Climate Change Alarmists Seek to “Educate” NEPA Taxpayers

The Mertz-Gilmore Foundation, a self-described “sustainable environment” grant making institution based out of New York City, recently announced its plan to give a $50,000 grant to PennFuture, to “support outreach and education in northeastern Pennsylvania to build public support for a state-wide cap on global warming pollution”.

Being the nation’s 4^th largest provider of coal, the effects of cap-and-trade legislation would be devastating to Pennsylvania’s already-fragile economy. Not only is PennFuture hungry for your tax dollars, but even the EPA is questioning the evidence behind global warming.

Thanks but no thanks PennFuture; we feel the hardworking people of northeastern Pennsylvania can do without your “education”.

EPA Internal Report Skeptical of ‘Global Warming’

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has revealed private emails they had obtained from the EPA skeptical of the science behind the global warming phenomena. In the emails, Alan Carlin and John Davidson, two researchers with the agency, express their discontent, citing a need for more independent scientific research on exactly how much of the climate change is attributed to humans. This skepticism is simply the latest in quickly-growing population of scientists and weather experts concerned over the lack of concrete data pointing to human influence over the climate.

In January, Weather Channel founder Jim Coleman, wrote a scathing commentary calling the global warming movement “bad science” and a “hijacking of public policy”. We see the epitome of policy hijacking in H.R. 2454, the cap and trade bill that recently passed the House by a razor-thin margin. Should the taxpayers really be responsible for up to $3,900 in tax increases if even the EPA is questioning the science?

Cap and Trade is a Rip-off

“The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear”, said President Obama, speaking definitively on the issue of climate change, as he usually does with other issues he wants passed. But politicians have always had an agenda and have always presented the “facts” to prove their point The only thing that is beyond dispute is that the American Clean Energy and Security Act is a generational bill. It will not only affect us and our sons and daughters but generations after them.

Leading consulting firm CRA International released a study with the Center of Data Analysis at Heritage, projecting that by 2030, Waxman-Markey would reduce GDP by roughly $350 billion below the baseline level, cut net employment by 2.5 million jobs (even after accounting for new "green" jobs), and reduce an average household's annual purchasing power by $830.

A New York Times editorial said that Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the politicians who have proposed this bill, have insisted on provisions that would mandate more efficient buildings, require cleaner energy sources like wind power and provide subsidies for new technologies.

However, with only the United States looking to pass this legislation, there is little evidence that countries such as China and India will be on board. David Kreutzer, senior policy analyst with Energy Economics and Climate Change, says that countries such as China and India will not let economic development suffer by imposing such a law on its citizenry. Also, there is little evidence that scientists, at large, are supporting this bill. There are over 31,478 American scientists, including 9,029 PhDs that have signed the global warming petition saying that there is no evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating to Earth's atmosphere and adversely affect its climate.

Moreover, the question that begs to be asked is who is going to pay? Ben Lieberman, a specialist in energy and environmental issues, is a Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy, says that green technology costs more than the benefits it will bring in the future, and the people bearing these costs will be ordinary citizens.

The economic impact of this bill will damage growth. Here are a few things that we might want to consider. It will:

• Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.4 trillion;
• Destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
• Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
• Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent;
• Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
• Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,241; and
• Result in an increase of $28,728 in additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.

Cap and Trade Will Squeeze State Budgets, Raise Energy Prices, and Cost Jobs

The Heritage Foundation has a number of new facts on the impact of Cap and Trade, which the US House is supposed to vote on today.

Under Cap and Trade, as President Obama noted, "the price of electricity will necessarily skyrocket." Heritage estimates the average energy costs per a family of four will increase $426 in 2012, an increasing in years after that.

These higher prices will result in jobs losses. Particularly hard hit will be the manufacturing sector, but transportation, chemicals, wood products, machinery, paper, plastics & rubber, electrical equipment & appliances, and construction will also be areas where jobs are lost.

Of course, these jobs losses will impact states differently. And Heritage even breaks out the impact by Congressional District.

Lastly, Cap and Trade will hurt state budgets, causing a loss in revenue. Pennsylvania would see a state revenue loss of about $219 million.

A Cap and Trade Call to Action

Although originally planned for debate after the 4th of July, Congressional Leaders met late Monday night to place H.R. 2454, also known as the “cap and trade” initiative, on the House voting schedule for this Friday! NTU has a call to action on Cap-and-Trade for citizens to get involved.

Cap and trade is essentially an energy tax on carbon emissions, threatening to cost Americans, especially in states like Pennsylvanian, and estimated $800 dollars a year in economic losses and over $3,100 per household a year in new taxes. President Barack Obama, said himself in a January 2008 interview that under his cap and trade proposal, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”.

In a May 7th letter to the state Legislature, the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission called for all state legislators to carefully consider the impact cap and trade would have on our state’s economy. With Pennsylvania being the 4th largest provider of coal in the United States, cap and trade could cost Pennsylvania 66,000 jobs, a hike in residential electricity bills, increases in the price of natural gas and increased pressure on our gross state product.

Here is a coalition letter opposing Cap and Trade sent to Pennsylvania members of Congress, which the Commonwealth Foundation signed on to.

Not only is cap and trade a dangerous idea for our economy, this bill is not available for public debate. H.R. 2454 has no public hearing scheduled within its presiding committees and has not even been posted on THOMAS, Congress’ public legislative database. So much for Obama’s promise of transparent government…

How Much Would Cap and Trade Cost Your Family?

The Tax Foundation today released a calculator for families to estimate the annual household cost of a cap and trade system. It's based on their recent study, "Who Pays for Climate Policy?" which notes that a cap and trade system to address greenhouse gas emissions would "place an annual burden of $144.8 billion on American households."

Cap and Trade: An Energy Tax

Pretty good video from American Solutions on Cap and Trade. They also have a place on their site to take action.