Climate bill cost
3 months ago | 477 views | 7 
| 3 
| 
| 
| 3 | |
To the editor:
There appears to be only one point of agreement as Congress considers climate change legislation: Any solution being considered will substantially increase the cost of traditional energy sources here in Alaska and across the nation.
Legislative proposals would set up a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon pollution by limiting emissions and creating a market in which emission allowances could be traded among companies, utilities and other industries.
As proposed, all legislative options are extremely expensive and likely to cost jobs, decrease household income and stunt economic growth. A joint study by the American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers projects that by 2030, a cap-and-trade system could cost Alaska between 4,000 and 5,000 jobs and reduce disposable income by about $700 to more than $1,200 per household per year.
Opponents call cap-and-trade a bad idea at a bad time, and there is little evidence that the system would make a genuine dent in pollution levels. But there are simpler, less-costly alternatives.
A straight carbon tax is a revenue-neutral option that would not require a cumbersome new trading market ripe for manipulation. It would compensate consumers for higher energy prices while providing incentives to conserve and invest in green technologies.
There’s something to be said for a simple, transparent plan that gauges an emitter’s carbon footprint and sends a bill. Perhaps Congress should fold cap-and-trade and explore the merits of a carbon tax.
Hopefully, when the full depth and breadth of this scandel is known, it will herald the beginning of the end for this lunacy and the death of "Cap and Trade", carbon credits and all the other environmentalist get-rich-quick schemes.
And the M.J. Hemple's of the world want to feign outrage over some perceived "corporate greed".
Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The clean energy industry in Alaska has a job growth of 9.4% despite the decline of overall job growth in the US. In 2007 alone, 350 businesses had generated 2,140 Alaska jobs in the clean energy economy, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. The Center for American Progress found that Alaska could see a net increase of about $350 million in investment revenue and 4,000 jobs based on its share of a total of $150 billion in clean-energy investments annually across the country.
I urge Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich to do what’s right for Alaska - invest in a clean-energy economy which will save families and businesses money, make America more energy independent and generate major employment benefits.
What does that mean? It means you keep taking more & more of MY money...regardless!
I am putting YOU on notice!
I will heat my home, even if I have to cut down trees to do it!
I will put food on my table, even if I have to shoot a moose, a rabbit (hare), or a bird to do it!
I will have water, even if I have to haul it from the river or collect barrels of rain to do it!
ETC!!
I can and will survive! CAN YOU???