Friday, May 11, 2007

Laws To Stop Global Warming Will Hurt The Poorest The Most

It is pretty obvious that the costs of trying to control (futilely I remind you) global warming and climate change are going to hurt the poorest members of society the most. If gasoline and electricity double in cost, it's not going to hurt Al Gore, Sheryl Crowe and the like.

However, people on fixed incomes, (like most retirees) and low-income workers are going to be hurt greatly. But who cares, right? We must sacrifice for the good of the environment, for the future of our children. Baloney I say!

I have an idea, why don't we TAX the rich for being such energy pigs and use the money to help low-income people pay their higher gas and electricity, and food, and clothing, and everything costs. Run that idea past your favorite Congressman and see what kind of response you get. I say let Nancy Pelosi live on what the average Social Security recipient receives and give the rest of her millions to those in need. Good idea, huh?

See this article for the details on how much the new laws are going to cost, an estimated $4,500 per household by 2015. Aren't you glad you voted Democrat now? Note the source of some of this information comes from the notoriously disreputable Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

( - Critics of global warming call the proposed "auction" of carbon credits a form of taxation that would hurt poor consumers the worst, yet some experts believe such auctions might be the best way for countries around the world to pay the heavy costs of reducing their industrial emissions. "

A cap and trade would result in a massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to the wealthier Americans," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and leading global warming skeptic. "Carbon caps would artificially and needlessly raise the cost of energy the most on people least able to afford it. It astounds me that any senator could support such a proposal," he said.

But 17 members of the Democratic caucus, four of whom are seeking their party's presidential nomination, are supporting such a proposal.

The centerpiece of a bill introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would be a cap and trade system.

Consumers "would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline," according to the CBO report. "Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would," the report said."

Such a strategy would transfer income from energy consumers - among whom lower income households would bear disproportionately large burdens - to shareholders of energy companies, who are disproportionately higher-income households," the report continued.

Caps, credits and other parts of the Boxer-Sanders bill could lead to imposing taxes of up to $366 billion annually, according to a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That would be a tax of about $4,500 per household by the year 2015, the MIT study published last month said.

To read the entire article, go here:

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Politicians are much more likely to push for cap and trade over a carbon tax because it 'appears' not to impose a cost directly to consumers. But when the costs of producing energy rises under a cap and trade program, the cost WILL be passed on to consumers. And of course it'll hurt the poorest of Americans most.