CAP AND TRADE
As indicated from this Report, the clear results from this counterproductive proposal would be :
Many lost jobs in America, a less competitive American economy, higher electricity and fuel costs for families and businesses, and a lower quality of life for virtually every working America family. – George Allen
Read the study by clicking here.
Latest update: June 30, 2010
Paying for the American Power Act: An Economic and Distributional Analysis of the Kerry-Lieberman Cap-and-Trade Bill (PDF)
The household cost of Kerry-Leiberman’s “American Power Act” would range between $987 per year in the South and $1174 in the North. The highest costs are paid by families with children, in particular, the highest burden is borne by single parents with children.
The American Power Act is a very regressive carbon tax. With national unemployment figures hovering around 10 percent and a struggling economy that is threatening America’s competitiveness in the global market, it is ludicrous to impose these costs upon American families at this time or at anytime in the future.
– George Allen, Chairman, AEFC
The most popular way to regulate carbon dioxide emissions is through a cap and trade program, yet these proposals are very, very costly and economically damaging. If enacted, last year’s flagship cap and trade proposal, the Lieberman-Warner bill, would increase the cost of gasoline by anywhere from 60 percent to 144 percent and increase the cost of electricity by 77 to 129 percent.
This study explains eight reasons why cap and trade will cause many economic problems, with very limited effects on the environment.
Click here for the full study
The National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) released a new study that determines the potential economic impacts of the federal cap-and-trade system outlined in the bill. Compiled by CRA International, the analysis determines that by 2030 the law would:
- Reduce national GDP roughly $350 billon below the baseline level;
- Cut net employment by 2.5 million jobs (even after accounting for new “green” jobs); and
- Reduce earnings for the average U.S. worker by $390 per year.
NBCC President and CEO Harry Alford notes, “These findings add to a growing body of evidence that demonstrates cap-and-trade would make American consumers poorer and the products they buy more expensive.
“Moreover, the NBCC study finds there will be little, if any, environmental impact to justify the high price U.S. families will have to pay, since the trading system will deliver virtually negligible changes in global CO2 emissions so long as developing nations such as China and India don’t buy in.
“The House cap-and-trade bill seems to profit special interests at the expense of small businesses and hard-working families. It’s evident from the some 85 percent of emissions permits that politicians have already given away for free to favored industries that the 111th Congress is learning that producing laws (like making sausages) requires a lot of pork.
“The inherent complexity of a government-regulated emissions trading system sets the stage for a perpetual struggle for political handouts. This makes Waxman-Markey a good way to promote corruption, but not energy efficiency.”
The Distribution of Revenues from a Cap-and-Trade Program for CO Emissions (Congressional Budget Office)
Read IER economist Robert Murphy’s analysis of the MIT cap and trade study here.
Let us know your thoughts on American energy. Comment below.