What will the climate change bill do to your job?
–- Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The views expressed are her own. –-
Next Thursday, just in time for the July 4 holiday weekend, America’s unemployment rate is forecast to rise from 9.4 percent to 9.6 percent, well above rates in other industrialized countries.
Yet today the House of Representatives is rushing to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, even though the bill was incomplete yesterday and congressmen have not yet had the opportunity to analyze it. The bill would send America’s unemployment rate even higher.
The 1,200-page bill, cosponsored by Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Edward Markey, Chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee, would increase the price of energy by setting allowances for greenhouse gas emissions and mandating new standards for energy production and use. The bill would raise $846.6 billion over 10 years while adding $821.2 billion to federal spending.
The bill requires that greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 do not exceed 97 percent of 2005 emissions, declining to 17 percent of 2005 emissions by 2050. Meeting these standards now is technologically impossible without radically reducing our standards of living, but Congress is hoping that technology will magically appear as needed.
The mechanism for this is a “cap-and-trade” program under which allowances to emit greenhouse gases would be issued by the Environmental Protection Agency at a steadily declining rate through 2050. When emissions exceed a firm’s allowance, or cap, it would have to purchase allowances from the government or other firms, a tax under another name, driving up costs that would be passed on to consumers.
Electric utilities have been given free allowances to encourage them to support the bill. Oil and gas would be particularly hard hit, because they are responsible for 35 percent of emissions yet are allocated only three percent of the free allowances.
The economic cost of climate change legislation
– Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The views expressed are her own. —
Chairman Henry Waxman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee announced yesterday that his American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 “will create millions of jobs, revive our economy, and secure our energy independence.”
The 648-page bill, co-sponsored by Waxman and fellow Democrat Edward Markey, Chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee, has been the subject of four days of committee hearings this week. It would set new limits for greenhouse gas emissions, and prescribe radically new standards for energy production and use.
The most surprising word in the 648-page bill is one that isn’t there, not even once. That word is “nuclear.” To discuss clean energy and security without mentioning increased development of nuclear energy, now powering 20 percent of America’s electricity with no greenhouse gas emissions, shows that Chairmen Waxman and Markey are not taking the issue seriously. They’re just trying to raise taxes on Americans and enhance the power of Congress and the agencies it oversees.
Over 100 pages in the bill are spent on measures to reduce greenhouse gases. The bill requires greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 to be no more than 97 percent of 2005 emissions, 58 percent in 2030 and 17 percent in 2050. This last target, four decades into the future, is incompatible with our present standard of living—and illustrates the arrogance of politicians who think that they can micro-manage the economy far beyond anyone’s capacity to foresee events.
The mechanism for this is a “cap-and-trade” program, proposed by President Obama in his budget, under which allowances—the number and price as yet unspecified—to emit greenhouse gases would be issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. If a firm’s emissions exceeded its allowance, or cap, it would have to purchase more allowances, either from the government or from other firms.
As allowed emissions decline over time, firms would have to buy more allowances, driving up costs that inevitably would be paid to consumers. The Obama March Budget forecast that revenues of $646 billion over eight years would be collected from cap-and-trade.
Unforunately, it seems Obama and the US government have no leverage Internationally and can do nothing but kiss and make-up with the rest of the world for the last 8 years. If we are going to get serious about our economy, and our environment, then we’re going to need much more courage and leadership from Washington. We need to stand up and claim our world leadership and call the bluff of every other world “leader” resisting their own responsibilties to their region, and to humankind.
TARP, bonuses, dividends and Waxman’s letter
–John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own–
By John Kemp
LONDON (Reuters) – The bitter political divisions between middle America and Wall Street on display when the House of Representatives first rejected the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act last month look set to be re-opened in even more dramatic form in the remaining months of the year.
Rep Henry Waxman, chairman of the powerful House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, on Tuesday sent identical letters to the chief executives of nine major banks receiving $125 billion of capital injections under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) demanding details of total bonus payments for 2006, 2007 and 2008 (see http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20081028142314.pdf).
The issue of bonuses and dividend payouts from banks that accepted the TARP injection looks set to become highly charged.
It is going to be hard for the banks and Treasury to explain why so much taxpayer funding needs to go in through the front door, only for it to flow out again as staff bonuses and dividend payments to ordinary shareholders. Bonus and dividend payments could quickly absorb all the TARP capital funding.
The issue of responsibility for the credit crisis will intensify during the quarterly dividend and annual bonus payout period in Dec-Feb, just when a new administration will be taking office and Democrats are likely to extend their control over both houses of Congress.
The employees and executives with contracts to be paid bonuses are unsecured creditors, are they not? Why should they get paid before anyone else?
No one can deny the actions of greedy bankers has caused suffering all around the globe. More job loss or higher cost of living will not help the plight of those who still work. Whether or not cap and trade works is moot.
Continuing to burn coal is in no ones interest but mine operators. It is the dirtiest fuel there is and has the highest CO2 emissions. Equally disturbing is the suspension of fly(coal)ash in liquids. This waste is stored on sight at power plants across the country. I find it regrettable that little attention is given by the media to the TVA coal ash spill in Kingston Tennessee.
One billion gallons of ash flooded the town when the containment facility failed. The EPA has kept 45 of the worst hazardous waste sights a secret until last week. The information was released to environmental groups through the “Freedom Of Information Act” with the help of Senator Boxer from California. The Kingston catastrophe is estimated to be 100 time worse than the Exxon Valdez oil spill on the Alaskan coast. One can only speculate as to why President Obama while not release the names of visitors from the guest list to the White House. It is rumored coal industry interests have been making frequent visits.
The People of Kingston that were still working no longer do because of this disaster. At some point we must recognize the health of our environment is as critical to our economic well being as finances and manufacturing.