Friday, May 22, 2009

Carbon Cap and Trade Charade

The Obama Cap and Trade Tax is now out of committee and heading towards passage in both the leftist House and Senate. I doubt any Republicans will vote for it, but it may get shoved through any way. If passed, it mandates that the United States reduces energy consumption to the levels last seen in 1905 over the next 40 years. Since there were not many cars back then, no airplanes, and many people still did not have electricity it is basically a move back to the dark ages for the United States. If we are able to achieve these reductions we will no doubt be to poorest industrialized nation in the world with the lowest standard of living in 2050. Costs over the first 10 years of the program are tallied to exceed 7 trillion dollars. Gasoline and electric prices will double short term, causing the price of everything to skyrocket. People making less than $250,000 per year will face an average additional burden of $1,600 per year at the start (so much for no taxes on this group), and a much higher burden as the free permits expire. If we somehow manage to hit this goal and maintain energy use at 1905 levels, this unilateral reduction in CO2 by the United States looks to reduce the worldwide average surface temperature by a total of 0.07C over the next 100 years (based on global warming model estimates). So we are prepared to hit this collapsing economy with an additional 7 trillion dollar burden, over the next 10 years and drive ourselves into the dark ages, for a temperature change that is completely imperceptible, and well below the margin of error for any model prediction.

I wrote about the
global warming scam a while back, and everything I said remains true. There is zero evidence that CO2 causes global warming outside of a few computer models that show zero skill at predicting the future. If your only evidence is models that can’t predict the future there is basically no evidence. The evidence against CO2 being a significant contributor to climate is indisputable. We have very good record of CO2 and surface temp over the last 40 years and there is simply no correlation between the two. We have crappy records that go back 100 or so years, and still no correlation. If someone thinks that a correlation between CO2 and surface temperature has been shown, please provide it in the comments. Temperature is cyclical and driven by natural forces outside of our control. To think that mankind is destroying a 5 billion year old planet though 150 years of activity is pretty crazy on the surface. The global warming hysteria started during a 30 year up trend in temperatures from around 1970 to 2000. The upward trend ended at that time, and we have been in a solid cooling trend for 7 years now. CO2 increases to the atmosphere continue unabated, yet temperatures continue to drop. Unfortunately, the Global Cooling Denialists continue on with even more and more outrageous warming claims. In the face of actual evidence that worldwide sea ice extent is at an all-time high (since we started measuring with Satellites), you still get weekly claims in the media that seas ice is melting away even faster than feared.

There has never been an actual debate on the merits of global warming claims, and there never will be one. The Global Cooling Deniers can’t win a debate on the scientific facts, so they avoid debates at all cost. They simply deny the evidence, personally attack any one who questions them, or use any other number of logical fallacies to argue their case. The facts are the globe is entering into a long-term cooling trend that will ultimately disprove global warming. Eventually the public is going to call bullshit, and let the media have it for supporting this junk science. The reputation of most of the stonewalling Global Cooling Deniers will be destroyed, and science in general will take a setback. Obama called for science to be used to set policy, but it is not being used here.

I have no doubt that if passed, Cap & Trade will be repealed in the near future by somebody with a spoonful of gray matter. Unfortunately, the folly of passing it in the first place will be a huge setback for the United States. We have held back to this point on climate change policy, and have lots of great examples of how Cap and Trade did not work in Europe, yet we still chose to follow in their footsteps. Cap and Trade also greatly weakens the security of the United States, and I think that has been underplayed. The simple fact is that Oil is an incredibly valuable resource, with a limited supply. It is so valuable that no matter what restrictions the world comes up with, it will still be used up in the next 50 or so years. If we choose to restrict our use of oil over those last 50 years, we will become poorer, while the rest of the world stockpiles it. China is already stockpiling oil and other strategic commodities and we should be doing the same. We can buy oil today at $60 a barrel and store it in the strategic reserve for later, or beg China for some oil at $400 a barrel in 50 years. We are obviously in a weaker position by not stock piling now. All of our heavy military equipment runs on oil, and when it nearly gone, those that still have will rule the world.

Labels: , ,


At 9:02 AM, Blogger OhCaptain said...

You just don't understand the beauty of short thinking. If you did, you know that this has a very serious upside for the authors of the bill and their money, I mean constituents.

Your main problem is that you failed to read the memo about Global Warming. It is dead. It was an undefendable theory. You really need to be fearing Global Climate Change. It's not necessarily getting hotter, it's just changing and change is bad...huh? I thought Obama was the president of change...he should be for this idea.

Now I'm confused.

At 7:44 AM, Blogger Kiko said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

<< Home