4 posts tagged “carbon tax”
Gutless Old Party: go to Hell! It was bad enough that you abandoned principles and spent the federal treasury like a drunken sailor. It was bad enough that you nominated a pusillanimous RINO in '08, ceding the White House to the Communists. But allowing eight anal orifices to join the 'crats in passing Waxman-Markey is absolutely unacceptable.
I don't care about their liberal constituencies, or their liberal seats. I can't afford a doubled gas bill! My natural gas bill was twice my income last year! Go to Hell! I can't afford the current prices of electricity and food; the carbon tax will increase them drastically. Go to Hell!! Waxman-Markey will prolong the recession and convert it into a depression. Go to Hell!!!
Henceforth, I will not vote for any Republican nominee for any local, state or federal office. I will support the Loyalist Party. I urge Conservatives, particularly those who are aware of the threat posed by Islamic aggression, military, legal & demographic, to turn away from the Gutless Old Party which has abandoned us and join the Loyalist Party.
I received the following email from American Solutions today. For some of my readers, this is a new issue. For others, it something they have read about and ignored. We can not afford to ignore the Carbon Tax!
Signing the petition is not enough. We need to tell our Representatives and Senators that their days in office are numbered if they pass the Carbon Tax or any variation thereof into law.
Do not ignore this issue unless:
- you can afford a 74% increase in the price of motor fuel
- you can afford a similar increase in the price of every consumer product that is manufactured or transported
- you can afford massive increases in your utility bills
- your friends and neighbors can afford it as well as you can.
- you, your friends and neighbors will be able to afford it after you lose your jobs in Obama's Depression which the Carbon Tax will aggravate.
Take action now, while the Carbon Tax
issue is fresh in your mind:
- sign the petition
- go to http:\\www.congress.org, enter your Zip Code, click the Federal Officials link and tell your Representative & Senators to vote HELL NO!!! on "Cap and Trade", no matter how it is modified or disguised.
Gas prices are climbing - with a 20 percent jump in the past month alone. Unbelievably, the Left is pushing a bill that would drive energy prices higher.
They call it cap and trade, but it's just a new energy tax. They think tackling climate change requires regulating the energy use of every individual and business in America, and that if energy costs more, you'll use less. But that's not a solution, it's a recipe for another summer of $4 a gallon gas.
So we've started the "5 for 5: Stop the Energy Tax Challenge" to get the facts out.
Please read the 5 facts, sign the petition, and forward this to 5 friends, urging them to do the same.
Think about it - how would these added expenses affect you, and your family? This new energy tax would:
- Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent
- Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation
- Raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year
- Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent
- Destroy 1-3 million jobs per year, every year until 2035
This new energy tax is neither an energy nor an environmental solution. It's a tax. And nobody thinks they're under-taxed.
Roll Call is reporting that Nancy Pelosi wants this passed by the Fourth of July recess. So, we must move fast.
Please sign the Stop the Energy Tax petition, and then forward this email to 5 people, urging them to do the same. We also have a "Tell-a-Friend" tool at the bottom of the petition page that you can use.
Together, we'll make the politicians listen - and act.
Your friend,

Newt Gingrich
General Chairman
American Solutions for Winning the Future
Facts 1,2,4,5: "Son of Waxman-Markey: More Politics Makes for a More Costly Bill," Heritage Foundation. May 18, 2009.
Fact 3: "Trade-Offs in Allocating Allowances for CO2 Emissions," Congressional Budget Office. April 25, 2009.
[Hyperlinks added to footnotes, click the bold text to download the documents.]
Freedom Works sent an email over the signature of Dick Armey, urging me to send an email to my Senators condemning the Cap & Trade carbon tax scheme. I did not need much urging to comply with his request.
The email form is set up to send messages to President Obama, Vice President Biden, your Senators & Representative. It is free, quick and easy. And one more thing, it is estimated that the Carbon Tax will cost the average family $3900.00 per year.
The EPA is considering green house gas regulations that will cripple the economy and reduce the food supply. We have two choices.
- Fight the proposed regulations before they are passed into law.
- Rise up in rebellion; a second American Revolution.
Because I prefer the first choice, I visited the American Energy Alliance and sent an email to the EPA arguing against the Socialist idiocy.
EPA wants to increase the price of gasoline, electricity, and anything that uses oil, coal, or natural gas by regulating eighty-five percent of the energy we use in America. You only have until Friday to let EPA know that you think this plan should be stopped dead in its tracks—click here to send your message.
Here is the text of the stock message, which can be edited on the site.
I am writing in response to EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) regarding the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. EPA should not find that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare and EPA should not use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. To quote EPA Administrator Johnson himself, the Clean Air Act “is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases.”
EPA Should Not Find that Greenhouse Gas Endanger Human Health and Welfare
The ANPR seems to presume that greenhouse gases harm human health and welfare. There is little evidence for this claim and historical data show the opposite. Over the past 100 years, as temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations have increased, global GDP has increased 18 fold, average life span has doubled, and per capita food supplies have increased even as global population has quadrupled. What is more, these increases in human welfare have been due to economic growth, which necessarily went hand in hand with greenhouse gas emissions. Had such emissions been capped in 1908, human health and welfare would certainly have suffered during the 20th century. EPA should examine actual historical data to put the model projections into their proper context.
EPA argues the Clean Air Act is precautionary in nature. This is true, but EPA should not regulate greenhouse gases without compelling information that they are causing harm to human health and welfare. This information does not exist today.
EPA should be very cautious about inflicting harm on the economy through increased regulation because, as Lutter, Viscusi, and Morrell argue in their 1999 paper, every additional $15 million in regulatory costs leads to an additional statistical death. This is because regulatory costs impose costs on society that reduce income and in turn reduce expenditures on health and safety.
The regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act would cost billions, if not trillions of dollars, and as Lutter, Viscusi, and Morrell point out, lead to great harm to human health and welfare.
There is Profound Scientific Uncertainty Concerning the Impact of Increasing Greenhouse Gases on Human Health and Welfare
The science of climate change is far more unsettled than EPA explains in the ANPR. EPA should fully examine the state of climate change science. Here are a few examples of issues EPA needs to address and understand before it can accurately state that greenhouse gases harm human health and welfare:
- The leveling off of global temperature. Since 2001, there has not been a statistically significant increase in temperature, even as carbon dioxide levels increased by 4 percent during this period. This leveling-off of global temperatures was not predicted by the global climate models. It is true that the climate is a complex system with many cyclical variations, but each passing year with flat temperatures (in spite of rising greenhouse gas concentrations) renders the most alarming projections less and less credible.
- Heat-related mortality. EPA argues that warmer temperatures will lead to greater heat-related mortality. While this makes intuitive sense, EPA should examine actual data on heat-related mortality. For example, in the United States heat-related morality has decreased even as temperatures increased from the 1970s through the 1990s. EPA fails to consider the countervailing economic and health-related improvements that have caused heat-related mortality to fall as temperatures have increased.
- Worse air quality. EPA argues that “the IPCC projects with virtual certainty” that warming will lead to worse air quality. This is highly unlikely. Instead of relying on the IPCC’s projections on air quality, EPA needs to examine its own air trends website. The website states that, “National average air quality continues to improve as emissions decline through 2007.” These improvements have occurred in spite of increasing population growth, GDP, vehicle-miles traveled, temperature, and greenhouse gas concentrations. There is no reason to believe the air quality trends will reverse.
- Sea level rise. There is nothing new about rising sea levels. Sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years—since the end of the last ice age. The real question is whether the rate of sea level rise is increasing. Recent papers by Holgate, Berge-Nguyen et al., and Unnikrishnan et al. all show no increase in the rate of sea level rise. If increased greenhouse gas levels were driving sea level rise, we should see an increase in the rate of sea level rise, but that has not happened.
- A national solution will not solve a global issue. The Clean Air Act is not an appropriate way to regulate greenhouse gases because greenhouse gases are a global issue, not just an issue for the United States. We could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to zero, but even this dramatic result would not have much of an impact on global temperatures in the long run. The vast majority of increases in greenhouse gas emissions come from the developing world, not the United States. National policies can give incentives for manufacturers to move their operations to unregulated regions, paradoxically leading to higher emissions to produce the goods in question.
- EPA’s models should be open and transparent. EPA should not use closed-source models for critical projections and modeling. All the models EPA references should be available for public inspection and download. EPA should also detail all of the assumptions and documentation for the models. EPA should not hide key assumptions and projections from the public.
- The ANPR has many legal problems. For example, EPA writes that it has the authority under the Clean Air Act to implement a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases. This claim is unlikely to pass muster with the courts. The DC Circuit, in the recent CAIR decision, ruled that EPA does not have the authority to implement cap-and-trade under the Clean Air Act.
Conclusion: These are just a few of the reasons EPA should not use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, nor should it make a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Although many climate scientists endorse man’s role in rising temperatures, there is no comparable consensus among economists, medical doctors, and other experts on the impacts such warming may have on human health and welfare. Indeed, poorly designed regulations could cause harms (in lost economic output) that far outweigh the modest benefits of lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Read the footnotes: http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/PDF/EPA_footnotes.pdf
Time is short; please go immediately and tell them off!