'Cap and trade' proposals nothing but a sham

All candidates for the presidency this year have many policies in common but the acceptance of and reaction to false claims of man-made global warming carries the most far reaching implication for changing the lifestyle of Americans - for the worse.

The latest sham agreed upon by Clinton, Obama and McCain concerns the use of something called "carbon credits" as a device to "offset" unacceptable greenhouse emissions despite their conviction that all such emissions are deadly to the future of planet Earth. Purchasing carbon credits is supposed to compensate for the unacceptable emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide deemed by self-appointed climate experts as the cause of global warming.

Carbon credits are the basis for the "cap-and-trade" proposals made by all candidates and will be the policy of the next administration regardless who wins.

According to the respected National Center for Policy Analysis, "Cap-and-trade proposals advocated by the three candidates and under consideration in Congress would harm the U.S. economy, disproportionately hurt the poor and fail to produce promised environmental benefits. Cap-and-trade policies place a limit, or cap, on greenhouse gas emissions but allow companies and industries that fall below those limits to sell or trade remaining emissions to those that exceed their limits."

The Congressional Budget Office has said, "The potential market value of those emissions could reach $300 billion per year by 2020." Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that even if cap-and-trade proposals reduce emissions 15 percent by 2010 (and there are a growing number of scientists who dispute claims that reducing carbon dioxide emissions would have any benefit at all), it would reduce the disposable income of lower-income Americans by 3.3 percent compared to only 1.7 percent for the richest Americans.

The National Center for Policy Analysis Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett, co-author of the analysis, predicted, "Cap-and-trade bills will substantially raise prices for gasoline and electricity, inflict severe economic losses on the U.S. economy"

Analyses by Science Applications International Corp. and the Environmental Protection Agency show the bills would have a severe impact: "The legislation referred to as the 'Lieberman-Warner' bill, proposed by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., would increase gasoline prices by 60 to 144 percent and electricity prices by 77 to 129 percent." The EPA estimates the bill would "increase gasoline prices by as much as 53 cents per gallon by 2030 and $1.40 by 2050."

The Science Applications International Corporation and analysis additionally warns the Lieberman-Warner would reduce gross domestic product by as much a 1.1 percent by 2020. The EPA reports that another bill sponsored by Sens. Jeff Bingaman, R-N.M., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., could cost as much as $1.2 trillion annually and one sponsored by Sens. Lieberman and John McCain, R-Ariz., could cost as much as $1.3 trillion annually, while Lieberman-Warner could cost nearly $3 trillion annually.

D. Sean Shurtleff, National Center for Policy Analysis graduate student fellow and co-author of the analysis has said "Finally, the benefits promised by cap-and-trade schemes - lower global temperatures - are unlikely to materialize since none of these proposals includes developing nations, like China and India."

The information contained in this article was obtained from The National Center for Policy Analysis' E-Team. It is one of the largest collections of energy and environmental policy experts and scientists who believe in sound science and that economic prosperity and protecting the environment can go hand in hand. The team seeks to correct misinformation and promote sensible solutions to energy and environment problems; E-Team Web site is www.eteam.ncpa.org.