New study documents harmful effects of “cap-and-trade” and “endangerment” schemes
Guest post by Paul Driessen
Environmental justice demands that the United States address global warming, the gravest threat facing minority Americans, insist the EPA, Congressional Black Caucus and White House. Are they serious?
The alleged threat pales next to unwed teen motherhood, school dropouts, murder and other crime. But even assuming human carbon dioxide emissions will cause average global temperatures to rise a few degrees more than they have already since the Little Ice Age ended, it is absurd to suggest that any such warming would harm minorities more than policies imposed in the name of preventing climate change.
Human activities have not replaced the complex natural forces that drove climate change throughout Earth’s history. But even if manmade greenhouse gases do contribute to planetary warming, slashing US emissions to zero would bring no benefit, because steadily rising emissions from China, India, Brazil and other rapidly growing economies would almost instantly replace whatever gases we cease emitting.
Most important, fossil fuels power the economic engine that ensures justice and opportunity in America today. Policies that make energy less reliable and affordable reduce business revenues and profits, shrink investment and innovation, imperil economic recovery, and hobble job creation, civil rights, and the pursuit of happiness and the American dream.
Whether they take the form of cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, restrictions on drilling and coal mining, or EPA rules under its claim that carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare, anti-energy policies frustrate the natural desire of poor and minority Americans to improve their lives.
As to coping with higher temperatures, restrictive energy policies send electricity prices skyrocketing, making it harder for low-income households to afford air conditioning, and putting lives at risk. They send poor families back to pre-AC misery of bygone eras, like the 1896 heat wave that killed 1,300 people in New York City’s sweltering tenements. In wintertime, they make heating less affordable, again putting lives at risk.
I recently documented the connection between energy policies and civil rights. My “Justice through Affordable Energy for Wisconsin” report focuses on the Dairy State, where I grew up. However, its lessons apply to every state, especially the 26 that get 48-98% of their electricity from coal or have a strong manufacturing base. (The full report can be found at www.CFACT.org)
Energy is the foundation for America’s jobs, living standards, and everything we make, grow, eat, wear, transport and do. Climate change bills, energy taxes and renewable energy mandates deliberately restrict supplies of reliable, affordable hydrocarbon energy – sending shockwaves through the economy.
Fossil fuels generate three-fourths of Wisconsin’s electricity, keeping costs low and enabling its $45-billion-a-year manufacturing sector to compete in a tough global marketplace. Hydrocarbons sustain thousands of jobs in agriculture, tourism and other sectors of the state’s economy. They ensure that hospitals and clinics can offer high-tech diagnostic, surgical and treatment services.
They enable school districts, families, churches, shops and government offices to operate in the black. Soaring fuel and electricity prices would force schools to spend millions more for buses, heating and lighting. That would mean higher taxes – or reduced music, sports, language and special education programs. Poor and minority neighborhoods would be impacted worst.
Small and minority businesses are often young and undercapitalized. Increasing their operating costs, while decreasing the disposable income of their customers, puts them on the verge of bankruptcy.
“A single worker in our Rhinelander fabrication plant can do the work of ten who do not have access to cranes, welding machines, plasma burners and all other machinery that allows us to cut, bend and fabricate steel up to six inches thick, and make all kinds of heavy equipment,” says Oldenburg Group executive vice president Tim Nerenz. But the machinery and facilities are energy-intensive. If energy costs rise, the company would have to cut wages and benefits or lay off workers, as contract prices are fixed and overseas competition is fierce.
Indoor pools and other facilities make tourism a year-round industry, sustaining local economies during frigid Wisconsin winters, making resorts like the Chula Vista Resort in Wisconsin Dells popular jumping-off points for cross country skiing, snowmobiling and dining. Rising energy costs would reduce family vacations, hammer bottom lines, force layoffs, and cause foreclosures throughout these communities.
In every case, it is blue-collar workers, low and moderate income families, minorities and the elderly that are affected most severely.
Nor are these impacts likely to be offset by “green” jobs. As Spain, Germany and other countries have discovered, wind and solar power require constant infusions of money from increasingly strapped taxpayers and energy consumers. When the economy sours, the subsidies disappear, and so do the jobs.
Wind and solar electricity is expensive, intermittent and unreliable – necessitating expensive gas-powered backup generators, and further damaging family and business budgets. Plus, most of the jobs will be in China and India, where low energy and labor costs, and access to rare earths and other raw materials that America refuses to mine, supply wind turbine and solar panel factories that easily under-price US firms.
The entire cap-tax-and-trade, renewable energy and green-jobs edifice is a house of cards, propped up by claims that humans are affecting the Earth’s climate. As EPA and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson repeatedly assert, “Climate change is already happening, and human activity is a contributor.”
However, that is not the issue. The issue is whether our use of fossil fuels is now the dominant factor in global warming and cooling, and whether future manmade climate change will be catastrophic. There is no replicable or credible evidence to support that proposition.
Headline-grabbing disaster scenarios forecast for 50 or 100 years in the future are the product of speculation, assumptions, unreliable computer models, and articles by climate activists falsely presented as peer-reviewed scientific papers in IPCC reports, news stories and political speeches. As my Wisconsin study explains, they are not supported by actual data and observations regarding historic and current global temperatures, ice caps, glaciers, sea levels, rainforests or cyclical weather patterns.
Energy taxes and subsidies, renewable energy mandates, soaring prices for everything we need – and severe impacts on families, businesses, jobs, opportunities, living standards and basic civil rights – might be justified if we did indeed face a manmade climate disaster. But even then we should carefully examine the costs and benefits of any proposed actions.
We should determine whether slashing fossil fuel use will stabilize our planet’s ever-turbulent climate, and whether our limited resources might be better spent on adapting to future changes, natural and manmade, just as our ancestors did.
If global warming science is inaccurate, dishonest, slanted or fraudulent, there is even less justification.
We cannot have justice without opportunity, or opportunity without energy. We cannot have justice by sharing scarcity, poverty and skyrocketing energy prices more equally – especially on the basis of erroneous, speculative or manipulated climate science.
We must therefore be forever vigilant, to ensure that Congress does not slip cap-tax-and-trade proposals through during a post-election lame-duck session – and EPA does not shackle our economy and civil rights progress with its job-killing “endangerment” rules.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
The human race has derived most of its energy from the combustion of hydrocarbons since man discovered fire. I am loathe to use the term “fossil fuel” because “hydrocarbon” is a more apt description. It doesn’t matter if you’re burning coal, gas, petroleum, ethanol, biodiesel, wood, whale oil or dried animal dung. The basic reaction with oxygen to produce energy is the same. In every case CO2 is an end product of the reaction.
Mankind has only been using hydrocarbon combustion to fuel transportation for a couple hundred years. We have only been generating and distributing electricity for a little over a hundred years. Consider the all the changes in modern society from the dawn of history up until the development of the steam engine. Then consider the societal and technological advances made from the time of the steam engine until we were generating commercial electricity. What has happened to mankind since electricity was made available? Has life improved? The more hydrocarbons we utilize for energy the better our standard of living.
The quest to limit energy production and utilization is a relatively recent phenomenon. The goal for more efficient utilization of energy is not in need of a “movement”, it is inherent – no central planning required. The free market takes care of this quite nicely. Fluorescent lighting is far more efficient than incandescent lighting. For this reason most commercial lighting in stores, schools, office buildings, factories, etc. is fluorescent. No government edict was required. Incandescent lighting is generally more practical for residential applications. For some reason practicality and desirability is trumped by government edict that states “thou shalt not waste energy YOU pay for by utilizing incandescent lighting.”
What is the fear of energy utilization? I suppose some may argue that we are consuming finite resources. This argument doesn’t hold up too well in light of the fact that we have literally hundreds of years worth of abundant hydrocarbon fuels available. Consider life in 1910. How many technological advances can you think of in the last 100 years? Does anyone honestly believe we will be producing and utilizing energy the same way we do today 100 years from now? But fear of CO2 is an immediate game changer. If one can politically control CO2 emissions one can essentially control energy production and utilization. In essence, control modern civilization.
Personally, I believe it is entirely possible that we might be able to warm the planet by a degree or so within a 100 years. Then again, it is equally likely that some heretofore unknown negative feedback system or natural variation may utterly negate or eclipse such a change. We know far too little to be basing public policy on specious theories. Reducing energy utilization by governmental fiat can only have negative effects on mankind as a whole. All we need to do is look at the world around us. Countries that produce and utilize a lot of energy are prosperous, their people live longer and better lives, their environments are cleaner. The countries that don’t produce and utilize a lot of energy are impoverished, their people live shorter, more desperate lives and their environments are ravaged.
What really need to fear is human nature. That is, the lust by a few for wealth, power and control over the lives of other human beings. This is as old as mankind itself.
regeya says:
July 31, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Allegedly violent crime is on the drop. Based on my own perception of my own area, I’d say that’s true. I’ve even noticed that some people are letting their kids play somewhat unattended, which was getting to be unheard-of by the time I was a teen in the early 90s.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704113504575264432463469618.html
__________________________________________________
And it is MUCH MUCH worse since I was a kid when we left the house unlocked, the keys in the car, you never saw drugs in the schools until high school & college (60’s) and thought nothing of hitch hiking for long distances.
Now I have caught more than half of my “friends” stealing from me and there are at least four drug dealers on my 6 mile back country dirt road and the cops, swat teams and helicopters showed up last year for a big bust in the woods next door.
Just depends on your frame of reference.
BillD says:
August 1, 2010 at 6:18 am
I have a grandson and also feel some obligation to future generations who may wonder why rapid burning of the world’s fossil fuels in a few hundred years was thought to be a responible action.
I have it on good authority that your grandfather was deeply worried about what you would do with the ever increasing amount horse cr*p that was accumulating in the streets. To get a flavor for why he was worried, take a trip to Mackinac Island.
I don’t think you’ve been following the thread of thought from beginning to end on this, therefore, your post(s) is(are) irrelevant.
[reply] Dial it back a notch guys please. RT-mod
.
_Jim says:
July 31, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Gail Combs July 31, 2010 at 5:35 pm
… the red tape of the “food safety bill” outlawing home grown food …
Yawn …
(Not even going to expend the energy and ask “cite please?” on that one)
__________________________________
Here are the provisions care of farm to consumer
New Food Safety Bill HR2749
HR 2749 gives FDA tremendous power while significantly diminishing existing judicial restraints on actions taken by the agency. The bill would impose a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme on small farms and local artisanal producers; and it would disproportionately impact their operations for the worse.
HR 2749 does not address underlying causes of food safety problems such as industrial agriculture practices and the consolidation of our food supply. The industrial food system and food imports are badly in need of effective regulation, but the bill does not specifically direct regulation or resources to these areas.
To read a detailed account of the bill, go to: http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-15june2009.htm
Alarming Provisions:
Some of the more alarming provisions in the bill are:
* HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any “facility” that holds, processes, or manufactures food. Although “farms” are exempt, the agency has defined “farm” narrowly. And people making foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses, or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive beginning and small producers out of business during difficult economic times.
* HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers.
* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.” Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area.
* HR 2749 would empower FDA to make warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers.
* HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food. Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food” would have to “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food,” and “establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons.” The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods. With all these ambiguities, it’s far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers.
* HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation for individuals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is the citation anyway.
It is called the “commerce clause” from the case of Wickard v. Filburn before the Supreme Court:
“The Department of Agriculture, tasked to enforce the wheat quotas, asserted that the acre of wheat Wickard grew for his family was a violation of the quotas.
Wickard sued. The Department of Agriculture claimed that Congress had commerce clause authority under the Constitution to prohibit Wickard’s practice of growing wheat for his family. Even though it was admitted that the wheat Wickard grew for his family never left the farm, the Department of Agriculture claimed that this practice affected interstate commerce. If Wickard had not given this wheat to his wife, the government argued, it might have traveled across a state line and could have affected interstate commerce. Further, the government argued, if Wickard had not given farm-grown wheat to his wife to feed the family, his wife would have bought bread at the store – bread that might have crossed a state line and might have affected interstate commerce.
Thus, the government argued, Congress had sufficient constitutional authority under the commerce clause to impose the wheat quotas on Wickard and prohibit him from growing extra wheat to feed his family.
When presented with this argument and the Roosevelt threat to expand and pack the Supreme Court, the Court upheld the government’s arguments in Wickard, thereby dramatically expanding the power of Congress to “regulate commerce … among the states.” http://firearmsfreedomact.com/what-is-the-commerce-clause/
The original bill, HR875, most definitely had the Commerce Clause included in the language and created a big uproar so another bill was offered up.
“The Food Safety bill, nevertheless, passed through its final committee action yesterday, June 17th. It comes as a response to the recent food crises and is a product of what Rep. Frank Pallone identifies as 11 years of proposed food safety bills. [That is how long I and others have been fighting this crap]
The bill broadly calls for greater FDA regulatory powers over the national food supply and food providers. Such extensions of authority include quarantine, recall, and search without a warrant capabilities. This legislation also seeks to establish a national food tracing system requiring any and all producers, manufacturers, processors, transporters, and holders must maintain the full pedigree of the origin and distribution history of their food. Other potentially debilitating hurdles presented by this bill are the registration requirements such as a $500 fee.
Waxman’s Food Safety bill is built largely off of the previously proposed Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2009, but focuses solely on food, while the other would also seek to address drug and cosmetic safety. It is also an “enhancement” to previously proposed food safety bills as it seeks to up tracing and record keeping requirements, punishments to relevant violations, and extends Federal jurisdiction over any violation of the bill to an extraterritorial scope….” http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1053-With-Climate-Change-and-Food-Safety-Waxman-s-Got-His-Hands-Full
The addition of the Commerce Clause after the fact is quite easy. It was done to another law on animal welfare and the resulting red tape put several of my friends and me out of business. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 has had over one hundred amendments quietly slipped through Congress and the current economic crisis and bank bailouts were the result.
Gail, you’re seeing things where most rational people don’t (again, populism run-a-muck and too much Ale x Jone s comes to mind).
And since I’m not a qualified shrink I can’t take it any further, plus, the mods want cold water thrown on this discussion. I don’t blame them, I would like (as Anthony already posted back a few days ago) LESS coat-racking of issues too.
I’ll leave it at that. You wanna debate on some board somewhere, name the place.
.
Gail Combs,
For what it’s worth, I thought your response in your previous post was brilliant, well researched and well documented. I couldn’t agree with you more. Far too many fail to appreciate the assault on liberty from those who write the laws.
Dr. Dave says:
August 1, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Gail Combs,
For what it’s worth, I thought your response in your previous post was brilliant, well researched and well documented. I couldn’t agree with you more. Far too many fail to appreciate the assault on liberty from those who write the laws.
_________________________________________
Thanks.
Jim has not been in the trenches fighting these laws for several years or seeing friends livelihoods ruined by an amendment to an existing farm law. He has not spent long hours going through a bill sentence by sentence and trying to figure out its meaning. It is very frustrating because much of my info is first hand reports via phone calls or private e-mails and I can not post them. Unfortunately it will take food shortages and sky rocking prices to wake people up and then it will be too late.
_Jim says:
August 1, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Gail Combs August 1, 2010 at 2:09 pm
…
Gail, you’re seeing things where most rational people don’t (again, populism run-a-muck and too much Ale x Jone s comes to mind)…..
__________________________________________________________
Jim, go to this site and ask these farmers if I am “irrational” http://nonais.org/2010/07/01/house-cuts-nais-funding/
AND who the heck is Ale x Jone s? (I do not own a TV so if he is an actor or TV reporter I would not know him)
We all want to see the plan:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/08/less-power-more-control.html
#
#
M. Simon says:
August 2, 2010 at 5:09 am
We all want to see the plan:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/08/less-power-more-control.html
_______________________________________________________
Thanks, bookmarked
Well IMHO, anyone proposing to tax carbon; for any reason; should be confined to an institution for the criminally insane for the rest of their life.
BUT ! if the idiots want to do it anyway; then I have a different proposal:- Make it a very HIGH tax; that should get people to stop using carbon very rapidly.
Place a tax on oil (petroleum) and Natural gas of $1,000,000 per barrel equivalent; and place a tax of $2,000,000 per barrel equivalent (energy) on coal; since it is mostly just carbon; while petroleum and natural gas contain a lot of Hydrogen.
Now that should get people swithced over to solar cells real quick; or really quickly if you prefer.
At $4 per Watt; or maybe $1 per Watt; Wattever it is these days for solar cells; that should get everybody making solar cells in a real hurry and rid us of the scourge of carbon.
Man I just can’t wait for the fossil fuels to run out; that is something I really want to see; so the green energy promoters can finally have their free clean green renewable energy from cheap solar cells; will that ever be a day to celebrate; and think of all the new jobs it will create.
I have degrees in geology and engineering, focussed toward hydrocarbon extraction. I work in the industry, and understand hydrocarbon creation, migration, and production. Oil and gas are not unlimited. It will be at least a couple centuries until oil gets scarce. When that happens, natural gas, (which is extremely plentiful on earth) can be turned into diesel fuel, or used as natural gas. Unless polywell fusion or some other amazing technology breaks through, hydrocarbons will be what the world uses. Indeed, you can’t make plastics and chemicals out of solar energy. It isn’t just energy that we use from hydrocarbons.
Indeed I also used to teach a class called “The Geological Record of Global Climate Change” at university level in the earlier part of last decade, and I keep up on the issues. I understand the issues. I am not concerned by CO2 in the least. It is a complete red herring. If people want to be environmentalists (which I applaud), then focus on habitat/ecosystem destruction and human overpopulation in sensitive regions. Not on CO2!
News Flash:
Washington DC, July 2010 — Ice sculpture melts — climate scientists baffled.