FrankRep
05-30-2008, 06:50 AM
Senate Bill to Reduce Greenhouse Gases Would Cripple U.S. Economy
The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
Take action - Write your Representatives:
http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=11436836&type=CO
The U.S. Senate is expected to begin deliberations on America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191) as early as the first week of June 2008. The bill is sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman, the Independent from Connecticut, and John Warner, Republican of Virginia.
S. 2191 directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, with the goal of lowering emissions 63 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2050. These reductions would be achieved through a system that would require companies to cap their emissions and then have them trade emissions rights with each other.
The emissions cuts called for in the Lieberman-Warner bill are so draconian that, as reported in Investor's Business Daily, "The Environmental Protection Agency reckons it would cost as much as $3 trillion a year in lost GDP. In an economy of roughly $14 trillion, that's a significant loss."
A number of organizations (e.g., The Heritage Foundation, Science Applications International Corporation, American Petroleum Institute) have studied the economic consequences of S. 2191 and issued reports. Their evaluations are uniformly gloomy.
The conclusions of the reports indicate that the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill would have a disastrous economic impact on businesses and consumers in all 50 states. That caused Dr. Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist of the American Council on Capital Formation, to warn, "Policymakers would be wise to weigh the enormous cost of the proposed measures in view of any expected environmental benefits."
Specifically, millions of jobs would be lost, resulting in a significant drop in average household income. At the same time, electricity and gasoline prices would rise much faster than would otherwise be the case. Hardest hit would be the poor, who spend a greater proportion of their household budgets on energy.
And what would be the benefits from these sacrifices? Given the tiny proportion of greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activity, and the tiny reduction in emissions that S. 2191 would make possible, any conceivable reduction in global warming would be too small to measure. Clearly, passage of this legislation is not in the best interests of our country.
Please use the following message as a guideline to contact your senators. You can edit it, in order to make it more personal and original. Please take advantage of the editing function, to avoid the appearance of a form letter, which experience shows to be less effective than one that looks unique and original.
Take action:
http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=11436836&type=CO
The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
Take action - Write your Representatives:
http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=11436836&type=CO
The U.S. Senate is expected to begin deliberations on America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191) as early as the first week of June 2008. The bill is sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman, the Independent from Connecticut, and John Warner, Republican of Virginia.
S. 2191 directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, with the goal of lowering emissions 63 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2050. These reductions would be achieved through a system that would require companies to cap their emissions and then have them trade emissions rights with each other.
The emissions cuts called for in the Lieberman-Warner bill are so draconian that, as reported in Investor's Business Daily, "The Environmental Protection Agency reckons it would cost as much as $3 trillion a year in lost GDP. In an economy of roughly $14 trillion, that's a significant loss."
A number of organizations (e.g., The Heritage Foundation, Science Applications International Corporation, American Petroleum Institute) have studied the economic consequences of S. 2191 and issued reports. Their evaluations are uniformly gloomy.
The conclusions of the reports indicate that the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill would have a disastrous economic impact on businesses and consumers in all 50 states. That caused Dr. Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist of the American Council on Capital Formation, to warn, "Policymakers would be wise to weigh the enormous cost of the proposed measures in view of any expected environmental benefits."
Specifically, millions of jobs would be lost, resulting in a significant drop in average household income. At the same time, electricity and gasoline prices would rise much faster than would otherwise be the case. Hardest hit would be the poor, who spend a greater proportion of their household budgets on energy.
And what would be the benefits from these sacrifices? Given the tiny proportion of greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activity, and the tiny reduction in emissions that S. 2191 would make possible, any conceivable reduction in global warming would be too small to measure. Clearly, passage of this legislation is not in the best interests of our country.
Please use the following message as a guideline to contact your senators. You can edit it, in order to make it more personal and original. Please take advantage of the editing function, to avoid the appearance of a form letter, which experience shows to be less effective than one that looks unique and original.
Take action:
http://capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=11436836&type=CO