The potential for economic devastation from the Waxman-Markey legislation and/or Obama's type of EPA regulations remains high. What has happened when similar government climate/energy management was implemented in other countries? Call it 'ugly.' Term Limits, anyone? (H/T: www.icecap.us)
"Democratic lawmakers who spent much of the Bush administration blasting
officials for letting energy lobbyists write national policy have
turned to a coalition of business and environmental groups to help
draft their own sweeping climate bill."
GE, a leading special interest group that bankrolls MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, stands to gain billions from its support of Obama's global warming tax, which is now estimated to reach $2 trillion.
Read here. 'Cap & Trade' legislation is not about saving the planet. Besides $2 trillion in potential revenues, it's about control via bureaucratic mechanisms, like 12 "advisory boards." If 'cap & trade' is a market-oriented solution, as promoted by its authors, why would 12 advisory boards and other committees need to be established?
Read here. The Obama administration and the Democrat controlled Congress are desperate to raise tax revenues, and the Cap & Trade global warming tax is the perfect vehicle to do so if they can bribe and/or strong arm enough players to vote with them. This is not about climate change, it's about money, power and control, the lifeblood of political hacks and pork. Term limits, anyone?
Will the potential $2 trillion collected from consumers do anything to control global temperatures? Well, that's the travesty of this entire legislative endeavor since at most, global temperatures might be impacted by 0.15C degree - 15/100's of a single degree by year 2100 by this legislation!
Below is a list of major corporations that are working with Democrats to seek passage of the gigantic global warming tax on consumers:
This third recent analysis confirms what our site reported here, and what the MasterResource blog reported based on their analysis last week. The conclusions: Fundamentally, that if the U.S. could reduce CO2 emissions to zero, the impact on global temperatures of that reduction will be negligible (barely measurable) by years 2050 and 2100. Literally, we can throw trillions of dollars down the CO2-reduction rat hole and gain absolutely nothing in return. This is especially true considering China's incredible growth of CO2 emissions.
Below is this most recent analysis, by U.S. state, even. (For a better view of the below table, download this PDF and find this table on page 22.)
Read $2 trillion info here and 100% consumers pay here.
Previously, we said $650 billion was too low and more likely to be $3 trillion. We are now estimating that within 12 months, the expected cost of Obama's climate plans will climb to $5 trillion, $43,000 per U.S. household.
Not reported by mainstream press: Using robust methodology, expert analysis finds Waxman-Markey proposed 'cap & trade' legislation will reduce global temperatures by 0.05C (five one-hundredths of 1 degree centigrade).
Previously, we did a primitive, back-of-the-envelope calculation of U.S. going to zero CO2 emissions, immediately, and found global temperatures would be reduced by all of 0.15C (fifteen one-hundredths of 1 degree centigrade) over next 100 years.
Multiple large corporations are now working with Obama and Democrats to pass the infamous 'cap & trade' legislation, which will result in the the consumer and small businesses absorbing the trillions of dollars of direct/indirect costs it will generate. These big corporations are working behind the scenes for their own benefit, without regard to their customers or suppliers.
Any consumer or small company that does not want more of their hard-earned dollars going to "skyrocketing" energy costs, and gigantic CO2 taxes, passed down from the large corporations, should avoid the services and products from these corporations, as much as possible. Below the fold is a list of corporations to avoid when at all possible:
proposed CO2 'Cap & Trade' U.S. program is estimated by his
administration to be a total cost of $650 billion for consumers ("taxpayers") over
the first 8 years. Based on previous Federal government incompetence at
estimating total costs of new endeavors (see below list), one should
multiply any Obama or Congressional estimate by at least 5x to be safe.
So, what does that mean? The cost of Obama's 'Cap & Trade' consumer tax over
next 8 years will probably exceed $3.25 trillion, or some $28,000+ per
U.S. household. Here are some previous horrendously wrong cost
estimates that are eye-opening, to say the least:
(January) CBO estimated that the bailout TARP plan would cost taxpayers
$189 billion; instead, several weeks later the estimated cost was
raised to $356 billion, and will eventually be much more by end of 2009
1965 CBO estimated that Medicare Pt. A cost would be $9 billion by 1990; instead the cost was $66 billion in 1990
1965 CBO estimated that all Medicare cost would be $12 billion by 1990; instead the cost was $107 billion in 1990
CBO estimated that subsidy for Medicade special hospitals would be $100
million by 1992; instead the cost was $11 billion in 1992
1988 CBO estimated that Medicade homecare cost would be $4 billion by 1983; instead the cost was $10 billion in 1983
2003 White House estimate of Iraq War cost would be $60 billion; instead the cost so far has exceeded $600 billion
the above information reveals (and reminds us), the Federal government
is absolutely terrible at cost estimates, especially for new
initiatives; and, the politicians always 'way' low ball the original
add to the misery of a huge Cap & Trade consumer tax looming for U.S.
citizens, it should be remembered that this gigantic consumer-borne cost is
expected to lower global temperatures, at most, by a mere 0.1 degree C
(1/10th of a single degree) by the end of the century. That's it, 0.1
degree at a cost of $28,000+ from each household. Now do you
understand? This is radical environmentalism, enhanced with the leftist
Obanomics, and doing political business the same old way - sticking it
to the consumer.
Since many of Gore's claims about global warming have been proven to be nothing more than absurd hype, and in some cases, outright scientifically wrong, it's extremely troubling that venerable investment firms would be gathering monies from individuals and institutions based on Gore's global warming misrepresentations. These investment firms have the fiduciary responsibility to invest in opportunities of prudent nature, certainly not those based on celebrity hucksterism, climate science fiction and scaremongering. Is it investment fraud if one is attracting investor monies by hyping worst case scenarios that appear to create a future investment opportunity?
When these investment monies are lost for their clients, it will be an ugly day in court if the investment firms' defense is..."well, Al Gore said it would happen." That defense ain't going to work when a UK High Court judge has already found that Gore's claims are "politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change."
For potential investors, beware! Do you really want your money in the hands of a Bernie Madoff-type of money manager? Before investing in one of these global warming, Gore influenced money-making "opportunities," you might want to ask these questions.
As multiple politicians, celebrities and reporters believe that a reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions would have some "large" impact on global temperatures, and would only be a trivial cost to Americans, we decided to do some simple calculations to reveal what those impacts would be. Using known CO2 science and emission levels, the simple calculations show that a zero U.S. CO2 emissions would barely put a dent in global temperatures, yet it would be stupendously expensive for all Americans to create that tiny dent. And, even if we sacrificed our 'treasure' and lifestyle for a grand, global, politically correct image, CO2 emissions growth from China and India will reverse that tiny dent in a mere 6+ years.