade bill by dispatching a group recently to Capitol Hill to help garner congressional support. Two weeks ago, addressing the United Nations Climate Change Summit in New York, President Obama implored the world to “seek sweeping but necessary change in the midst of a global recession.”
The global warming agenda, if enacted, is certain to be a cash cow for the U.S. government and a boon to nations like India and China, as millions of American jobs move overseas. With the unemployment rate creeping toward 10 percent—the highest level in 26 years—and a lack of scientific evidence for humans affecting climate, embracing policies that would kill jobs and saddle businesses and families with exorbitant taxes is foolhardy at best.
To express your concerns over the Kerry-Boxer bill (S. 1733) or the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454), you can contact your senators and representative here.
The soon-to-be-released documentary, produced by Greener Horizon Films, Not Evil Just Wrong cuts through the hype of global warming alarmism and exposes the real costs to real people if cap-and-trade policies are enacted. If you are interested in learning more about this resource or obtaining a copy of the DVD, visit the Cornwall Alliance’s Web site.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Living, Finances, Citizenship, Legislation, Science, Environment
Comments are closed. Please use our contact form if you have any thoughts or questions.
comments
1 On Oct 6th, 2009, at 4:16pm, Meredith Raney wrote:
It is good to see that Richard Land is backing off his support for the global warming junk science by allowing this article in his publication. I am encouraged.
2 On Oct 7th, 2009, at 11:06am, Matt wrote:
Hi Meredith,
Where on earth did you hear that Land supported the global warming junk science?
To my knowledge, this article is very much in line with his thinking on the subject.
mh
3 On Oct 8th, 2009, at 3:51pm, Jennifer wrote:
In one of my college classes today, I was asked to watch a video that had Mr. Land in it. I was horrified to know what he believed when it came to our climate change. To know that the Southern Baptist convention is trying to undermine what we are doing to the environment is terrible. It’s interesting to me how scientists all over the world are saying that because of human Co2 emissions the world’s climate is changing, yet these Christian scientists refute this idea. What for? Because they believe that because I care about our environment I’m a tree huger?
I was embarrassed when I found out that it was my convention saying these things. The movie I saw even claimed Co2 emissions were a positive thing and the abnormal heat would be good because people prefer being hot rather than cold. How ridiculous does that sound? Dominion doesn’t mean destroy… let’s be good stewards of the gifts we’ve been given.
4 On Oct 9th, 2009, at 11:22am, Matt wrote:
Jennifer,
I’d recommend checking out http://cornwallalliance.org for a biblically accurate approach to creation care.
You might also check out Land’s book (from 1992) on the subject, “The Earth is the Lords.” (To make sure whatever video you saw accurately portrays his stance.)
Evidenced by this thread, both you an Meredith have come to completely opposite conclusions as to what Land actually believes on this subject. It might be interesting to find out who’s right…
:-)
5 On Oct 9th, 2009, at 5:09pm, Kenton Hunt wrote:
Jennifer,
I’m not surprised you got the pro-global warming argument in college. What you want to concentrate on is the actual science. Do the research and you’ll discover that not only are there tens of thousands of scientists who have dissented from the UN IPCC report and recommendations, but their ranks are growing. Google the “senate minority report on global warming” to read statements from about 700 real scientists who are convinced that this whole global warming thing is a hoax.
Dr. Land is dead on in his opinions on this matter. The previous referral to the Cornwall Alliance is also an excellent suggestion. You can be a Christian environmentalist, as I am, without drinking the AGW cool-aid. Trust the science, not Al Gore, the major media outlets, or the UN IPCC. In order to get to the science you will have to get past the politics. This may sound odd but if you resist intellectual laziness and seek the truth on this matter, you will find it.
6 On Oct 9th, 2009, at 5:20pm, Kenton Hunt wrote:
Jennifer,
Here are some questions to get you started: CO2 is what percentage of the atmosphere? Humans are responsible for what percentage of atmospheric CO2? Have CO2 levels gone up in the last 10 years? What has the global temperature done in the last decade? Why is Greenland so-named? Why won’t global warming proponents debate the skeptics? What are the benefits of a warmer planet? How are the polar bears actually doing? How long have sea-levels been rising? What does a hockey stick have to do with global warming predictions? Do meteorologists claim to be able to accurately predict the weather 10 days from now? Why not?
You’ll find all the answers (and more) at the Cornwall Alliance and the Senate minority report websites, but there is so much much more.
Don’t be duped by fake science.
7 On Oct 11th, 2009, at 3:59pm, Theron wrote:
If greenhouse gasses are getting out of control why aren’t the plants exploding out of the ground? I see no evidence of that happening.