The Cost Of Believing In The Myth Of Man-Caused Global Warming

The cost to taxpayers and consumers of the proposed "cap and trade" control of carbon (dioxide) emissions by the Obama Administration is almost beyond comprehension. The following brief article puts things in perspective. This a nightmare waiting to happen. This is how Obama hopes to pay for his grand scheme of healthcare and education, and social justice for all. It really is insanity, and will destroy the real health and economy of the entire USA.

Peter

The Cost of Global Warming: A Story in Pictures
Written by Nick Loris, Heritage.org
Monday, 06 April 2009
It’s no secret policymakers in Washington want to dramatically change America’s energy policy by regulating carbon dioxide emissions. Their most popular idea, a cap and trade proposal, should really be read as a tax on energy consumption. Indeed, it’s a very large tax that compares with some of the largest government spending items in history.

This translates to real money stripped from real families - causing families to face difficult trade offs and make important budgetary decisions.

Whether they fall on businesses or consumer, higher taxes reduce economic growth. Higher taxes force companies to cut costs elsewhere, typically by reducing production and therefore cutting jobs. According to The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, job losses resulting from cap and trade will surpass 900,000 in some years. Keep in mind; this is net of any “green jobs” created.

Particularly hit hard is the manufacturing sector. Since fossil fuels generally make America’s economic engine run, especially the manufacturing sector, taxing fossil fuels would cause job losses to exceed two million in 2028 and 2029.

The Heritage Foundation’s Manufacturing Vulnerability Index measures a state’s direct and immediate vulnerability to an energy tax based on the extent of the state’s manufacturing workforce and its reliance on coal power generation. Taking a look at the map, the Midwest will suffer most.

And what should be the final nail in the coffin: All this economic pain is for very little, if any, environmental gain. Analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency concludes that if the U.S. reduces CO2 emissions 60 percent by 2050, it will reduce global temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree Centigrade by 2095. A multi–lateral approach wouldn’t fare much better. Why? Well, there’s a lot of reasons. After all, the science behind global warming is anything but conclusive, but one reason could be how small man’s contribution to carbon dioxide emissions is.

Source

Cold, Hard Facts About The Cost Of Controlling Climate Change

There are some glaring gaps in understanding about the real costs involved in trying to stop global warming and climate change by limiting carbon dioxide emissions. That is assuming that carbon dioxide plays a role in causing global warming, (which I do not accept). However, in addition to that scientific fact about carbon dioxide, the realities of trying to reduce these emissions are overlooked. Here are some cold, hard realities.
Peter




The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change
By Steven F. Hayward

Wall Street Journal
April 28, 2008
Web site: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120934459094348617.html?mod=djemEditoria


The usual chorus of environmentalists and editorial writers has chimed in to attack President Bush's recent speech on climate change. In his address of April 23, he put forth a goal of stopping the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025.

"Way too little and way too late," runs the refrain, followed by the claim that nothing less than an 80% reduction in emissions by the year 2050 will suffice – what I call the "80 by 50" target. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have endorsed it. John McCain is not far behind, calling for a 65% reduction.

We all ought to reflect on what an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 really means. When we do, it becomes clear that the president's target has one overwhelming virtue: Assuming emissions curbs are even necessary, his goal is at least realistic.

The same cannot be said for the carbon emissions targets espoused by the three presidential candidates and environmentalists. Indeed, these targets would send us back to emissions levels last witnessed when the cotton gin was in daily use.

Begin with the current inventory of carbon dioxide emissions – CO2 being the principal greenhouse gas generated almost entirely by energy use. According to the Department of Energy's most recent data on greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006 the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or just under 20 tons per capita. An 80% reduction in these emissions from 1990 levels means that the U.S. cannot emit more than about one billion metric tons of CO2 in 2050.

Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910. But in 1910, the U.S. had 92 million people, and per capita income, in current dollars, was about $6,000.

By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.

It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low – even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The only nations in the world today that emit at this low level are all poor developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and Somalia.

If that comparison seems unfair, consider that even the least-CO2 emitting industrialized nations do not come close to the 2050 target. France and Switzerland, compact nations that generate almost all of their electricity from nonfossil fuel sources (nuclear for France, hydro for Switzerland) emit about 6.5 metric tons of CO2 per capita.

The daunting task of reaching one billion metric tons of CO2 emissions by 2050 comes into even greater relief when we look at the American economy, sector-by-sector. The Energy Department breaks down emissions into residential, commercial (office buildings, etc.), industrial, and transportation (planes, trains and automobiles); electricity consumption is apportioned to each.

Consider the residential sector. At the present time, American households emit 1.2 billion tons of CO2 – 20% higher than the entire nation's emissions must be in 2050. If households are to emit no more than their present share of CO2, emissions will have to be reduced to 204 million tons by 2050. But in 2050, there will be another 40 million residential households in the U.S.

Today, the average residence in the U.S. uses about 10,500 kilowatt hours of electricity and emits 11.4 tons of CO2 per year (much more if you are Al Gore or John Edwards and live in a mansion). To stay within the magic number, average household emissions will have to fall to no more than 1.5 tons per year. In our current electricity infrastructure, this would mean using no more than about 2,500 KwH per year. This is not enough juice to run the average hot water heater.

You can forget refrigerators, microwaves, clothes dryers and flat screen TVs. Even a house tricked out with all the latest high-efficiency EnergyStar appliances and compact fluorescent lights won't come close. The same daunting energy math applies to the industrial, commercial and transportation sectors as well. The clear implication is that we shall have to replace virtually the entire fossil fuel electricity infrastructure over the next four decades with CO2-free sources – a multitrillion dollar proposition, if it can be done at all.

Natural gas – the preferred coal substitute of the moment – won't come close. If we replaced every single existing coal plant with a natural gas plant, CO2 emissions from electric power generation alone would still be more than twice the 2050 target. Most environmentalists remain opposed to nuclear power, of course. It is unlikely that renewables – wind, solar, and biomass – can ever make up more than about 20% of our electricity supply.

Suppose, however, that a breakthrough in carbon sequestration, a revival of nuclear power, and a significant improvement in the cost and effectiveness of renewables were to enable us to reduce the carbon footprint of electricity production. That would still leave transportation.

Right now our cars and trucks consume about 180 billion gallons of motor fuel. To meet the 2050 target, we shall have to limit consumption of gasoline to about 31 billion gallons, unless a genuine carbon-neutral liquid fuel can be produced. (Ethanol isn't it.) To show how unrealistic this is, if the entire nation drove nothing but Toyota Priuses in 2050, we'd still overshoot the transportation emissions target by 40%.

The enthusiasm for an 80% reduction target is often justified on grounds that national policy should set an ambitious goal. However, claims on behalf of alternative energy sources – biofuels, hydrogen, windpower and so forth – either do not match up to the scale of the energy required, or are not cost-competitive in current form.

How on God's green earth will we make up the difference? Someone should put this question to the candidates. And not let them slide past it with glittering generalities.

Mr. Hayward is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of the annual "Index of Leading Environmental Indicators," from which this article is adapted.

What Is The True Motivation The Stop Global Warming Movement?

The tone of the following commentary by Mr. Caruba may sound a bit alarming, but when we consider the magnitude of the costs involved with trying to control the climate, strong statements are justified. In my humble opinion anyway.
Peter

source:

Saying 'No' When Everyone Else Is Saying 'Yes'
By Alan Caruba CNSNews.com
Commentary from the National Anxiety Center December 18, 2007

I have been witness to the complete subversion of science in the service of an utterly corrupt new religion called environmentalism. In the Middle Ages the Church determined what "truth" was. Today the Green Church seeks the same power. F rom the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century to the beginning of the Renaissance in the 15th century, civilization experienced a period of ignorance and superstition. Globally, via the media and the classroom, a distorted and debased science is being used to advance the fraud of global warming.
The challenge is to say "no" when everyone else is saying "yes" to global warming. There is no dramatic warming of the earth. There is no indication of a near-future warming. Carbon dioxide (CO2) plays such a minimal role in the atmosphere that an increase would have no effect beyond the very beneficial boost in the growth of forests, crops, and everything else that is truly green. Indeed, climatologists will tell you that CO2 increases follow, not precede, warming cycles. They are not a trigger. They are a response.

During the United Nations' Bali climate conference, a hundred prominent international scientists released an open letter warning that any attempt to control the Earth's climate is "ultimately futile" and would constitute "a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems." "It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages." The notion that mankind has any impact on climate or weather is absurd.

In November, in Valencia, Spain, delegates from more than 140 nations agreed to what they and the media echo chamber that disseminates the global warming lie, called "an 'instant guide' for policy makers stating more forcefully than ever that climate change has begun and threatens to irreversibly alter the planet." A science that can barely predict the weather next week is being perverted for purely political purposes.

Having followed the IPCC since its inception and the environmental movement in general for decades, I can tell you that what we are hearing is a shrill message of desperation coming from those who fear that people around the world may yet reject the global warming lie. An Associated Press report said that the draft and coming IPCC report "is intended to launch a political process on international cooperation to control global warming." How do you control something that is not happening? Why is everything the IPCC proposes lead to "cap and trade" laws that would impose limits on carbon dioxide emissions, something that reflects human activity, from exhaling to the making of steel, the harvesting of crops, the heating of one's home, and virtually all forms transportation except bicycles.

Why do all of the proposed controls aim at crippling the industrial advances that underwrite the success of Western nations in particular and improvement of human civilization everywhere? In Bali, there are voices calling for a global "carbon tax." It would be collected by the United Nations and we know how well they handle such funding. The Oil-for-Food fiasco is but one example. The funding of the Bali conference is another.

Wouldn't limits put on the United States and European nations be instantly cancelled by emissions from nations such as China and India that are exempt from the Kyoto agreement? The answer, of course, is yes. Doesn't the failure of the current agreement and the billions in fines it portends for signature nations suggest still more failure?

Despite this, there is legislation making its way through the U.S. Congress that would impose cap-and-trade limits on every industry and business in America. At a time when the U.S. dollar is falling in value and our national deficit has skyrocketed, why would Congress even consider anything that would harm the economic engine of the nation?

This is, however, the same U.S. Congress that refuses to permit exploration and access to our national energy reserves, leaving us dependent on imported oil and natural gas while at the same time calling for "energy independence."If I were to devise a plan to destroy the greatest economy, creator of wealth, center of innovation, and exemplar of individual liberty that has ever existed in human history, I would patiently create fear of a global disaster involving the one thing over which humans never had and never will have control, the earth's climate. I would then propose a "solution" that would cost that economy billions in "carbon credits" to keep it from occurring.

What the former Soviet Union and its failed Communist system could not achieve in some 45 years of the Cold War, the environmental movement is seeking to achieve in its place. By undermining the economy of the United States and Western nations with draconian limits on CO2 emissions, those behind this effort will create a world ripe for a single ruling government composed of unelected bureaucrats whose only purpose will be to feed at its trough. The single greatest determinant of the Earth's climate, the Sun, will continue to shine, but the world will be plunged yet again into the darkness of ignorance and submission to the false religion of environmentalism if the global warming lie succeeds.

(Alan Caruba writes "Warning Signs," a weekly column posted at the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center. The views expressed are those of the writer.)Copyright 2007, Alan Caruba

Let's Not Throw Our Hard-Earned Money Away On The Global Warming Folly......

First of all, I argue that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing global warming. This is supported by abundant, sound scientific evidence. Secondly, just a few countries reducing carbon dioxide emissions can have no effect on a GLOBAL problem; and thirdly, the cost of pursuing this folly is astronomical, in the Trillions of dollars. Let's stop this insanity.
Peter


Climate Change Bill Has a Cost: $494 a Year for Every U.S. Man, Woman and Child

What's another $500 taken out of your paycheck over the course of a year? It probably isn't much to global warming alarmists like Al Gore, but that's what it could cost you if legislation pending in the U.S. Senate is passed into law. Does that $500 have your attention? Well, multiply that times every member of your immediate family.

According to a November 11 Washington Times editorial, a bill introduced in the Senate by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) that would require companies to scale back greenhouse-gas emissions could cost Americans $4 trillion to $6 trillion over the next 40 years. If that bill were passed and made law, the tax would cost every man, woman and child - more than 303 million Americans - $494 a year, a significant burden on the U.S. economy.

If you're not yet skeptical of this global warming initiative, listen to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who warns the effects of carbon caps would be limited unless imposed globally. He said in his book, "The Age of Turbulence," that caps imposed only on the United States could be detrimental.

"There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy," Greenspan wrote. "Net, it is a tax. If the cap is low enough to make a meaningful inroad into CO2 emissions, permits will become expensive and large numbers of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained."
Source

The Real Cost Of Global Warming

These estimates of the long-term cost of trying to curb global warming come from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). However accurate they may, or may not be, the numbers are staggering, and should make everyone stop and think a whole lot.

We have a great deal of doubt about the reliability of computer climate models, and there is much evidence that the world temperature data is inaccurate, and has been tampered with. Finally, there is a huge body of observed scientific information, strongly suggesting that global warming and climate change are natural processes that have been operating to heat and cool the Earth for billions of years. These are processes like variations in the amount of solar energy received by the Earth and the complex interplay between the atmosphere, the land, oceans, the biosphere, the carbon cycle, and the hydrologic cycle.

In light of this vast amount of information to the contrary, it is mind-boggling to think that any rational person is even thinking of trying to control global warming. Yet not only are people thinking of controlling global warming, they are passing laws that will cost billions upon billions of dollars. How can this be people? What is going on here? Have our politicians in their pathological partisan ambition become totally blind to reality? What does this say about all of their supporters?
Peter

from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299419,00.html

Junk Science: Global Warming’s Trillion-Dollar Turkey
Thursday, October 04, 2007
By Steven Milloy
A trillion dollars doesn’t buy what it used to — at least when it comes to global warming, according to a new analysis from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Last July, this column reported that the latest global warming bill — the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007, introduced by Sens. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. and Arlen Specter, R-Pa. — would cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion in its first 10 years and untold trillions of dollars in subsequent decades.

This week, the EPA sent its analysis of the bill’s impact on climate to Bingaman and Specter. Now we can see what we’d get for our money, and we may as well just build a giant bonfire with the cash and enjoy toasting marshmallows over it.
For reference purposes, the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 380 parts per million. The EPA estimates that if no action is taken to curb CO2 emissions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be 718 ppm by 2095.
If the Bingaman-Specter bill were implemented, however, the EPA estimates that CO2 levels would be 695 ppm — a whopping reduction of 23 ppm.

The EPA also estimated that if all countries — including China, India, Brazil and other developing nations — curb CO2 emissions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would be 491 ppm in 2095, including the above-mentioned 23 ppm reduction from the implementation of the Bingaman-Specter bill.
So it appears that no matter how you slice it, Bingaman-Specter is worth a 23 ppm-reduction in atmospheric CO2 by 2095. But what are the climatic implications of this reduction in terms of global temperature? After all, we are talking about global warming.
Although the EPA didn’t pursue its analysis that far, figuring out the implications are readily doable using the assumptions and formulas of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Under the no-action scenario (718-to-695 ppm), the IPCC formulas indicate that the multitrillion-dollar Bingaman-Specter bill might reduce average global temperature by 0.13 degrees Celsius.
Under the maximum regulation scenario (514-to-491 ppm), Bingaman-Specter might reduce average global temperature by 0.18 degrees Celsius. Actual temperature reductions are likely to be less since these estimates rely on the IPCC’s alarmist-friendly assumptions and formulas.

The question, then, becomes this: Is it really worth trillions of taxpayer dollars over 90 years to perhaps reduce global temperatures by 0.13-0.18 degrees Celsius? If you can’t answer that question, consider this.
Under the no-action scenario, average global temperature might be 1.2 degrees Celsius higher in 2095 than it is today, once again using conservative IPCC assumptions and formulas. Under the maximum-regulation scenario, average global temperature might be 1.03 degrees Celsius higher than today. (For reference purposes, the estimated total increase in average global temperature for the 20th century was about 0.50 degrees Celsius.)

So what’s the difference in mean global temperature between the no-action scenario and the maximum-regulation scenario? Could it be a whopping 0.17 degrees Centigrade? Is that what global warming hysteria is all about?
The Bingaman-Specter bill, then, would cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and produce virtually nothing in terms of temperature outcome. But the pain of Bingaman-Specter doesn’t stop with trillions of taxpayer dollars. The heart of the Bingaman-Specter bill is a so-called cap-and-trade system in which CO2 emission limits (caps) would be decreed and certain businesses and other special interest group emitters (such as farmers and states) would be given permits to emit CO2.
Emitters that have extra permits could sell them in the open market to emitters that weren’t lucky enough to get free permits and that need permits. Extra permits, as such, are essentially free money.

Proponents of the cap-and-trade scheme — generally speaking, conniving environmentalists who want to appear to be business-friendly and special interest emitters who want to feed at the taxpayer trough — portray it as a "market-based" approach to addressing global warming concerns.
Not only is cap-and-trade not "market-based," highly respected economists, including former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Arthur Laffer and Harvard University’s Greg Mankiw, say cap-and-trade will cause significant economic harm.

In a recent paper sponsored by the Free Enterprise Education Institute, a think tank with which I am affiliated, Laffer said that a cap-and-trade scheme would act as a constraint on the energy supply — much like the 1970s-era Arab oil embargoes and other energy crises. He estimates that cap-and-trade would shrink the U.S. economy by 5.2 percent and reduce family income by $10,800 by 2020.

So the Bingaman-Specter bill not only would waste taxpayer money, but it would harm economic growth and reduce family income — all without affecting global temperature in any sort of meaningful or even detectable way.
Although the EPA acknowledged, "Since the variation in cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions are small under [Bingaman-Specter], the variation in the resulting CO2 concentrations are small," this only hints at the bill’s futility.

There can be little doubt as to why the EPA failed to carry through the ultimate implications of the 23 ppm impact of Bingaman-Specter. The agency would have "officially" exposed the bill and global warming alarmism as utterly absurd.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Respond to the Writer.