The Global Warming Hoax and what it will cost you

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board again tells only one side of the story in their column, "Climate change of heart".

In their column they support the Lieberman/Warner Senate Bill 2191. Their only support for this onerous bill is, "He [President Bush] warned that "bad legislation would impose tremendous costs on our economy." But Bush's own EPA says the gross domestic economy would grow 80 percent from 2010 to 2030 under the bill, just one percentage point less than it would without the new policy."

That's it. The EPA says that gross domestic product will only drop by 1%. Again, the Herald-Tribune only tells you less than half of the story to fit their political agenda which is, "mandatory restrictions on emissions and, even better, a carbon tax..."

As we have said many times human caused global warming is a hoax. Current scientific research has shown that global climate change is caused by the sun. Read our articles on this here, here and here.

Now let's talk about the real costs of "mandatory restrictions" and a "carbon tax".

Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist for the American Council on Capital Formation, testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in November 2007 on the impact of S.B. 2191. This is a link to her full testimony.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune had full access to this testimony and yet reported on none of it in their editorial. Why, because it shoots down their justification that there will be no economic impact of S.B. 2191.

Dr. Thorning in her testimony points out the following:

1. Meeting the carbon emission goals of S.B. 2191 are impossible simply because of projected population growth in America from a current 308 million to 363 million by 2030. The more people the more homes, more businesses, and cars - the more fuel and power needed.

2. The U.S. Department of Energy projects a 30% increase in carbon emissions from 2012 to 2030, even taking into account increases in energy efficiency and technology to reduce green house gases. The projection is for an increase of 6,613 million metric tons of CO2 (MMTCO2) by 2020 compared to the mandated target reduction of S.B. 2191 of 4,432 MMTCO2. Meeting the targets of S.B. 2191 just can't physically be done.

3. Per capita emissions fell by 0.8 percent from 1990 to 2000 and are projected to fall by 0.6 percent from 2000 to 2012. However, due to population growth, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects per capita emissions to increase 12.2 percent from 2012 to 2030.

4. Looking at the European Union's (EU) efforts to reduce green house gases, the model for many, we find a failure. The EU 15 (the most industrialized countries) have a Kyoto Protocol target of an 8 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2010 to 2012. The European Environmental Agency's latest projection (October 2006) shows the EU 15 emissions will increase by 7.4 percent above 1990 levels by 2010.

5. Dr. Thorning also testifies that any cap-and-trade or carbon tax will simply be passed on to consumers in higher fuel and energy prices.

Again, to read all of Dr. Thorning testimony and view her slides go here.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune lies to its readers implying minimal impact on GDP growth with S.B. 2191 saying, "But Bush's own EPA says the gross domestic economy would grow 80 percent from 2010 to 2030 under the bill, just one percentage point less than it would without the new policy."

The EPA actually projects that S.B. 2191 will cost at least 4.0 percent of GDP when implemented.

According to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, "This bill [S. 2191] is patterned after the Lieberman-McCain bill which an MIT study earlier this year found would cost $3,500 per family of four. According to an EPA analysis, Lieberman-McCain would impose a price increase for oil of 20% and for natural gas of 23%. This will have enormous impacts, especially on the poor."

"A 2006 survey of Colorado homeless families with children found that high energy bills were cited as one of the two main reasons they became homeless. (LINK) The Lieberman-Warner is even more stringent than the Lieberman-McCain bill on covered sectors, but fails to provide any more environmental benefits. In addition, the United States Senate has passed two resolutions that any climate action must neither harm our economy nor fail to include developing countries. Lieberman-Warner does not pass that test."

So there you have it. This is a bad bill based upon a bad scientific theory, harms the poor, and will cost you and me trillions of dollars. We believe that any carbon emission legislation must first do no harm to our people or economy, and must include developing countries.

Our biggest concern is that the Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board's column on this bill is plain wrong. This is either lazy journalism, dis-information, or political propaganda. You decide which.