I Guess That Explains Why Congress Wants To Cap & Tax
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
In case you were wondering why Congress was pressing so hard to pass the Waxman-Markey Climate Change Cap & Tax legislation, this group of analysts have worked out the numbers and evaluated the costs, we will be paying – as well as the benefits to be achieved. In their report here we can see...
Analysis of the economic impact of Waxman-Markey projects that by 2035 the bill would:
In comparing the current version of the legislation from an earlier draft, we also can see the accomplishments that our elected representatives have added.
The economic impact of the new draft varies from that of the original draft in several major ways:
For those who suggest that farmers and ranchers will be able to benefit from being active participants in the deal, taking government checks for planting carbon-soaking crops…oops, that doesn’t quite pencil out either
Perhaps we’re being to harsh though – what about how much “saving” we’re doing for Planet Earth…
“The planet isn’t the big winner, either. Climatologists predict that Waxman-Markey will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century,” according to an item on the Heritage Foundation Web site.
In case you were wondering why Congress was pressing so hard to pass the Waxman-Markey Climate Change Cap & Tax legislation, this group of analysts have worked out the numbers and evaluated the costs, we will be paying – as well as the benefits to be achieved. In their report here we can see...
Analysis of the economic impact of Waxman-Markey projects that by 2035 the bill would:
- Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.4 trillion;
- Destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
- Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
- Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent;
- Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
- Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,241; and
- Result in an increase of $28,728 in additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation
In comparing the current version of the legislation from an earlier draft, we also can see the accomplishments that our elected representatives have added.
The economic impact of the new draft varies from that of the original draft in several major ways:
- Compared to no cap and trade, real GDP losses increase an additional $2 trillion, from $7.4 trillion under the original draft to $9.4 trillion under the new draft;
- Compared to no cap and trade, average unemployment increases an additional 261,000 jobs, from 844,000 lost jobs under the original draft to 1,145,000 lost jobs under the new draft; and
- Peak-year unemployment losses rise by 500,000 jobs, from 2 million under the original draft to 2.5 million under the new draft.
For those who suggest that farmers and ranchers will be able to benefit from being active participants in the deal, taking government checks for planting carbon-soaking crops…oops, that doesn’t quite pencil out either
Perhaps we’re being to harsh though – what about how much “saving” we’re doing for Planet Earth…
“The planet isn’t the big winner, either. Climatologists predict that Waxman-Markey will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century,” according to an item on the Heritage Foundation Web site.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 6/24/2009 4:42 AM 
Categories: Climate Change
Tags: Global Warming Congress
Categories: Climate Change
Tags: Global Warming Congress
Comments