User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 34

  1. #1
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default Your electricity costs are about to double

    I don't usually bother handing out any information here anymore. I already know where things are headed, and it seems beneath me to continue to waste any time or energy (haha, green energy i hope ) explaining things that most wont understand or accept until well after they occur and impact every corner of their lives. Such is human nature, that loathsome creature...

    Anyway, the today the House passed the new version of cap and trade legislation, the Waxman-Markey Bill. The heritage foundation estimates that this bill could end up raising electricity costs by over 90% and gas prices by over 50%, in addition to price hikes in every other consumer good due to the inordinate costs to companies. The bill was designed to get people to use less energy by making it too expensive FOR EVERYONE, and will hit low income families especially hard.

    The Cap and Tax Fiction - WSJ.com

    The Cap and Tax Fiction
    Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.


    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

    Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

    Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.
    [Review & Outlook] Associated Press

    Henry Waxman

    For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

    To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

    The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

    The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.


    When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.


    Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

    Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

    The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

    Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.

  2. #2
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Heritage foundation estimates-

    Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill: Economic Impact by Congressional District

    June 25, 2009
    Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill: Economic Impact by Congressional District
    by Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and David Kreutzer, Ph.D.
    WebMemo #2504

    It has become quite clear over the past several months that placing a cap on carbon emission--via rationing, taxing, and eliminating consumer choice--will have major implications for American families and the economy.

    An analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (as reported out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) by The Heritage Foundation found that unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035, the last year of the analysis. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. The national debt would balloon as the economy slowed, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would also suffer, as the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035.[1]

    Heritage is not alone in its assessment. The National Black Chamber of Commerce[2] and the Brookings Institution[3] also project huge job losses. Proponents of a national energy tax will quickly point to a recent Congressional Budget Office memo[4] and Environmental Protection Agency[5] analysis suggesting low per family costs. Those estimates are grossly inaccurate, as both the CBO memo and the EPA's analysis contain flaws too serious for use as measures of the economic impact of the Waxman-Markey bill.

    While national numbers are startling, many Members of Congress may be tempted to assume that their congressional districts will not be affected because they "cut a deal" or they have an incomplete view of how the American economy functions. Thus, it is crucially important that the Members making decisions, and the people affected by those decisions, understand how their congressional districts will be impacted by Waxman-Markey, or any type of national energy tax.

    The table below lays out six congressional district specific data points:

    1. Gross State Product Loss in 2012: This number is the amount of economic destruction that will occur in that district in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime.
    2. Average Gross State Product Loss, 2012-2035: Same as above, only it is the average economic destruction in the district for the bill's first 24 years.
    3. Personal Income Loss in 2012: This number represents the reduction in consumer spending power in a district in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime.
    4. Average Personal Income Loss, 2012-2035: Same as above, only it is the reduction in consumer spending power in the district for the bill's first 24 years.
    5. Non-Farm Job Loss in 2012: Jobs are jobs, and in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime, each district will have significantly less than they otherwise could.
    6. Average Non-Farm Job Loss, 2012-2035: This number is crucially important because it demonstrates that no district gains jobs, even in the long run; the increase in "green jobs" does not outweigh the decrease in jobs elsewhere.

    A Final Note on Jobs

    During the "stimulus" debate, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs lamented that "more companies [have] announced mass layoffs."[6] The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines mass layoffs as "where private sector nonfarm employers indicate that 50 or more workers were separated from their jobs for at least 31 days." Under Waxman-Markey, on average each congressional district would experience the equivalent of more than 52 mass layoffs.

    Although losing several thousand jobs may not seem like a lot to some politicians who are stuck inside the beltway, the mass layoffs resulting from Waxman-Markey should make any politician--and hard working American--cringe.

    The idea behind cap and trade is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by putting a price on the right to emit carbon and other greenhouse gases on businesses. Because fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide, cap and trade becomes a costly tax on fossil fuels and the energy they generate. Since 85 percent of America’s energy needs come from fossil fuels, cap and trade would be massive tax on energy consumption if enacted. How high a tax?

    The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent, natural gas prices would increase 55 percent, home heating oil would increase 56 percent, and worst of all, electricity prices would jump 90 percent.

    But the direct tax on household energy use is just the beginning. The energy tax also hits producers. As the higher production costs ripple through the economy, the household pocketbooks get hit again and again. When all the tax impacts have been added up, the average per-family-of-four costs rise by $2,979 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493.



    But just about everything we produce uses energy. As energy prices increase, those costs will be passed onto the consumer and reflected in the higher prices we pay for products. Higher energy prices also result in a slower economy, which means less production, higher unemployment and reduced income.

    • Over the 2012-2030 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill).
    • The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012-2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion.
    • The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an almost unbelievable $114,915 by 2035.
    • The average of the climate tax revenue, what the government gets to spend or give away, is $236 billion from 2012 through 2035 and adds up to $5.7 trillion in tax collections.


    In the name of saving our planet from “catastrophic global warming” for future generations, what we’re really doing is ensuring they live in a world with less opportunity and paying for our mistakes through increased debt, all for a change in the temperature too small to ever notice. All of these costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.

  3. #3
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Yes, we all know that's where things are going.

    But the question is... what should we do about it? We're already screwed, aren't we?

    Great. I guess I won't have electricity this time next year.

  4. #4
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Now lets examine how these green policies compare to Spain.

    http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090...-renewable.pdf

    Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.

    President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama’s economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.

    But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:

    “Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
    Opinion | Spain's experience with the 'green' economy: Save the planet, lose some jobs | Seattle Times Newspaper

    Spain's experience with the 'green' economy: Save the planet, lose some jobs

    A sobering report about Spain's experience with green jobs must be false, writes columnist George F. Will, because otherwise the behavior of some American importers, seeking to cash in on the U.S. government's promotion of wind power, might be participating in an economically unproductive project.

    By George Will

    Syndicated columnist

    WASHINGTON — The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1 percent — more than double the European Union average — partly because of spending on such jobs?

    Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report which, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

    Calzada says Spain's torrential spending — no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources — on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies — wind-industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each.

    And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" — gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.

    The president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the report's contention that the political diversion of capital into green jobs has cost Spain jobs. The White House transcript contained this exchange:

    Gibbs: "It seems weird that we're importing wind turbine parts from Spain in order to build — to meet renewable energy demand here if that were even remotely the case."

    Questioner: "Is that a suggestion that his study is simply flat wrong?"

    Gibbs: "I haven't read the study, but I think, yes."

    Questioner: "Well, then. (Laughter.)"

    Actually, what is weird is this idea: A sobering report about Spain's experience must be false because otherwise the behavior of some American importers, seeking to cash in on the U.S. government's promotion of wind power, might be participating in an economically unproductive project.

    It is true that Calzada has come to conclusions that he, as a libertarian, finds ideologically congenial. And his study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech). Still, it is notable that, rather than try to refute his report, many Spanish critics have impugned his patriotism for faulting something for which Spain has been praised by Obama and others. Judge for yourself: Calzada's report can be read at http://tinyurl.com/d7z9ye. And at http://tinyurl.com/ccoa5s you can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond.

    What matters most, however, is not that reports such as Calzada's are right in every particular. It is, however, hardly counterintuitive that politically driven investments are economically counterproductive. Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.

    Still, one can be agnostic about both reports while being dismayed by the frequency with which such findings are ignored simply because they question policies that are so invested with righteousness that methodical economic reasoning about their costs and benefits seems unimportant.

    When the president speaks of "new green energy economies" creating "countless well-paying jobs," perhaps they really are countless, meaning incapable of being counted.

    For fervent believers in governments' abilities to control the climate and in the urgent need for them to do so, believing is seeing: They see, through their ideological lenses, governments' green spending as always paying for itself. This is a free-lunch faith comparable to that of those few conservatives who believe that tax cuts always completely pay for themselves by stimulating compensating revenues from economic growth.

    Windmills are iconic in the land of Don Quixote, whose tilting at them became emblematic of comic futility. Spain's new windmills are neither amusing nor emblematic of policies America should emulate.

    The cheerful and evidently unshakable confidence in such magical solutions to postulated problems is yet another manifestation — Republicans are not immune: No Child Left Behind decrees that by 2014 all American students will be proficient in math and reading — of what the late Sen. Pat Moynihan called "the leakage of reality from American life."

  5. #5
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    The right-wing Heritage Foundation doesn't exactly have the best track record when it comes to making accurate predictions, they got almost everything wrong during the Bush years. We've had successful cap-and-trade programs in the past, like with acid rain.

    When the economy turns around next year, and we find out that Armageddon isn't going to happen, will this end-of-the-world crap simmer down?

  6. #6
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Yes, we all know that's where things are going.

    But the question is... what should we do about it? We're already screwed, aren't we?

    Great. I guess I won't have electricity this time next year.
    Ideally, I'd say, "You get off your buts and stop letting the politicians you elect, then so apathetically ignore, crap on everything." However, I've taken a pessimistic stance where I believe people no longer have have the wherewithal to do anything sensible in this country, and that my energy would be best spent preparing my umbrella so I can stay dry while the rest of this population is s***ing all over the place. At least I can avoid smelling like fecal matter, though i suspect there's nothing I can do to avoid stepping in it .

  7. #7
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Ideally, I'd say, "You get off your buts and stop letting the politicians you elect, then so apathetically ignore, crap on everything." However, I've taken a pessimistic stance where I don't believe people no longer have have the wherewithal to do anything sensible in this country, and that my energy would be best spent preparing my umbrella so I can stay dry while the rest of this population is s***ing all over the place. At least I can avoid smelling like fecal matter, though i suspect there's nothing I can do to avoid stepping in it .
    That's a good plan, I guess. I hope it works for you.

    I think the reason we don't have that capacity is because we've been programmed to react rather than think. To the point that the few people who choose to think rather than react can't do anything. Whoever wanted things to end up like this planned it well.

  8. #8
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    That's a good plan, I guess. I hope it works for you.

    I think the reason we don't have that capacity is because we've been programmed to react rather than think. To the point that the few people who choose to think rather than react can't do anything. Whoever wanted things to end up like this planned it well.
    Yes indeed :/ .

  9. #9
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Wow, doomsday predictions about decisions from a liberal president...

    from the Heritage Foundation??

    Uncanny!
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #10
    Senior Member Feops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INTx
    Posts
    829

    Default

    We in canada will be happy to supply americans with energy as demand stresses local supply.

    ... for a reasonable price.

Similar Threads

  1. A Quick Guide To Double-Checking Your Type
    By VagrantFarce in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 214
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 11:52 PM
  2. Knowing that you are about to die
    By Grand Admiral Crunch in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-01-2017, 04:51 AM
  3. CISPA: Your Private Information Are Belonging To Us!
    By Rail Tracer in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 05-02-2012, 10:10 PM
  4. Is there a favorite TV show of yours that you are addicted to?
    By aesor in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-27-2011, 01:17 PM
  5. [MBTItm] Do do do your dirty words come out to play when you are hurt?
    By Billy in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 06-17-2010, 02:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO