Correspondent of the Day: Studies Have Found Climate Bill Will Work
Studies Have Found Climate Bill Will Work
Editor, Times-Dispatch: The Op/Ed column, "Climate Change Bill Will Crush Recovery for Small Businesses," by Karen Kerrigan asserts that the clean energy climate bill before Congress "may harm the economic recovery that millions of entrepreneurs are counting on to help their firms not only survive but grow."
Several studies have reached different conclusions.
A Union of Concerned Scientists' analysis, "Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy," found that the United States could cut emissions 56 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and save consumers and businesses $465 billion in that year. The average household would enjoy energy savings and businesses could realize net energy savings of $130 billion, says UCS.
The U. S. Energy Information Administration concluded that the bill passed by the House of Representatives would cost the average household 23 cents a day, less than a postage stamp.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the benefits of the House bill greatly outweigh the costs. The Journal highlighted a new cost-benefit analysis by the New York University Law School's Institute for Policy Integrity that found that the benefits outweigh the costs by 9-to-1.
The study found that based on a middle-of-the road estimate, potential benefits add up to about $1.5 trillion over the next 40 years.
As our leaders meet with officials from other nations in international negotiations, Virginians want our members of Congress to pass legislation that fulfills our nation's obligations to curb global warming, before it is too late.
Diane Jadlowski.
Richmond.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
There are as many different “conclusions” to this question as there are to say, climate changes.
The heart of the matter many agree is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that are affecting climate change and threatening the health of the planet.
The country on the cutting edge of renewable energy all agree is Germany.
I quote a paragraph from Spiegel Online.
“Despite Europe’s booms in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions, haven’t been reduced by even one single gram.
Industry is booming but the climate hasn’t in fact profited from these developments.“
In the UK they have found the cost to be hideously expensive and that is why they are so anxious for the US to join them in their misery and promise to throw trillions into the global pot at the conference in Copenhagen.
And in light of the “results” what for?
As for Climate 2030’s “conclusions”
Japan currently has a very modest goal of reducing its greenhouse gas levels 8% from 1990 levels by the year 2020.
This would require for starters adding 9 new nuclear power plants-one million new wind turbines-solar panels on 3 million homes-double the number of new homes that would have to meet rigorous insulation standards-increase “green” vehicles from 4% to 50%.“ Washington Post.
As far as the small business is concerned-
Under the House Bill 35% of the “free credits” are set aside for the big utility companies like Exelon.
The Waxman-Markey Bill has been “tabled’ for a while.
Some think (including myself) because-
Carbon Financial Instruments are now trading for 10 cents per metric tonne on the Chiccago Exchange.
A month ago they were 25 cents-and a year ago they were a dollar.
This whole “scheme” that is the official word for it, is rightfully unravelling.
The latest moniker by the way is “refundable greenhouse gas emissions fee.“
I prefer to call it the Cap-and-take-your-cash scheme.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement