Americans Not Inclined To Pay More To Fight Global Warming

Why don’t they call it a $360 annual tax hike instead of $1 per day? Obama’s budget request is showing $360 billion annual income from CO2 taxes. If true, that’s closer to $1000 per year per person (not per household).
The taxes will mostly affect the country’s coal fired power plants. (about 40% of US electricity is from burning coal) Making it more expensive to make electricity from domestic coal will have ZERO effect on foreign oil imports. Remember, one of Obama’s campaign promises was “I’ll tax them out of business” I guess he doesn’t understand people who buy the electricity (you and me) will pay that bill.

Lewis Strauss, 1954 Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission
“Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter… It is not too much to expect that our children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age.”

“Is the American household willing to pay less than $1 so we don’t have to buy oil from foreign countries, so we can create millions of new jobs, so we can clean up our environment? I think the answer is going to be yes.”
I think the American househild is smart enough to realize that line of reasoning is complete, 100% USDA Grade A Fantasy bu11$#!t.

They shut down Gulf Coast drilling. So that we would import less oil. The lies stack up. We need to have the EPA furnish a financial impact study. Not let them slither out of it. This fiasco will cost another 1 million jobs. 2,700 dollars a year increase in energy costs per household.

Implementing the Waxman-Markey legislation will be very costly, even given the rather optimistic assumptions about how effective it will be in reducing CO2 emissions and how accommodating the economy will be to the added energy costs. The Heritage Foundation’s dynamic analysis of these economic costs are summarized as follows (adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars):
Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
Single-year GDP losses reach $400 billion by 2025 and will ultimately exceed $700 billion;
Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses 1.4 million jobs in 2035;
The annual cost of emissions permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2012 and could exceed $390 billion by 2035;
A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and
Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/08/The-Economic-Consequences-of-Waxman-Markey-An-Analysis-of-the-American-Clean-Energy-and-Security-Act-of-2009

Glenn says:
June 17, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Lewis Strauss, 1954 Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission
“Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter…”
That was before the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) became the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). It was a huge change in that the AEC had a mandate to promote nuke power, and the NRC regulates without such mandate. Here’s an example. I visited the Brown’s Ferry nuke plant in 1984. The plant was designed to be run by 200 people. By 1984 the number of employees had grown to 1000. The additional employees occupy an office building separate from the power plant. They don’t even work in the same building! When the government mandates 1000 employees to do the job of 200, it costs more. That’s how government creates jobs; by requiring them.
Even so, nuke power with no CO2 emissions costs about the same as coal, and significantly less than the current fad of building natural gas burners. The problem with nukes is that most of the costs are up front in construction and it’s relatively cheap to run them. There are 57 nuke plants being built around the world today and none in the US. (I don’t count Watts Bar 2)

If there was some legal way to make them back up their statement with a personal/professional guarantee to keep it at $1/day,do you think they would say the same or back off their statement?

If the bill includes shale and coal mining with clean technologies, we have a change to become less dependent but we will always need to buy at least some of our energy from other countries.

That study should make great fertilizer for my roses. That is the only value in my book…

Bryan says:
June 17, 2010 at 4:20 pm
At least the idea of the USA being energy independent makes some kind of strategic sense.

Actually I would’ve thought it doesn’t.
If the good ol’ USofA was to retreat from their middle east alliances (because they don’t need their oil anymore) it would leave a vacuum that China Russia and India would gladly fill in an instant, hence strengthening them.
Part of the reason why this hopeful strategy has failed since the days of tricky dicky I would’ve thought.

A dollar a day,
is all you’ll pay
to send your job to Mandalay!

Ray Hudson says:
June 17, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Let’s address all of Lieberman’s fallacious issues one at a time:
1) The “foreign oil dependence” ruse: Jon Stewart last night showed clips of every single president back to Nixon making that same promise. And here we are! There is precisely zero evidence that the federal government would do a damn thing about this, especially as long as big companies line their campaign chests to ignore it. So just stop it.
2) Millions of new jobs: Time and again statistics have shown that giving the government ANY more money does not create a single new job. New jobs are ONLY created by business, and that comes from taking LESS money from people and their businesses. So just stop it.
3) Clean up our enviroment: We already have, and by quite a bit! I live in the Los Angeles basin and our summer air is much cleaner than it was in the late 70s. Kids these days do not even know what a “Stage 3″ (or even 2) smog alert is! Besides, where were the federal regulators who were tasked to PREVENT operators of Deepwater Horizon from operating unsafe rigs such that disasters like this would not happen? Those people, already on the federal dole, were EPIC FAILURES at doing what they got money to do. Now they want MORE money? Yet everyone in Congress is taking their turn flogging BP and yet all of them are conveniently ignoring the abject failure of the regulatory agencies to keep an eye on them, which is their only job! SO JUST STOP IT!
Hey that’s just as I see it too Ray
Its a “what spin will we trot out again” (voters are so dumb !) and re your (3) This is the same in this country, so much has been done in our lifetime to improve the quality of life and the environment as a great example to other places in the world, but all they thirst for is more dollars to cream off from taxpayers. They must think we were all born yesterday!!
And if they get their less than $1 a day, (and that’s a substantial amount to me) for ever and far into the future. What next, oh that’s easy we will just double the days in a year, that will make it easier to spin to our dumb voters!! Oh and forget about the prices of everything rising as a result of that impost, that’s just “collateral damage” if a “few” families go to the wall of poverty that’s a small price to pay to keep politicians snouts in the trough.
I heard one commentator suggest on TV that perhaps we should get rid of most of the politicians, much easier on the economy, save taxes, and remove all that Washington Hot air from the environment, problem solved …. “PWUHIE” Politicians’ Washington Urban Heat Island Effect – Makes a nice Tee shirt message complete with downturned thumb!! or even ruder and to the point with an upturned middle finger!! (they understand SIMPLE messages)

Another factor to consider is: where will all that money go? The additional costs will not be a boon to the economy — they will subtract from the economy and go to the Federal government and to carbon traders. They do not represent additional investments but reductions in capital and in gross domestic product. Therefore they will have a reverse multiplier effect. Every dollar spent on fiat “carbon credits” represents three dollars not spent within the general economy.
The pressure that will put on the economy, especially in its current state, will cause general economic collapse. Foreign trade may well be curtailed, but that will only spread our economic depression to the rest of the world. (Protectionism as ballyhooed by those who decry “foreign oil” was a major factor in the Great Depression).
The desired welfare state cannot support itself and will implode. The actual realized costs to households will be in the tens of $thousands per year per household as the economy enters a death spiral. Global depression will lead to global war (study history). Who knows the level of tragedy that will ensue?
And for what? Global temperatures will not be affected one iota. If the planet was getting warmer, which it is not, that would be a good thing.
It will take at least a decade to recover from the banking collapse of 2008. Now our fearless leaders want to add to the misery with an Enron-style fiat carbon market. It’s a Ponzi scheme doomed to catastrophic failure. (Again, read history. Enron imploded from its own machinations; it was not regulated to bankruptcy).
The very idea that Cap-and-Trade will only cost a postage stamp is so outrageous it defies adjectives.