Soapster's Call to Action

Unless you're content with Government controlling your energy usage, I urge all of you to keep tabs on your Senators as the dreaded Warner-Lieberman bill (America's Climate Security Act of 2007: S 2191) comes up this week in the Senate.

For those not privy, this is the "bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes."

Learn more about Government's quest to control your energy consumption here

While you're at it, maybe take some time out and call Senator McCain's camp and commend him for helping expand the Federal Government's role of encroachment upon your Freedom, your Liberty, and oh of course your Wallet.

(The following data is a culmination of all relevant cost analysis and can be found in its entirety at Newt Gingrich's website)
ESTIMATED FINANCIAL COSTS OF WARNER-LIEBERMAN CAP AND TRADE BILL

(Studies of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and Economists All Attest to the Negative Economic Impact of Warner-Lieberman Cap and Trade Bill)

CBO: Cap-and-Trade System Would Cause ‘Higher Prices for Consumers’ and ‘Windfall Profits’ For Large Firms. “Policymakers' decisions about how to allocate the allowances could have significant effects on the overall economic cost of capping CO2 emissions, as well as on the distribution of gains and losses among U.S. households. Giving allowances away to companies that supply fossil fuels or that use large quantities of fossil fuels in their production processes could create ‘windfall’ profits for those firms. The reason is that the cap-and-trade program would still result in higher prices for consumers and households but would not impose additional costs on those firms. Even if the companies received allowances for free, they would still raise prices to their customers because the cost of using an emission allowance for production—rather than selling it to another firm—would be embodied in the prices that they would charge for their goods and services. The resulting price increases would disproportionately affect people at the lower end of the income scale.”

(Peter R. Orszag, “Approaches to Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions,” Testimony – Congressional Budget Office, November 1, 2007 )

CBO Predicts High Costs For Warner-Lieberman. In April 2008, the Congressional Budget Office revealed the following facts about the Warner-Lieberman Cap and Trade Bill:

Bill Would Cost Americans Over $1 Trillion In Next Decade. From 2009-2018, Warner-Lieberman would cost Americans roughly $1.2 trillion, and discretionary spending would increase by about $3.7 billion.

Includes Expensive Private Sector Mandates. “The most costly mandates [of the Warner-Lieberman bill] would require certain types of private-sector entities to participate in the cap-and-trade programs for GHG emissions created by the bill. CBO estimates that the cost of those mandates would amount to more than $90 billion each year during the 2012-2016 period, and thus substantially exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA [Unfunded Mandates Reform Act] for private-sector mandates ($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation).”

With Boxer Amendment Now Included, Warner-Lieberman Would Increase Discretionary Spending By Over $80 Billion During Next Decade. During committee markup in December 2007, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) added an amendment to the Warner-Lieberman Bill to make the bill deficit neutral, and the CBO assessed the amended version separately. “CBO estimates that enacting S. 2191, as amended…would increase discretionary spending by about $84 billion over the 2009-2018 period.”

(Congressional Budget Office, “Cost Estimate – S. 2191: America’s Climate Security Act of 2007,” CBO, April 10, 2008: 1, 2 )

EPA Economic Analysis Concludes Warner-Lieberman Would Be Costly. The EPA released a list of key facts of the Warner-Lieberman Bill:

Warner-Lieberman Would Cost Americans At Least $238 Billion By 2030 and Over $1 Trillion By 2050. If passed, Warner-Lieberman would cause GDP to be between 0.9% ($238 billion) and 3.8% ($983 billion) lower in 2030 than if the bill was not in place. In 2050, GDP would be between 2.4% ($1,012 billion) and 6.9% ($2,856 billion) lower than projected without passing Warner-Lieberman.

Electricity Prices To Rise Dramatically. “Electricity prices are projected to increase 44% in 2030 and 26% in 2050.” Asymmetrical Costs. “The largest GDP and consumption impacts are in the Plains region.”

(“EPA Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 14, 2008)

National Association of Manufacturers Rejects the Warner Lieberman Cap and Trade Bill. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) released a study in March 2008 on the economic impact of Warner-Lieberman cap and trade bill:

GDP would be reduced by $151-$210 billion by 2020; in 2030, GDP would be reduced by $631-$669 billion (in 2007 dollars).

There would be 1.2-1.8 million jobs lost in 2020 and 3-4 million jobs lost in 2030.

Manufacturing would slow and shipment values would fall 3.2 % to 4% in 2020; by 2030 the value of shipments would fall by 8.3 % to 8.5%.

Household income would be reduced by $739-$2,927 in 2020 and $4,022-$6,752 (in 2007 dollars) in 2030.

Electricity prices would increase by 28%-33% by 2020 and 101%-129% by 2030.

Gasoline prices would increase 20%-69% by 2020 and 77%-145% by 2030.

(American Council for Capital Formation and National Association of Manufacturers, “Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) Using The National Energy Modeling System,” March 12, 2008)

Economist Anne Smith: Large GDP Losses Under Warner-Lieberman. Economist Anne Smith of CRA International, a financial consulting firm, testified before Congress on the potentially destructive economic impacts of Warner-Lieberman, and discovered the following:

Unfair Distribution of Costs. “Our scenarios imply that S.2191 would decrease US average economic welfare by 1.1% to 1.7%. This impact varies by region, and…we find that New York, New England states, and California would experience welfare impacts substantially less than the US average, while regions heavily reliant on fossil fuel energy sources would face impacts somewhat greater than the US average.”

Punitive Effect On GDP. Rather than allowing healthy economic expansion, Warner-Lieberman would restrain GDP growth. “GDP would be lower in 2015 by about $160 billion to $250 billion. Eventually, the annual loss in GDP would increase to the range of $800 billion to $1 trillion (stated in real, 2007 dollars).”

Job Loss Much Greater Than Green Job Creation. “Naturally, with reductions in GDP come reductions in real wages and job losses. We have estimated 1.2 million to 2.3 million net job losses by 2015 over our set of scenarios. By 2020, our scenarios project between 1.5 million and 3.4 million net job losses. There is a substantial implied increase in jobs associated with “green” businesses (e.g., to produce renewable generation technologies), but even accounting for these there is a projected net loss in jobs due to the generalized macroeconomic impacts of the Bill.”

(Anne Smith, “Prepared Statement of Anne E. Smith, Ph.D., at the Legislative Hearing on America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, S. 2191,” United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, November 8, 2007 )

Cost to the Average Family Estimated at Nearly $17,000.

(WashingtonWatch, “S. 2191, The America's Climate Security Act of 2007,” 2008 )

Considering the economic impact of this disasterous bill, it's amazing many of my Republican brethren continue to implore that Global Warming is a "non-issue". Seems quite evident to me that it's a whole lot more than a "non-issue".