Supporters of the Waxman-Markey bill like to claim that the energy tax will keep jobs in America, encourage greater investment in domestic technologies, and that we will finally stop sending money overseas for energy.
But, as the National Mining Association shows, the energy tax will require us to send more money overseas to pay for carbon offsets:
If this energy tax is supposed to spur the American economy, how will that happen when it forces Americans to send billions of dollars to foreign countries?
With the House voting on this energy tax today, call your Congressman and urge them to vote against this job-killing bill.
As to the Energy Bill advocates, I would like to send them overseas. I would be happy to finace that...
Global Climate Evidence Has Evolved
A quote from one of EPA’s own scientists (1), “Science…..is not a statement of belief “ and it is not “….writing a description of the world or the opinions of world authorities on a particular subject. Science……..is the process of generating hypotheses and experimentally determining their validity by comparison with real world data. It is important to note that science evolves over time.” By the government’s own words then government based on science needs to verify by comparison with real world data and evidence that will “evolve over time”.
It looked like several years ago that the climate scientist’s had some convincing science evidence that greenhouse gases might be affecting the global climate. Since that time, science has evolved and more facts and detailed data have been documented and verified. Here's how the evidence has changed since then.
1. The greenhouse signature is missing.
Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale "hotspot" warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There's not even a hint.
Something else caused the warming.
The strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed, data turned the theory inside out.
Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures, for the last half-a-million years temperatures have gone up before carbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years before. This totally threw what we thought was cause-and-effect out the window.
Something else caused the warming.
2.Temperatures are not rising.
Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001.
While temperatures have been flat, C02 has been rising, BUT something else has changed the trend. The computer models don't know what it is.
3.Carbon dioxide is already doing almost all the warming it can do.
Adding twice the C02 doesn't make twice the difference. The first C02 molecules matter a lot, but extra ones have less and less effect. In fact, carbon levels were ten times as high in the past but the world still slipped into an ice age. Carbon today is a bit-part player.
4.Climate Models are not able to predict the global climate
Something out there is affecting our Climate more than C02 and none of the Computer models know what it is?
If government actions are to be based on science, then the government should not attempt to limit the release of co2 in an effort to control global climate. There is no credible evidence that co2 causes significant warming at the co2’s current levels. Cap and Trade, if implemented, will be based on other than science considerations.
We should not base government action on outdated information. If we do, history tells us that the US will be at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. The US is known for its leading edge technology, but trying to control climate by limiting the release of co2 will put us back in time.
This is not to say that we should not develop so called “green technology”, but the funds for this can be generated much more efficiently using other methods than Cap and Trade. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Administrative Costs alone for Cap and Trade would be in the billions of dollars per year. Deficit reduction and “other public purposes” funds totaling over $10 billion/yr, if necessary, can also be generated in other ways than cap and trade.
(1) NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions under CAA
There is no way to "fix" cap and trade. It is impossible to collect co2 without expending large amounts of energy. The laws of thermodynamics allow you to calculate the amount of energy required. Therefore if you collect co2 the price of energy that is sold to the public will be more costly in order to recover the cost of collecting the co2.
So, if you believe that co2 causes global warming then you are also supporting a costly tax on the public no matter what the bill's provisions are. The point is go by the science!! not someone's belief. It does not matter who said it, what matters is what the data proves! I must point out that the data has evolved and there is now no evidence to support the claim that co2 is causing the global temperature to rise.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Or there is no free lunch. If you think you can repeal the laws of thermodynamics then you are more powerful than mother nature. It ain't goin to happen!!