Has anyone else noticed contradictions in Washington lately? Hypocrisy is common in politics. Liberal democrats support a woman’s choice to abort a baby, but tend to oppose sending grown men and women to potentially die in war. On the flip-side, conservative Republicans are against abortion, but normally support risking thousands of lives to fight a war. These types of hypocrisies have always existed in politics, but there is one particular hypocrisy that stands out to me.
We all understand that Obama placed a strong emphasis on reducing health-care costs. But perhaps less well-known is that he is pushing for a bill that would basically increase everyone’s energy bill. That sounds counterproductive if you ask me.
It’s due to the global warming movement, and the cap-and-trade legislation it could bring. It is well understood that the earth is warming, but by how much? Over the last century, the earth has warmed about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit. I’m no math genius, but that computes to .012 degrees per year. Dependency on resources like coal and oil lead people to believe the increased temperatures are man-made. With that in mind, we have to ask ourselves: is that enough warming to implement a cap-and-trade policy?
First, let’s figure out what exactly cap-and-trade is before we answer this difficult question. Right now, businesses and manufacturers emit ‘greenhouse’ gases into the air. These forms of energy are cheap and easy for businesses to use; however, they pollute the air. What do we do about this? Well, the solution being proposed right now would be to cap how much CO2 a manufacturer can emit into the air. Also, the government would have the ability to slap businesses with a penalty tax if they emit over their regulated cap. Once the limit is in place, the government would give “clean air” credits (money) to businesses in order to help them invest in cleaner energy. If a company has extra credits at the end of their fiscal year, they can sell them to other businesses to help them invest in cleaner forms of energy. The cleaner their energy, the lower their cap would be through time.
The cap-and-trade bill has passed in the House of Representatives, but the predictably slow Senate has stalled the bill’s progress. Nonetheless, it appears that greenhouse gas regulation will occur regardless of whether or not Congress passes a bill anytime soon. The Supreme Court has given the president the executive power to permit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Unless someone brings a case against the Supreme Court’s decision and wins, it appears Obama’s “clean air” agenda will be achieved at some point during his first term.
Regardless of whether Congress passes the bill or the president wields his new executive power, this new regulation needs to be paid for, right? The proposed bill would cost a trillion dollars. So, who is paying for this? We the people would take the biggest hit. This would be another large expense for businesses and manufacturers, because it would cost businesses more money to produce their products within the regulated cap. Thus, in order for their business to stay up and running, they would need to pass those expenses on to the consumer by jacking up costs. It essentially becomes an indirect tax on the American people.
The cap-and-trade bill would increase your gas and electric bills, and would raise gas prices to unheard-of amounts. This bill places a strong emphasis on building alternative forms of energy while lowering greenhouse gas emissions at the same time. Regulation would likely be successful in promoting this, but at what cost?
Families are struggling now more than ever, and raising energy costs would make the situation even worse. Has anyone even considered the very real possibility that this ever-so-slight rise in temperature over the past century hasn’t been manmade? Society is very dependent on oil and coal and the earth is getting warmer, that’s true. Even so, don’t confuse correlation with causation. The earth warming up doesn’t necessarily mean it’s because of increased dependence on oil and coal. I suggest researching what the skeptics have said, because there is reason to believe that humankind’s responsibility for global warming could have been exaggerated. Some scientists have ‘debunked’ the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), proving that the studies, while not necessarily wrong, were exaggerated or biased.
A simplified example without extracting too much scientific data is about surface temperatures measured with satellite technology. We are told the surface temperature is as hot as it has ever been in the last five years; thus making global warming a serious threat. However, NASA has only used satellite temperatures to measure earth’s surface temperatures for 32 years! Are you telling me, after only 32 years of collecting data, that you are confident enough to claim the earth is too warm? The earth is 5 billion years old! We knew very little about surface temperatures before 1978! Why such hysteria and urgency when there is little data to prove the increased temperatures pose a threat to our lifestyle? You would have to be a pretty arrogant scientist to claim surface temperatures are too hot with such an absence of context.
Think about climate change this way: if we didn’t have climate change, then we’d still be living in the ice age! The reality of the situation is that the earth always has periods of warming and cooling. The climate always fluctuates from decade to decade and century to century.
Is cap-and-trade really necessary? Is our earth really warming to the point where we should raise energy costs on families and confine the corporations of this country?
Think deeply about these questions before supporting the regulation of gas emissions. Furthermore, it is helpful to remember that while Obama wants to lower your health insurance, he consciously understands that he would raise your energy bill if he uses the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases or the current cap-and-trade legislation.
