This is a formula for crapola.

Tuesday June 3, 2008

Sacrificing the U.S. economy

A cap on carbon emissions dooms the nation and won't save the planet

FROM the people who helped bring America $4 per gallon gasoline comes a new way to send energy prices up, while at the same time slowing the economy and imposing a $3 trillion penalty on those who emit carbon dioxide.

Restrictions on offshore drilling and tapping into the oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge have helped keep America dependent on foreign oil.

Now the same Congress that imposed those restrictions wants to cap carbon dioxide emissions, and then reduce that cap every year to fight "global warming." The goal is to cut emissions by 35 percent in 20 years.

Over 40 years, great strides have been made in reducing toxins in the atmosphere and in the water. But capping emissions in the United States - even if Congress knew what it was doing - would not save the world. China and India would continue pollute.

And to prosper.

As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, this proposal is at heart a revenue generator for Congress. Under a proposal by Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, the federal government would auction carbon dioxide "allowances" to business, which would allow them to continue to "pollute."

Only half the allowances would be sold. The government would parcel out others to Indian tribes and states that are "taking the lead," such as Boxer's California.

This is a formula for crapola. It's not just a silly but a dangerous proposal.

The National Association of Manufacturing estimated the bill's impact on West Virginia. In 20 years, the state would lose up to 27,000 jobs, and its gross domestic product would fall by nearly $3 billion annually.

Household income would drop by up to $5,200 a year. Gasoline prices could rise by up to 145 percent, while electric bills would double.

The Congressional Budget Office pointed out that a 15 percent cut in emissions allowed would raise the average household's energy costs by more than $100 a month.

This proposal calls for a 35 percent reduction.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the bill could reduce gross domestic product by as much as $2.8 trillion by 2050.

This is a bad idea that should be killed before November - before it kills the economy.

http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Editorials/200806030145