The pre–Labor Day holiday run up was a good week for stating the obvious in the Washington Post.
An area high school student, who shall remain nameless, concluded that outsourcing her science project to the parents was passé, so she decided to see if it would be possible to recruit an actual scientist to do the work.
The enterprising young lady emailed “three or four chemistry professors” to see if they would be interested in analyzing how much of the chemical used to dry–clean clothes remained in the clothing after it was returned to the customer.
Most of her targets ignored her — possibly because they believe in ‘global warming’ and their cleaning involves going down to the river to beat cargo shorts on the rocks — but one recipient at Georgetown University agreed.
Sure enough, after extensive cleaning and testing, the brainiacs at Georgetown discovered that dry–cleaned sweater wool retained a perchloroethylene (PERC) level “as high as 126 parts per million.”
As my lovely wife, Janet, said, “Why wouldn’t it and so what?”
For that matter, sometimes my pants return from the dry–cleaners with crumbs in a pocket and I don’t make a federal case of it. (Although after reading about this science project I doubt I’ll be eating them again.)
I’d rather have that new dry–cleaned smell on my pants than the gravy stain that was there when I dropped them off.
To add a bit of context, the feds allow wine makers a sulfite level of 350 parts per million and people are intentionally drinking vino; to say nothing of asparagus makers who cool the crop in water containing 125 parts per million of chlorine — 41 times the amount you’ll find in your neighborhood pool.
But don’t get me wrong — I’m not criticizing our girl scientist. Her idea was simple and achievable — once she recruited a major university to do the heavy lifting. It reminds me of a project my engineer roommate was assigned in college. The professor told them to improve the design of an existing product, but to keep it simple. So students were redesigning Saturn rockets, gas spectrometers and racecars. Lester, on the other hand, showed how drilling four holes in dorm soap dishes would keep the Irish Spring from turning into mush. He received an ‘A.’
The problem I have is with the coverage of the project, which proves once again you don’t have to be hysterical to report on the environment, but it helps. The Post reporter writes as if she just discovered salmonella in her sprouts.
The story moves from the analysis of PERC remaining in small squares of cloth to discussing potential devastating health effects, particularly CANCER!!!, with the usual chemical alarmists.
One heavy–breathing example: “it was difficult to say how much risk consumers might face from wearing, say, dry–cleaned wool pants for a year or breathing air from a closet full of dry–cleaned clothes.”
I can see it now — edgy high school rebels who are pushing the limits will no longer be found under the bleachers stealing a few puffs. Instead, they’ll congregate inside a walk–in closet sniffing dad’s Brooks Brothers while the au pair wonders why Brittany seems so jittery.
A worry–wart at the University of Pennsylvania thought someone “who delivers dry cleaning for a living could face higher exposures than workers in a plant.” Dry cleaning delivery? Hmmm. Oh, yes, now I remember! He’s the man who arrives each morning after the milkman drops off the 2 percent and just before the Webvan driver gets here with the rest of the groceries.
Besides the threat to imaginary occupations, there is also danger for consumers. The team used a computer model to calculate that four newly–cleaned wool sweaters, placed beside a golden retriever inside a hot SUV with the windows rolled up, might produce the dreaded 126 parts per million of PERC that exceeds OSHA limits.
But the good news is the dog’s deathbed was extremely soft.
The problem I have with that ‘evidence’ is that I don’t pile clean sweaters inside my car like a North Korean nuclear waste dump. My cleaners may be cheap, but the clothes come to me in a fume–trapping bag.
Besides the symptoms of PERC overexposure are fairly obvious. If you feel confused, dizzy, drowsy, irritated and have a headache your discomfort is not being caused by your husband’s insatiable demands for sex or a bad batch of sour mash.
You’ve simply been spending too much time in the closet with the door closed admiring your wardrobe.
Tag Archives: pollution
The pre–Labor Day holiday run up was a good week for stating the obvious in the Washington Post.
Thomas Edison’s incandescent light bulb has not just been replaced; it has been outlawed. Rather than think our Government did this, lets consider the politicians who embodied the Government in 2009 did it. Our form of government as defined in the US Constitution could not have done it, but the perverse eroded interpretation of that constitution has allowed ignorant at best, or possibly unscrupulous, politicians to do something quite stupid at best, or even dastardly.
Congress says it is attempting to save us from our own inanity, but they simply prove that they are the dim whits. These spiraled little florescent bulbs are a very bad idea for the very reason it is supposed to be a good one, and more, much much more.
The one reason for the CFL is to save electricity, thus reduce the carbon emissions from power productions, (even if your electricity comes form a waterfall, windmill, nuclear power, etc.). Sounds like a good idea. After all we’ve used incandescent bulbs for a long time to save electricity and illuminate large offices, industry, shopping centers, etc. for many decades. However most of these are contained in a fixture high above the area they service and are in little danger of breakage. The problem with these bulbs whether they are in a familiar long tube or a twisted little bulb is that they contain mercury vapor. Mercury is a dangerous “heavy metal” element that can be breathed in or absorbed through the skin or enter directly into the blood stream, (i.e being cut by the broken tube). It persists in the body virtually for life. The build up of such heavy metals causes bizarre health issues involving balance, sight, more debilitating diseases, and grotesque birth defects. This is why even very minor amounts of mercury poisoning through seafood is avoided at great costs.
Industrial use of incandescent tubes is controlled through proper handling and disposal. Even so, all too often the correct protection and or disposal is not adhered to, individuals are exposed and land fills are contaminated. The effects of these exposures are too slight to detect at first and show up months or years after exposure, so symptoms are seldom related to the cause. Now introducing these problematic bulbs into every home in the nation potentially exposes everyone to this seemingly minor hazard for which serious problems will not appear until years after it is too late to stop and nearly impossible to reverse.
Think of how many times you have broken a light bulb or been near one when it broke. Now think of how each of those would have been another exposure to mercury poisoning. Now consider that you are probably more careful than most Americans who don’t take the time to read an article about CFRs much less heed the warning labels on the package of CFL bulbs describing the OSHA approved method of cleaning up hazardous waste and containing it for proper disposal. It seems our 111th Congress and our president, who passed a law outlawing incandescent bulbs in 2014, expect us to be exposed to more hazardous waist or properly clean them up. The latter is not very probable.
Thus the problem of disposal of the bulbs themselves. Are we going to bring them to a hazardous waste collection center centers and pay to get rid of them? We’re supposed to do that with old batteries now but mostly we just toss them in the trash. Let’s be real, until there is a Hazardous Waist truck that comes by once a month to pick up our dead batteries, burnt out CFL bulbs, and old computer items, we’re going to pollute landfills with them. Think of the amount of mercury getting into the land and waterways. Even fresh water fish could become mercury hazardous. Drinking water may be threatened as well. Soon we’ll pay for clean-up and extra collection processes through taxes. Although it is a capital idea, why would we create more of a problem than we already have? Does everyone recycle effectively now?
OK, but what about saving electricity, (the price of which is going to skyrocket if the current administration has it’s way)? Saving is good for the user and for the environment right? Yes, yes it is. HOWEVER, these bulbs brag that they give off 60-watts of light for only 40-watts of power. Newton’s Law of “Conservation of Matter and Energy” points out that this is a physical impossibility. What it really means is that the bulb supposedly gives you 60 watts of light for what a 40-watt incandescent bulb consumes. The problem with that deceptive boast is that a 60-watt incandescent bulb doesn’t use much more electricity than a 40-watt bulb. On top of that, are they really as bright as an incandescent bulb of the same rating? Put them side-by-side and you tell me. Furthermore they need “warm-up” time, during which they give you even less light. Given this, we’ll all be turning on more of these lights to get the same illumination. Where is the savings to your pocket or the environment?
Oh yes, let’s not forget our economy? The CFLs are made almost exclusively in China. We used to make incandescent bulbs here in the US but since they have been outlawed, we don’t make them anymore. We can’t make to CFL bulbs here because the handling of hazardous materials is so regulated that we can’t compete with the Chinese who don’t seem to prioritize the protection of their workers. This is not a complaint against our safety standards. It is a condemnation of the legislation forcing us to we buy something that harms humans in another nation while assassinating our own jobs here.
What’s the solution? Information.
Why doesn’t everyone know the real story? Somehow they know a phony story about global warming that hasn’t been happening for the last 11+ years. The public only knows the stories they are fed through the “Lame Stream Media.” Until the public demands the truth, we will always be told the lies “they want us to believe. In this case it is all the trillions that will be made through the CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange), the money making side of the Cap & Trade law. When we stop watching the media that feeds us such lies they will either change their tune or go out of business. Networks get money from advertising, and advertisers won’t advertise on shows that are not watched. Do your homework. Select the networks that feed you the truth or don’t watch them, don’t hit on them, and don’t buy them. Good idea? Did a light bulb come on? Was it incandescent or some twisted reality?
Then there are function CFLs can’t do such as work on dimmers or with timers or photocell switches, frequent switching, moist environments, near anything that vibrates, in enclosed & recessed fixtures, etc., etc. They can and do interfere with sensitive electrical equipment, computers, TVs, etc.. Now the real kicker. CFL bulbs don’t work in the “Easy-Bake-Oven.” How could Congress be so cruel?
Harry Reid is once again working on a Climate Change/Cap & Trade/ Energy/Pollution Bill and Obama just wanted to remind you what to expect:
That’s right, “Prices will necessarily skyrocket.” And that’s just the minimum you can expect from this oh so wonderous 20 lbs. of legislation. According to Politico:
Reid confirmed the bill will have four parts: an oil spill response; a clean-energy and job-creation title based on work done in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; a tax package from the Senate Finance Committee; and a section that deals with greenhouse gas emissions from the electric utility industry.Underscoring the delicate nature of the issue, Reid insisted that the proposal he will introduce in about 10 days should not be called a cap-and-trade plan or even a cap on emissions.“I don’t use that,” he said. “Those words are not in my vocabulary. We’re going to work on pollution.”
Here is Maurice Strong in a 1972 BBC Interview:
That’s right, all around Climate Change fear mongering, Global Governance, and licenses for babies due to “over population”
U.S. BRANDED AS ECOLOGICAL AGGRESSOR
The use of compulsion is an important point in these plans. People in the industrialized nations are not expected to cooperate in their own demise. They will have to be forced. They will not like it when their food is taken for global distribution. They will not approve when they are taxed by a world authority to finance foreign political projects. They will not voluntarily give up their cars or resettle into smaller houses or communal barracks to satisfy the resource-allocation quotas of a UN agency. Club-of-Rome member Maurice Strong states the problem:
In effect, the United States is committing environmental aggression against the rest of the world. … At the military level, the United States is the custodian. At the environmental level, the United States is clearly the greatest risk. … One of the worst problems in the United States is energy prices – they’re too low. …
It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and `convenience’ foods, ownership of motor-vehicles, numerous electric household appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning … expansive suburban housing … are not sustainable.
Mr. Strong’s remarks were enthusiastically received by world environmental leaders, but they prompted this angry editorial response in the Arizona Republic:
Translated from eco-speak, this means two things: (1) a reduction in the standard of living in Western nations through massive new taxes and regulations, and (2) a wholesale transfer of wealth from industrialized to under-developed countries. The dubious premise here is that if the U.S. economy could be reduced to, say, the size of Malaysia’s, the world would be a better place. … Most Americans probably would balk at the idea of the U.N. banning automobiles in the U.S.
A PLOT FOR ECONOMIC CRISIS
Maurice Strong believes – or says that he believes – the world’s ecosystems can be preserved only if the affluent nations of the world can be disciplined into lowering their standard of living. Production and consumption must be curtailed. To bring that about, those nations must submit to rationing, taxation, and political domination by world government. They will probably not do that voluntarily, he says, so they will have to be forced. To accomplish that, it will be necessary to engineer a global monetary crisis which will destroy their economic systems. Then they will have no choice but to accept assistance and control from the UN.
This strategy was revealed in the May, 1990, issue of West magazine, published in Canada. In an article entitled “The Wizard of Baca Grande,” journalist Daniel Wood described his week-long experience at Strong’s private ranch in southern Colorado. This ranch has been visited by such CFR notables as David Rockefeller, Secretary-of-State Henry Kissinger, founder of the World Bank Robert McNamara, and the presidents of such organizations as IBM, Pan Am, and Harvard.
During Wood’s stay at the ranch, the tycoon talked freely about environmentalism and politics. To express his own world view, he said he was planning to write a novel about a group of world leaders who decided to save the planet. As the plot unfolded, it became obvious that it was based on real people and real events. Wood continues the story:
Each year, he explains as background to the telling of the novel’s plot, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he then says: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? … The group’s conclusion is `no.’ the rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? …
“This group of world leaders,” he continues, “form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…” And Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window.
I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking, this is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.
“I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this,” he says.
And there you have the plan. In order to” save the world” we must bring the most industrialized nations to their knees and force them to be ruled under Global Governance and redistribute wealth in the form of Carbon Credits.
Harry Reid’s Energy Bill will target power plant emissions according to the New York Times:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is drafting legislation to limit carbon emissions at the nation’s power plants, a risky political maneuver that faces divisions within his own party and a Senate clock that is quickly winding down.
Reid (D-Nev.) will place the contentious carbon provision in a broader energy bill that tightens rules around offshore oil drilling, encourages clean energy production and jobs, and reduces oil consumption — things that might be difficult for some lawmakers to oppose.
According to America’sPower.org “Half of the electricity that heats our homes, lights our schools, and powers our businesses comes from coal.”
By placing a tax on Coal Power Plants they will be forced to either go bankrupt, as Obama stated, or simply produce less electricity. That’s half of the electricity in the United States gone or severely cut. From this alone you can expect “skyrocketing” prices due to supply and demand, as well as energy rationing, and rolling blackouts. There simply won’t be enough electricity available for everyone, even if you can afford it.
But don’t take my word for it, let’s look at the UK. In an Article titled “Blackout Britain Faces Big Turnoff” the Express.Co.UK explains that green hysteria is causing disruptions in their power grid:
BRITAIN faces years of blackouts and soaring electricity bills because of the drive toward green power, a leading energy expert warned last night. A growing obsession with global warming and “renewable” sources threatens the stability of our supply.Derek Birkett, a former Grid Control Engineer who has a lifetime’s experience in electricity supply throughout Britain, warned that the cost of the crisis could match that of the recent banking collapse. And he claimed that renewable energy expectations were now nothing more than “dangerous illusions” which would hit consumers hard in the pocket.
“We are going to pay a very heavy price for the fact there has been a catalogue of neglect by the former Government which has focused on renewable energy sources,” Mr Birkett said.
“We need a mix of sources and this takes time. Renewables have the problem of being intermittent, particularly wind, and we need more back-up capacity. By having all our sources in one basket we are risking disruption.
“There is a lot of over-enthusiasm by governments to push global warming, which makes me very suspicious.” Less than five per cent of our energy comes from renewable sources but the “disproportionate” cost of implementing green technology runs into many millions of pounds, he said.
In a new book, When Will the Lights Go Out, published this month, Mr Birkett claims things will only get worse. He said the “lavish incentives” being offered to developers of green energy are being passed on to customers as the UK struggles to meet EU directives on carbon emissions.
He also warned that a growing reliance on renewable energy is creating widespread uncertainty in the electricity supply chain.
With many nuclear power stations and coal plants ending their lives and being taken out of service we “can’t rule out” people being left without power. The real problem is the cost of making sure this does not happen, and Britain’s lights “do not go out”, he warned.
“The country is going to have to make a choice whether to go along with green ideas of renewable generation or go back to coal and nuclear power.”
We too will have high prices, blackouts, and insane carbon standards. Any “Green Energy” currently available is intermittent and not dependable. Due to this American Manufacturing will suffer. If they are able to get the electricity to be productive, the trickle down affect will in turn skyrocket the price of American made merchandise. Factories will close. Businesses will cut costs by layoffs or simply close up shop. Small and Large Business will fail. If you have an electric car, you can’t afford the electricity to charge it, if any is available. You certainly can’t afford the gas prices for a traditional car, not to mention whatever emissions penalties they tie to it. No more air conditioning. No more liberty. The economy will fail. They will claim the Free Market failed.
Maurice Strong, who will make a fortune through trading Carbon Credits at the CCX, will have seen his plan come to fruition through Obama, and delight at the fall of the US economy. Obama will use this failure to enact his Marxist Plan and Nationalize all business and industry in order to save the U.S. from the “Free Market” All in the name of the greatest scam in the world, Climate Change/Global Warming
Check out CDN’s Cap and Trade Section
Most information on Ethanol presents the corn-based fuel as a panacea for the worlds pollution woes, a green-jobs creator, and a needed boost to American farmers. Digging into these claims brings some interesting data points to the surface.
..a high octane, clean burning, American-made renewable fuel. Its production and use offer a myriad of benefits to the United States and its citizens.
The production of ethanol is an economic engine for the United States, adding value to U.S. agricultural products and bringing billions of dollars to the nation’s economy each year. The use of ethanol reduces harmful auto emissions, offers consumers a cost-effective choice at the pump, and decreases the amount of expensive crude oil needed to satisfy the nation’s thirst for transportation fuel.
Wow, sounds great doesn’t it, like the energy holy grail, until you dig into ethanol itself. Examining the ethanol production process is somewhat revealing.
The number one crop used for Ethanol is corn. Uh-oh- now we have to divert corn to become our new Gasoline, but is there enough Corn?
- Corn is the most widely produced feed grain in the United States, accounting for more than 90 percent of total value and production of feed grains.
- Around 80 million acres of land are planted to corn, with the majority of the crop grown in the Heartland region.
- Most of the crop is used as the main energy ingredient in livestock feed.
- Corn is also processed into a multitude of food and industrial products including starch, sweeteners, corn oil, beverage and industrial alcohol, and fuel ethanol.
- The United States is a major player in the world corn trade market, with approximately 20 percent of the corn crop exported to other countries.
- ERS analyzes events in the domestic and global corn markets that influence supply, demand, trade, and prices.
That means that all of our corn is already in high demand in everything from Aspirin, to cereals, to livestock feed. If Ethanol replaced motor vehicle fuel, the principles of supply and demand would force almost all corn produced to be diverted to Ethanol production. This would skyrocket the price of all corn-dependent products including livestock fed from corn unless they find an alternative.
According to the Cato Institute in a January 2008 report titled “Food Fight” Ethanol has already had an affect on our economy.
The ethanol boom has knock-on effects in the rest of the rural economy. The growing use of cereals, sugar, oilseed and vegetable oils to produce ethanol and biodiesel is supporting crop prices and, indirectly through higher animal feed costs, raising costs for livestock production. As Table 1 shows, the prices for poultry, beef, and eggs have all increased by more than 5 percent this year. (Pork prices have risen relatively slowly because production has been very high compared to demand, although producers are expected to lower production during 2008 because of losses from low prices and higher feedcosts.) Farmland prices in key corn-growing states such as Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota have increased by more than 20 percent in the last year.
So thats the economic impact, Choose between corn-dependent products or driving – you can’t afford to do both.
According to Elsa Steward in her article “What’s Wrong with Ethanol?” She points out that Ethanol by itself is not cost effective.
Ethanol is not likely to give us any relief from high gasoline prices. A gallon of gasoline produces about 1.5 times more energy as a gallon of ethanol. Because of this lower energy density, ethanol production and transport requires more production and transport capacity than gasoline. Ethanol also absorbs water, which is present in existing pipelines. Ethanol cannot be transported in these pipelines because the water would dilute the ethanol. The ethanol must therefore be carried over land by train or truck, a more expensive means of moving the ethanol from one place to another. Although the price of motor fuel sometimes increases due to problems with foreign and domestic oil supplies, the price of ethanol has historically been higher than gasoline prices and may remain higher for some time to come.
The Department of Energy’s Genomic Science Program
- Can one gallon of ethanol displace one gallon of gasoline?
- No. Ethanol has about 70% the energy content of gasoline per unit volume, so for every gallon of gasoline consumed, 1.4 gallons of ethanol would be needed to displace it. Ethanol, however, has a higher octane rating than gasoline — about 113 for ethanol compared to 87 for regular gasoline. The higher the octane rating, the better a fuel is at preventing engine “knocking” caused by inefficient fuel combustion. In other words, the higher-octane fuel provides better performance because it is used more efficiently to generate power rather than heat. If engines were optimized to take advantage of the higher octane rating of ethanol, they could achieve fuel economy more similar to that of gasoline engines.
- Can ethanol be used by existing fuel-distribution infrastructure?
- Ethanol and gasoline-ethanol blends cannot be transported by existing pipelines that carry gasoline. Water present in petroleum pipelines can pull ethanol out and cause ethanol-gasoline blends to separate into two phases. Ethanol must be transported by train, barge, or truck within an independent distribution system to ensure handling separate from the ethanol-production facility to distribution terminals, where ethanol is blended with gasoline just before delivery to retail stations.
- Can ethanol be used in colder northern U.S. climates?
- Due to ethanol’s lower vapor pressure, engine ignition is more difficult in colder weather for vehicles running on fuels with high ethanol content. During winter months, gasoline is added to E85 (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline blend) to make E70 (70% ethanol and 30% gasoline), which has a vapor pressure that improves starting in cold weather. Although current practice is to “blend-down” E85, the cold-start issue is a technologically solvable engineering problem for vehicle manufacturers.
I can’t afford a bowl of cereal, probably can’t afford to get very far in my car, if I’m up north, I can’t drive in the winter and ethanol has to be trucked in which means it burns more ethanol to get ethanol. But wait theres more. If you act now on this “Clean-Burning” fuel we will include free pollution with every purchase.
Oh gee did we leave that part out? So sorry, ethanol is not “clean burning” nor is the process to make it.
The Des Moines Register reported the other day that Iowa’s ethanol plants contribute 15 Percent — 7.6 million metric tons out of a total of 52 million metric tons — of greenhouse-gas emissions found in the state’s new inventory of major manufacturers, businesses and power plants
Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources found that the largest portion of the state’s overall emissions came from fermenting grain at the plants and not from burning natural gas or coal. In addition, burning biomass such as switchgrass at various industrial plants added another 0.13 million metric tons.
Uh-oh Ethanol production produces more greenhouse gas than coal plants, not very clean is it. Imagine the effect Cap & Trade would have on this industry. Lets just say you’ll be better off with a bicycle.
But I digress, lets look at the burning of Ethanol itself.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) fought against the EPA granting Ethanol a Clean Air Act waiver for an increase from the 10% Ethanol Gasoline to increase from 15% to 50% (Note now its 10% Ethanol and 85% Ethanol) in May of 2009 due to, among other reasons, Ethanol production’s propensity to “degrade water quality, worsen emissions of some air pollutants and escalate health risks for children and other vulnerable people, according to scientific studies by the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, National Research Council, independent academic researchers and EPA scientists”
An environmental watchdog group is telling us that increasing the amount of ethanol used will increase air pollution and lead to health risks based on Government studies, and yet its that same Government trying to force it upon us.
In short, widespread use of ethanol only creates more problems than it is supposed to solve. IIt is not the holy grail of green energy, if anything its more pollutive than standard fossil fuel use.
With health care reform, racist czars, and the war in Afghanistan taking front-stage lately, the Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454) which contains cap and trade has gotten little attention. While the bill has several promising proposals for modernizing our power infrastructure and moving us towards more sources of renewable energy, there are considerable issues with the market-based pollution controls in the bill. This bill has the potential to create a crisis without having the potential to solve the unproven issue that it seeks to remedy.
The battle between global warming “believers” and “deniers” is becoming more-and-more a battle between U.N. scientists and the rest of the scientific community. According to a 2009 Wall Street Journal article there are more than 700 non-U.N. scientists who are challenging the U.N.’s opinions on global warming. The original count of scientists that authored the U.N. climate summary was only fifty-two.
Without a true crisis to force the enactment of this bill, the administration has to show that there are real benefits to turning it into law. The costs are evident, the benefits are tougher to come by.
The proposed benefit of a cap and trade system is that it will limit the amount of C02 put into the air by making it progressively expensive to do so. While the bills supporters say that the bill won’t put any stress on the economy, one would argue that in order for it to work, it would have to put an undue strain on CO2 emitters or they would not cut emissions.
In reality, emitters would have to pass the strain onto consumers after simply purchasing or acquiring more credits. Conservative members of Congress attempted to protect citizens from out-of-control energy costs by adding in triggers that would suspend the program if energy costs exploded, but all of these measures were defeated by liberals. If the bill isn’t going to cause an explosion in energy costs, why defeat these safety measures? They had to get those safeties out of the bill because they know that energy prices are going to increase by $1900/year per family in the next ten years and almost $7,000 per family per year in the next quarter-century (Heritage Foundation study).
If we look at countries that have implemented cap and trade systems, more reasons to be concerned about this legislation arise. Britain has had this type of system in place for just a few years and the British Taxpayer Alliance estimates that each family has seen their energy expenses rise by about $1300/year. What’s worse yet is that Britain’s carbon emissions have actually increased.
This kind of pollution control is actually a ruse. It turns out that the looking at the EU, who has implemented such a system, we learn that it’s more about control of industry than control of CO2. The New York Times published an article that said that said that the cap-and-trade system was like, “a grandfather with a large family deciding what to give his favorite grandchildren for Christmas,…”. The permits for CO2 end-up being handed out as favors from those governments to the companies that have garnered the most favor with the ruling party.
Power. That is primarily what Barack Obama and the liberals are after. They’ve already taken over an insurance giant, one of the largest manufacturers in the United States, and now they need the rest of the free market to be less-free. If a company gets out-of-line with the liberal’s wishes, they can force them to buy carbon credits on the open market. If a company is doing as they are instructed, they might earn free credits from the government.
Although the current bill seems to focus on electricity producers, once successfully implemented as a mechanism to influence companies, their will be no end to who will be directly affected by this legislation.
This form of pollution control has implications that are much more dire than centrist control of the economy or electric bills going through the roof. It might utterly destroy American company’s ability to compete in the global marketplace. China and India have no reason to enact such reforms (China already has central control of industry). That means our products will have higher costs (and therefor prices) without a matching increase in the demand for those products. If we think 10% unemployment stinks, imagine what that number will look like when Ford, Toyota, General Mills, etc all have to move to India to compete.
It is also perceivable that this will create a new commodities market that large investment firms may jump into. The Goldman-Sachs’s of the country will eagerly create complex carbon credit products to market to investors and give control of energy prices to a few giants of finance.
We’ve looked at will most-likely happen. We could also look at governments that have been considering cap and trade systems recently. In 2008, New Zealand suspended it’s weeks-old cap-and-trade system due to concerns of uncontrollable energy costs and no proven benefits from the countries that had already taken this delusional path.
For now, it appears that cap and trade is idling in the Senate ever since it marginally passed the house (219 votes for to 212 against). The Democrats have started to criticize the bill as the renewable energy sections of the bill have become more watered down after going for mark-up in the Senate. Conservatives are concerned that it is all cost with no benefit. Only time will tell if this will ever see the light of day.