CARBON TAX
Carbon Tax Primer
Energy makes modern society possible. It lights the night, heats our homes, powers our entertainment, and most importantly, it helps us conserve the ultimate non-renewable resource—time. Energy amplifies our ability to do work. Machines help autoworkers assemble cars, power tools help construction workers build our homes, gasoline-powered automobiles help us take care of our families, diesel-power trucks distribute fresh produce across the country, and electricity-powered computers give us unprecedented access to information. But the energy that supplies 85 percent of our needs—coal, oil, and natural gas—are under attack. Politicians and special interest groups are proposing various methods to tax these abundant and reliable sources of energy.
The newest attack on oil, natural gas, and coal are proposals to tax carbon dioxide emissions. Noted economist Art Laffer and current U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) argued in favor of a carbon tax in a New York Times[1] op-ed. Author, commentator, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer made his case for a large increase in the gas tax in the Weekly Standard .[2] And Fred Smith, the CEO of FedEx, has publicly declared his support for a tax on carbon dioxide emissions.
The arguments boil down to the assertion that carbon taxes are favorable because they are better than cap and trade schemes. This is correct, but it does not mean that we should implement carbon taxes. Carbon tax implementation would run into many of the same problems that have plagued cap and trade. Politicians cannot resist new opportunities to raise tax revenues and dole out our dollars to favored constituencies, especially when the revenues range from hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars. Carbon taxes might hold some allure, but ultimately they are economically destructive. Neither carbon tax nor cap and trade is good for American consumers.
Reasons Why Carbon and Energy Taxes are a Bad Idea:
1. Carbon taxes are taxes on 85 percent of the energy we use. A carbon tax would impose a new tax on the vast majority of our nation’s economic activity. Fossil fuels power our nation and produce 85 percent of the energy we consume in the United States. [3] Nuclear and hydro power produced an additional 11 percent of our energy.[4] The remaining 4 percent comes from other renewables like biofuels, wind, and solar.[5] Carbon taxes may make hydro and nuclear power more attractive, but few sites remain where it is possible to build large hydroelectric dams and new nuclear power plants face major political obstacles.
2. A carbon tax that is perfectly offset by other tax cuts is neither a practical nor a political reality. The history and nature of politics shows that once politicians institute a tax, they will not give it up. Still, some argue in favor of a “tax swap” to reduce income taxes while implementing a new tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Theoretically, this could make sense. However, the argument does not reflect political reality.
The first challenge for promoters of a carbon tax “tax swap” is getting lawmakers to pass a carbon tax. Lawmakers are very wary of imposing easily identifiable taxes across the entire population. Instead, politicians prefer to hide the costs of government programs, while rewarding discrete and identifiable groups. Implementing carbon taxes would result in an identifiable tax increase similar to the unpopular gas tax increases that led to voter displeasure revolts against President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton.
The second challenge for promoters of a “tax swap” is getting Congress to reduce income taxes. Congress could decrease some income taxes, but it is highly unlikely income taxes would be decreased for all income brackets.
Taxpayers will likely fight against a “tax swap” because they understand there is nothing to stop future lawmakers from increasing carbon taxes or returning income taxes to their former levels. Worse, from a taxpayer’s perspective, a carbon tax will give lawmakers another vehicle to raise large amounts of tax revenue.
Some argue that a revenue-neutral “tax swap” would be economically beneficial. There is, however, little evidence politicians are concerned about the economic effectiveness of plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Most economists agree that carbon taxes are a superior to cap and trade.[6] Carbon taxes are more transparent, more understandable, and less subject to political manipulation. Though economists prefer carbon taxes, congressmen strongly prefer cap and trade plans.[7] Lawmakers have floated many cap and trade proposals, but they have not discussed any serious carbon tax proposals.
Lawmakers say they favor economically efficient global warming plans, but their actions demonstrate that the discussion about efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not about science or economics—it is about politics. Offsetting income taxes with carbon taxes is not a political reality because politicians will not propose such obvious tax increases on all Americans.
3. Politicians like to reward special interest groups with new tax revenues. When politicians have large amounts of tax dollars at their disposal, they tend to spend it on projects that reward special interest groups. A carbon tax would likely generate over $1 trillion in new revenue. Much of this revenue would likely be spent on inefficient “pork” projects.
The proposed cap and trade schemes contain hundreds of billions of dollars for special interests. The recession has spurred additional calls for hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending to create “green jobs.” For example, the Center for American Progress is calling on Congress to spend $100 billion to create two million “green jobs”[8] and the Apollo Alliance wants Congress to spend $500 billion to create five million “green jobs.”[9] If a carbon tax were in place, lawmakers would almost certainly divert resources to “green job” subsidies or other similar programs, rather than back into taxpayers’ wallets.
4. It is impossible to create an optimal carbon tax. A carbon tax would need to be set at an optimal level that accounts for the economy and climate science. This is an impossible task. One of the greatest insights of the 20th century was that economically efficient central planning is not possible. Friedrich Hayek and others demonstrated that central planners cannot aggregate all of the information necessary to make economically efficient choices.[10] Their insight remains true today. A planner (or Congress) cannot create an optimal tax because he or she does not have all of the necessary information. With global warming, the lack of perfect information is further compounded by partisan politics and uncertain climate science. This makes it impossible to determine an optimal carbon tax.
The cost of a carbon tax will increase the costs of nearly everything that is produced, manufactured, or transported, including food and gasoline. How one would construct a credible methodology for accurately and precisely measuring and accounting for these effects remains, perhaps intentionally, an unaddressed question.
5. A carbon tax is a regressive tax, but increased wealth transfers will likely make it increasingly progressive. Lower income families spend more of their income on energy than higher income families. The Wall Street Journal explains:
The Congressional Budget Office—Mr. Orszag’s former roost—estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That’s about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them).[11]
It appears that some of the proponents of carbon taxes are some of those five beltway analysts who believe the tax code is too progressive. They argue in favor of a carbon tax because it will not retard the formation of capital because it applies to everyone. In other words, since it would be spread over the population without regard to income, carbon tax proponents argue it will not reduce the incentives for high-income earners to generate wealth and create new jobs.
This alleged advantage, however, would never last politically because a carbon tax will be a visible and ever-increasing new tax. In response to that reality, lawmakers are likely to execute new, politically popular transfers of wealth—all with an eye on limiting the tax’s effect on lower-income families. Sales taxes, for example, could be uniformly applied across the economy, but in practice, sales taxes vary on certain items, in part, to help lower-income Americans deal with the increased costs imposed by them.
Carbon taxes would likely be accompanied by various rebate schemes to soften the regressive nature of the tax and make it a more progressive tax. This is currently happening with cap and trade proposals. One plan calls for the government to auction all emission permits and give each citizen a $700 check every year.[12] Another option is to only give the rebate checks from auction revenues to lower-income citizens.[13]
If the government imposes a carbon tax, it is very unlikely that the tax will remain uniform. In the end, not only will it hit the poor with a disproportionate burden of a carbon cap, but it will create yet another series of loopholes in the tax code. As history has shown, such a plan will further distort the market, render the tax code even more complicated, and hide yet another round of handouts to well-connected special interests.
6. A carbon tax set at a wrong level will cause great economic harm. Even the proponents of carbon taxes, such as Yale University Professor William Nordaus, find that once there is deviation from worldwide participation, the costs of achieving environmental global improvements dramatically rise. Nordhaus’ economic model shows that an overly ambitious and/or inefficiently structured policy can swamp the potential benefits of a perfectly calibrated and efficiently targeted plan.[14] For example, Nordhaus’ optimal plan yields net benefits of $3 trillion ($5 trillion in reduced climatic damages and $2 trillion in abatement costs). Yet, other popular proposals have abatement costs that exceed their benefits. The worst is former Vice President Al Gore’s 2007 proposal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 90 percent by 2050. Nordhaus’ model estimates this plan would make the world more than $21 trillion poorer than if there were no controls on carbon dioxide.[15]
7. Realistically, a carbon tax would lead to lower energy use and lower economic output because low-carbon replacement technologies simply do not exist. Carbon taxes effectively increase the cost of fossil fuels in an effort to make non-fossil fuels more economically attractive. The technologies to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, however, are decades away and extremely costly.[16] Instead, the only real way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short run is to reduce energy use and economic output.
Consider automobile use and gas prices. People have begun to transition toward fuel-efficient cars, but the real impact of high gasoline prices in 2008 was to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Just as higher fuel prices led to less driving, higher energy prices will lead to reduced energy consumption. That will lead to a corresponding drop in our ability to make economic choices.
Given current technologies, carbon taxes will result in less economic output. The graphic below illustrates that point. The implication is clear—there is a strong correlation between energy use and GDP.
8. Just because a proposal is “budget neutral” for the government does not mean it is “budget neutral” for American families. Carbon taxes or cap and trade programs will transfer wealth from rural areas, where people drive more and use more energy, to more densely populated urban areas.[17] Not coincidentally, many urban and Northeastern politicians favor a cap and trade program or carbon taxes.
Also, carbon taxes will disproportionally harm states that generate the majority of their electricity from coal-fired power plants.[18] These states tend to be more rural states.
9. Domestic carbon taxes, even in the best case, can only produce marginal impacts on climate. In 2006, China surpassed the United States as the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide.[19] But the difference in emission growth rates is striking. According to data from the Global Carbon Project, from 2000 through 2007, global total greenhouse gas emissions increased 26 percent. During that same period, China’s carbon dioxide emissions increased 98 percent, India’s increased 36 percent and Russia’s increased 10 percent. Carbon dioxide emissions in the United States increased by three percent from 2000 through 2007.[20] These data are displayed in the graphic below:
As time goes on, the United States will emit a smaller and smaller share of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions,[21] which makes unilateral efforts— such as a domestic carbon tax—an ineffective way to influence climate. If the United States were to completely cease using fossil fuels, the increase from the rest of the world would replace U.S. emissions in less than eight years.[22] If we reduced the carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector to zero, the rest of the world would replace those emissions in less than two years.[23] Increases in worldwide carbon dioxide emissions are driven by developing economies, not the United States.
10. Domestic carbon taxes will force more industries to leave America. Energy costs are a major expenditure for heavy industry. America’s natural gas prices are the highest in the world,[24] even though we have the world’s sixth largest proven natural gas reserves.[25] The high price of natural gas has significantly contributed to the loss of more than three million manufacturing jobs since 2000.[26] Carbon taxes will drive up the cost of natural gas because companies would use it as a substitute for coal in electricity production, which means increased electricity costs for industry and increased natural gas prices. This is especially troublesome for chemical companies, all of which use natural gas not only as an energy source, but also as a feedstock. Higher natural gas prices will force them to pursue options offshore and overseas, reducing American jobs.
11. Domestic carbon taxes cannot address “leakage.” High costs of doing business in America will force jobs and economic activity to leave this country in favor of countries with lower energy prices. China and India have stated they will not impose burdensome climate regulations on their citizens.[27] Because not all countries will implement carbon taxes, industries will take their jobs to countries where taxes do not eat their profits. Despite a huge American economic sacrifice, global emissions will remain the same.
12. Carbon taxes will lead to calls for trade protectionism. Carbon taxes will lead to reduced economic competitiveness. In turn, organized labor will likely call for new barriers to trade. For example, a top priority for the United Steelworkers is a “border adjustment” to penalize the steel imports from countries that do not curb their greenhouse gas emissions.[28] Increased U.S. trade protectionism will almost certainly lead to greater trade protectionism worldwide that will further harm the American economy and all of America’s trading partners.
13. If we are truly concerned about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the best path forward is increasing humankind’s ability to adapt. Rich countries and societies can adapt more easily to changed circumstances than poor countries. Environmental improvements are more likely to be realized in prosperous societies than in poorer ones.[29] Carbon taxes and cap and trade reduce society’s aggregate wealth, which make environmental improvements more difficult to achieve.
14. Real world experience counsels against a carbon tax. Ken Green, a former supporter of a revenue-neutral carbon tax, changed his mind because of political and economic realities. Mr. Green writes: [30]
I previously felt that a revenue-neutral carbon tax was a good idea, because it would be both effective and could even be economically beneficial. But three developments have caused me to retract my support. First, rising energy costs have already imposed a huge carbon tax with little GHG reduction. This suggests that the elasticity of energy use could be lower than prior estimates, meaning it would be a useless gesture. Second, as implementations of carbon taxes in Europe and Canada have demonstrated, governments simply cannot implement such tax systems without sucking up some of the revenue, and using the rest to benefit crony-capitalists and steer money to favored constituencies. And finally, because using biofuels such as ethanol would let people save on carbon taxes, demand for such fuels will grow, only compounding the environmental and nutritional mischief they cause.
Just because a carbon tax is a bad idea does not mean that cap and trade is better
Nearly all of the above arguments against a carbon tax apply equally to cap and trade schemes. The only real difference is that cap and trade is a stealth tax that brings a large amount of reporting, implementation, and regulatory problems.
The point of cap and trade plans, like carbon taxes, is to increase the price of energy from oil, coal, and natural gas. Lawmakers may say they have plans to rebate some people so that everyone does not suffer, but it is not possible to craft a cap and trade plan that is perfectly offset by rebates. Just because a politician promotes a plan that is “budget neutral” for government does not mean it is “budget neutral” for American families. When politicians redistribute money, there will be winners and losers. The winners will be the politically well-connected groups and the populace as a whole will lose.
Like carbon taxes, it is not possible to set a cap for cap and trade plans at an optimal level. The smartest people in the world could not aggregate enough data quickly enough to discover the optimal level of the cap or a cap and trade scheme or the level of a carbon tax. It would require too much data about American’s preferences and about uncertain climate science. To complicate matters, if the cap set at the wrong level, or if the plan does not include all nations, the inefficiencies will swamp any possible benefits. Most disturbingly, if the United States unilaterally reduces our carbon dioxide emissions, it will not have a real effect on global carbon dioxide concentrations. This means there will be no environmental benefits to the United States unilaterally reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Cap and trade schemes are very regressive taxes. They will transfer wealth from poorer areas of the country to wealthier areas. Cap and trade will also reduce energy use and thereby reduce economic output. Also, if we drive up costs, cap and trade plans will reduce American economic competitiveness and cause more jobs to flee to foreign countries.
In short, cap and trade and carbon taxes are two different ways to raise energy prices. Both carbon taxes and cap and trade would harm the United States’ economy without making any meaningful differences in global concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Conclusion
Energy is the lifeblood of the economy. Policies that increase the price of energy harm the economy. However, the entire point of policies like carbon taxes and cap and trade is to increase energy prices. These cost increases make the economy less efficient domestically and it makes the United States less economically competitive internationally. Higher energy prices harms America’s ability to grow its economy at home and it means more American jobs will be shipped overseas.
Now is not the time to implement an economically harmful plan like carbon taxes or cap and trade. Americans need an efficient economy to reverse the recession and improve the lives of American workers. Carbon taxes and cap and trade will just make it more difficult to reverse the recession.
[1] Rep. Bob Inglis & Arthur B. Laffer, An Emissions Plan Conservatives Could Warm To, Dec. 27, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28inglis.html.
[2] Charles Krauthammer, The Net-Zero Gas Tax: A Once in a Generation Chance, Jan. 5, 2009, http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/949rsrgi.asp
[3] Energy Information Administration, U.S. Energy Consumption by Energy Source, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html. (May 2008).
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] See e.g. William D. Nordhaus, Life After Kyoto: Alternative Approaches to Global Warming Policies, NBER Working Paper No. 11889, Dec. 9, 2005, http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/kyoto_long_2005.pdf; N. Gregory Mankiw, One Answer to Global Warming: A New Tax, N.Y. Times, Sept. 16, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/business/16view.html; Kenneth P. Green et. al., Climate Change: Cap vs. Taxes, American Enterprise Institute Environmental Policy Outlook, June 1, 2007, http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.26286/pub_detail.asp.
[7] The following is some of the cap and trade bills introduced during the 110th Congress: S. 2191, The Climate Security Act of 2008; S. 1766, the Low Carbon Economy Act, S. 280, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act; S. 309, the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act; S. 485, the Global Warming Reduction Act; H.R. 620, the Climate Stewardship Act; and H.R. 1590, the Safe Climate Act of 2007.
[8] Robert Pollin, et. al, Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy, Sept. 2008, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/pdf/green_recovery.pdf.
[9] Jeffery Ball, Does Green Energy Add 5 Million Jobs? Potent Pitch, but Numbers are Squishy, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 7, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122601449992806743.html.
[10] See e.g. Friedrich A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, 4 Am. Econ. Rev. 519 (Sept. 1945).
[11] Editorial, Who Pays for Cap and Trade? Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2009.
[12] James K. Boyce & Matthew Riddle, Cap and Dividend: How to Curb Global Warming While Protecting the Incomes of American Families, Political Economy Research Institute (Nov. 2007), http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/ working_papers_101-150/WP150.pdf.
[13] Robert Greenstein et. al., Designing Climate-Change Legislation that Shields Low-Income Households from Increased Poverty and Hardship, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (May 9, 2008), http://www.cbpp.org/10-25-07climate.pdf.
[14] Robert P. Murphy, Rolling the DICE: Nordhaus’ Dubious Case for a Carbon Tax, p. 20, June 2008, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/2008-06_rolling_the_dice_murphy.pdf.
[15] Id. at 20.
[16] See Kenneth P. Green, Climate Change: Science and Policy, Oct. 27, 2008, http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28838/pub_detail.asp.
[17] Alaska has the higher per capita energy use, followed by Wyoming, Louisiana, North Dakota and Texas. The states with the lowest energy use per capita are Rhode Island, New York, Massachusetts, California, and New Hampshire. The average Rhode Islander uses only 18% as much energy as an Alaskan and 22% as much energy as someone from Wyoming. See Energy Information Administration, Table R2. Energy Consumption by Source and Total Consumption per Capita, Ranked by State, 2006, Nov. 28, 2008, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_sum/plain_html/rank_use_per_cap.html.
[18] The states with the most affordable electricity either generate the majority of their electricity from coal-fired power plants or from hydro power. See Energy Information Administration, Table S1. Energy Consumption Estimates by Source and End-Use Sector, 2006, State Energy Consumption Estimates: 1960 through 2006, Nov. 2008, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_use/notes/use_print2006.pdf; Energy Information Administration, Table 5.6.B. Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State, Year-to-Date through September 2008 and 2007, Dec. 12, 2008, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html.
[19] See e.g. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China now no. 1 in CO2 emissions; USA in second position, June 19, 2007, http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/pressreleases/2007/20070619Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html.
[20] Calculated using the emission data from the Global Carbon Project. In 2000, China emitted 910,950 GgC, India 316,804 GgC, Russia 391,652 GgC, and the U.S. 1,541,013 GgC. By 2007, China emitted 1,801,932 GgC, India 429,601 GgC, Russia 432,486 GgC, and the U.S. 1,586,213 GgC.
[21] According to the Global Carbon project, in 2007, China emitted 21% of the world’s carbon equivalent and the U.S. emitted 19%.
[22] Calculated using the emission data from the Global Carbon Project. According to these data, the U.S. emitted 1,586,213 GgC in 2007. Without the U.S., the world’s emissions were 5,203,987 GgC in 2000, increasing to 6,884,787 GgC in 2007.
[23] Calculated using the emission data from the Global Carbon Project. According to EPA, the GHG emissions from the transportation sector total 28% of total U.S. emissions. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act; Proposed Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 44354, 44403 (July, 30, 2008). Twenty eight percent of the U.S.’s 2006 carbon dioxide emissions are 436,141 GgC. From 2005 to 2007, the world’s emissions, with the emissions from the U.S., grew by 476,324 GgC.
[24] Paul N. Cicio, Testimony of Paul N. Cicio, President of Industrial Energy Consumers of America before the House of Representatives, Dec. 6, 2007, http://www.ieca-us.com/documents/IECAHouseTestimony-NaturalGas_12.06.07.pdf.
[25] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Table 11.4, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1104.html.
[26] See Testimony of Paul N. Cicio.
[27] See e.g. Shai Oster, China Asks Rich to Pay for Cleanup, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 30, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122530768753281185.html; Nitin Sethi, As Climate Talks Resume, India Accuses UN of Bias, The Times of India, Aug. 21, 2008, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Climate_talks_resume_today_India_accuses_UN_of_bias/articleshow/3386789.cms.
[28] Christa Marshall, Report says climate rules could shut down energy-intensive companies, ClimateWire, Feb. 2, 2009.
[29] Bruce Yandle, Environmental Kuznets Curves: A Review of the Findings, Methods, and Policy Implications, 2004, http://www.perc.org/articles/article207.php.
[30] Kenneth P. Green, Climate Change: Science and Policy, http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28838/pub_detail.asp.
Let us know your thoughts on American energy. Comment below.
I’m sick and tired of dealing with the Arabs and making them rich. We need to disempower the oil cartels and put the environmentalists in their rightful place – away from the US and out of our business. If the environmentalists want to live somewhere that’s primitive and barely touched by humans, they can all move to some third world country. We have all the oil we need right here, so we need to quit sitting on our own resources and use them now.
what is the payback on wind turbines- without government participation?
Great interview with former Governor / Senator George Allen. Wish we still had his leadership in the U.S. Senate. This web site will be very useful as I track what the real and true cost of energy will be in the Commonwealth and to my family living in other states. If Cap and Tax becomes law, it will increase the cost of EVERYTHING for anything grown, produced, transported, sold and bought by the consumer. It will lead to the closure of more businesses and give us more unemployment. Virginians (and people from the other states) need to go back to the root of their beginnings and re-read the documents that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson wrote. Three simple words… “WE THE PEOPLE”. The ruling political class will hear from the people this November and next November if they continue spending and taxing us to death! If countries like China, India and other developing nations refuse to do anything to stop “so-called harmful” emmissions into the atmosphere, why should we? All this will do is transfer more and more jobs to these countries and further hurt the blue collar American worker. As an un-empoyed person stretching every dollar I have to provide for my family, I do not need another mis-guided policy passed by Washington which will further hamper my attempts to find a job and take care of my family.
why don”t we use cane sugar alcohol like brazil? We could adapt the average american auto for 200 dollars to accept this flex-fuel without driving up the price of corn – based products as well as meat related products. How about heat cingues (Concrete Islands) also known as cities. Return plundered land and property to it’s tree-laden and pristine appearence. At any -given minute of every hour , of every day, we have over 3000 airliners in the sky- carbon seeding at its best? The ten largest poluters in the world are not located in the U.S.A. – and yet WE must agree to cap and trade (taxes). We must educate the citizens to the true benefit of conservation without taxing them to oblivion.
Dear Governor Allen,
We have a technology that will certainly help with America’s energy future while combating climate change at the same time. Our patented liquid sorption technology captures 95% of the toxic pollutants from coal fired power plants, refineries, etc. Our technology now allows for the production of liquid fuels from COAL as presently the biggest drawback to this process is the incresed CO2 emissions which we can now capture. Our captured CO2 can also be used for the increased production of algae (Exxon) as an alternative fuel. Please visit our web page for additional details:
http://www.qdsciences.com Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss our technology and how use of it will make “Cap and Trade” a mute point therby saving the American public alot of their hard earned money. Sincerely, Ray Corbett
Hi Former Governor Allen:
I was a Virginia citizen and voted for you.
As a geologist and environmentalist I have studied past environments and mechanisms concerning climate. As you know (I wish Al Gore, Pelosi, Obama, and the other liberals were also in the loop) the earth’s environment is cyclic (warming and cooling events). Based on the past and current information CO2 has almost nothing to do with Global temperatures. The models do not take into account, the Pacific Decadal Occilation (PDO), ADO, suns energy output, solar wind variations, cosmic ray interactions with low level cloud formation, negative feedback, and of course the greatest green house gas “Water Vapor.” So all of the models are completely wrong. We have been in a cooling phase since 2001. I can asure you that for the next 30 years we will be in a cooling phase. We may even approach a Dalton Minimum. We can expect crop failures, dryer west, wetter east, and colder temperatures for the next 30 years. I am with you for developing all of our energy sources. If CAP and Trade passes the Senate, the US will have major major problems (depression, collapse of the dollar, etc.).
Scott Bullock
George,
Scientists involved have indicated that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), New Mexico, has operated for over 10 years with no toxic releases to the environment or personnel, while being a disposal site for some nuclear wastes. They also indicate that it has the potential capacity to store all of the nuclear waste humans could create in the next 10,000 years. Being located in a salt formation, the WIPP does not have the problems associated with the fissures at Yucca Mountain. If these claims are valid, the WIPP should have a prominent place in our expansion of Nuclear Energy generation plants.
I have contacted several Government Offices with either a reply that they are not chartered to consider the WIPP, or no onswer at all.
What say you?
Walt – Charlottesville
I believe we must seek energy independance if for no other reason than to denie the funds we currently send to our known enimies. While I understand this will require intrim plans but ultimately I believe we need to turn to technology like the Chevy Volt with triple digit gas milage. If we do not solve the gasoline consumption issue we will never be fuel independant.
Thank God somebody is finally trying to open some eyes.
Think for a moment, warming, whether a house or the world is caused by heat. Carbon and carbon dioxide do not PRODUCE heat. The producer of heat is the energy that the creator supplies to create and sustain what has been created and heat once here cannot escape because the earth, including its atmosphere, exist in a near perfect vacuum that prevents the transmission of heat except and unless in the form of photons.
Think for a moment, carbon is not some dirty evil thing. Carbon is the most heat stable of all atoms. Consider the diamond. Carbon does not make or absorb heat and is fundamental to creation and life. It is the “backbone” of most things including the transformation of energy for life’s processes. It is because carbon is so heat stable that it is residue of processes that involve combustion and oxidation. Actually, Oxygen is the active ingredient in those processes that release heat, not carbon.
Think for a moment. Carbon dioxide does not PRODUCE heat, it absorbs heat when its surroundings are hotter and it releases heat when its surroundings are cooler. Carbon dioxide is the creator’s temperature regulator. When it absorbs heat it causes cooling and when the temperature of the atmosphere (and carbon dioxide) is sufficiently cooled, the carbon dioxide is absorbed by and eventually sinks to the bottom of the oceans where it is converted back into a hydrocarbon compound. Consider this. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dictated by the amount of heat (coming from the oxygen) it has absorbed from its surroundings (I. E.: the amount of cooling) so an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means that the creator’s process of global temperature regulation is working.
What has gone wrong with our ability to reason? We’ve become like dumb animals where a master decides everything even when and how to bred. Are we willing to allow a communal government of bureaucrats to spend billions on global temperature control, which our creator handled perfectly well for billions of years? The “cap and trade” legislation in the Senate must be defeated before the U. S. economy is wrecked.
A winning Energy Game Plan is excellent, so true.
Check out the “R&D Blog by Joe the Miner” on the WV Coal Association’s web site. There are many pages, accessible via links at the bottom of the first, fully documenting the science and technology that does exist, that has been and is being practiced, to both convert coal into liquid fuel AND to reclaim/recycle Carbon Dioxide, and convert it into liquid fuels, as well.
this was sent to me help me get the message out to Americans…
THIS IS QUITE THOUGHT-PROVOKING!
0A
About 6 months ago I was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. This is out of context, but this is the actual question as asked. The host said to Forbes, “I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer, how much oil does theU.S. have in the ground.” Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, “more than all the Middle Eastput together.” Please read below.
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April (‘08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn’t been updated since ‘95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ; western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana ….. check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska ’s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of t he oil is recoverable… at $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more tha n $5.3 trillion.
‘When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..’ says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature’s financial analyst.
‘This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years’ reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It’s a formation known as theWilliston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bakken.’ And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S.oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves…. and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.
=0 A
2. And if THAT didn’t throw you on the floor, then this next one should – because it’s from TWO YEARS AGO!
U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online – 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth… Here are the official estimates:
0A
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
-20500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it’s all right here in the Western United States .
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy…..WHY?
&nbs p;
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post..
Don’t think ‘OPEC’ will drop its price – even with this find? Think again! It’s all about the competitive marketplace, – it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you’re thinking about it …. and hopefully P.O’d, do this:
3. Pass this along. If you don’t take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices— because by doing NOTHING, you’ve forfeited your right to complain
——–
Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book..
By the way…this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!
GOOGLE it or follow this link. It will blow your mind……..>GREG
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
I support Nuclear power, off shore drilling,
use of natural gas.
I support Coal, Nuclear power, off shore drilling and drilling in Anwar
Drill here, now,oil and gas. Stop making ethanol,a net loss in fuel to build w no pipelines,fuel to move it to blend site,import phosphates,poor heat value,upset world grain markets during famines.Solar,wind,tides,sure,but years away.Research clean coal burning and make our #1 energy self-sufficiency,not unproven pipedreams on carbon footprints while ruining our economy, LOSING jobs instead of creating them thru research and new production.
Our energy choices need to be “All of the above.” Let’s free the marketplace to give us the cleanest, most efficient source to meet our economic needs.
Most rational people are all for the untapped and seemingly abundant energy this country can produce on its own. Oil reserves (costly to tap into but enormous), nuclear (clean and efficient), natural gas (we have lots of it). The downside in a global economy is the fall back position of the middle east producers if the world no longer wants their black ‘puddles’. On the other hand, they may perhaps do something constructive instead of wasting time warring.
It would take more than a comment considering what a mess the US is in with regard to energy initiatives and current policy emanating from the Obama administration. First Cap and Trade would be disastrous for the coal and gas states; I am pro nuclear energy, water and wind, hydroelectricity, generating huge amounts of electricty, off shore drilling can be started however the ability to actually use the oil and convert into usable energy is a huge question, where to store it safely on the East coast, subject to weather like the N.O. Coast. What happened to the Alaskan pipeline ,, I could go on.. the last thing we need is an energy Czar from the Obama administration, perhaps we can just hold out until a new “competent” administratin is put into place, all for now ..
The United States is blessed with abundant
resources if permitted to access them To fail
to do so is the height of irresponsibility.
And, if pollution free energy production is truly
desired, the barriers against Nuclear energy
must be removed. Failure to do so defeats the
very stated objectives.
We must develop ALL our energy resources in the continental US immediately to stop the hemorraging of our money into the middle east increasing our deficet and enriching the economies of muslim states who wish us great harm. Our business and economy are suffering just as the average working citizen is suffering from the high cost of energy. We can not afford ever higher taxes on fuel and energy to heat our homes or fuel for transport for work. The Bakken oil discovry must be developed now as well as solar, wind, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. This must be done immediately to provide jobs and resusitate our economy.
I would submit that it long past time for us to increase domestic oil production. Drill ANWR now, and let’s start working toward getting it in the pipeline. There’s no logical reason not to do so. We can easily be energy independant in five to ten years, if the right incentives are given to our energy producers.
As for so called green energy, the best thing the government can do is get out of the way. As fossil fuels become scarce the energy companies will then begin to concentrate their efforts toward these alternative sources. Supply and demand, it’s worked for hundreds of years in this country, and it will continue to do so. The feds need to simply to do what they do best; NOTHING.
I am sure there is enough arm twisting on all sides to go around. However, I undertand that countries such as Russia is taking advantage of their energy sources in their Artic regions. Understanding how Russia uses natural resources such as natural gas to manipulate former satellites, i.e. Ukraine and even Estonia, I believe the United States Government is now threatening their own people with high prices to control them with cap and trade.
We have the resources and the technology to save ourselves from slavery to the countries who hate us. Keep up the good work.
Dianne Altizer, President
Tazewell Subchapter
10th Amendment Foundation
I think we should tap into our own resorces and at the same time develope new ones. The current government wants to do one without the other which is not very practical and will put this country into financial peril.
We should do everything we can to produce energy in the U.S. This includes more nuclear plants (France proved this works well) and more drilling for oil and gas.
The cap and trade legislation proposed is based on faulty science -this will cause massive unemployment for U.S. citizens. Other countries will cheat, just as they have on trade treaties.
Whatever America needs to be strong and independent of foreign powers America Must do –Drill, Explore, Experiment with New Sources of Energy — all of them– we must go after with all haste. Along the way, we must be careful not to take for granted our resources or our environment.
The Cap & Trade bill is just a portion of a much larger agenda. It allegedly aims at saving the planet and it’s inhabitants from destruction. However, it’s reason for existing is based on deliberately constructed lies. It is one segment of a series of proposals by the Socialist elite to save us from ourselves via a bloodless coup.
It’s very easy to get caught up in the words we hear called the content and to miss the reason they are spoken, which is the context they are generated from. For example, we can be involved in an emotional subject like abortion and not see the massive takeover capacity of the healthcare bill to control so many important aspects of our lives and one-sixth or more of our financial futures.
To paraphrase Stephen Covey, “We have complete control over what choices we make and we have no conrol over the consequences they carry within them.”
One vital component is completely missing in all these Socialistic proposals and that is integrity. Without it all efforts no matter how grandly conceived or majestically presented will ultimately fail as history so aptly reveals again and again. So when people of low or missing integrity speak, “it’s never about what it’s about.
Almost everyone knows the quote ending in “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If power tends toward currupting people, what can we expect from a group of politicians coming into powerful positions who were already corrupted?
The Founders studied the governments that preceded them. They struggled to create a government that would avoid the majority of the many pitfalls that exist. They started this extraordinary experiment by declaring, “We the People” instead of “We the Politicians.” They knew what they were doing by insisting that the power be vested in the people and the purpose of the government was to serve the people with integrity.
Eckhart Tolle described the Universe’s fundamental nature by saying, “Everything is crumbling. The mountains are crumbling, you and I are crumbling, our systems are crumbling.” Ideas like freedom, honesty, responsibility and truth do not have a life of their own. Someone must speak of them out loud and take a personal stand for them or they simply dissapear.
We have energy sources to utilize in this country — let’s do it! On another note, George Allen is STILL a true patriot. Virginia needs you — perhaps you will run again in a few years after our current president sets us back like Jimmy Carter did years ago. Thanks for your service!
Dear Governor Allen,
I am appalled by the audacity of the EPA officials declaring the very air we breathe as toxic to life. It is as if truth does not matter in any realm of government today–only the implementation of an agenda to take control of all aspects of life in the US and around the world. Much of what they propose will in fact be detrimental to life on earth in real ways that “too much” carbon dioxide will not. Their use of preemptory acts such as this in order to have leverage to pass legislation they know is opposed by the population and even most in Congress should be considered a criminal act. We cannot and must not accept lies as truth just because a bureaucrat declares it is so.
Donna Lauderdale
The GlobaL Warming hype is just another contrived “crisis” to be used to take control of our country by socialists/communists who desire to control the entire world. A hacker released evidence of falsified data and conspiracy by “scientists” desperate to perpetrate this fraud. Both China and India have stated they will not sign this treaty. Why? They don’t want their economies harmed! Why should the US economy be ruined further? Al Gore preaches about the “inconvenient truth” of global warming. However, the inconvenient truth is that Al Gore has invested with an investment firm that has invested almost a billion in “Green industries” and will profit heavily from this if signed. Al Gore had about $2 million when he left office in 2001 but now reportedly has about $100 million in assets. Talk about going green!
American energy needs a significant alternative for betterment of our future generation. To be able to revamp our economy we should come up with such a solution that is going to be a safe for our children and we keep our soberness around the globe. The existing system may not be able to keep us in #1 status therefore we need to do enough due diligence and come up with alternative American energy that can be sold to the rest of the world instead of import to balance our budget under your leadership.
Thank you.
I sent this to Michael Steele and wanted to let you have a copy….Rindy and I look forward to helping you as needed in the coming months…Best Wishes !
GOOD MORNING MICHAEL !
As you know, the tide is turning our way more every day with the strong-arm actions of the Dems. HOWEVER, the talk here in my part of Virginia…and I suspect nationwide….is still strong dissatisfaction with the current positions of the RNC….still too much of a big government…good ole’ boy network….and I agree.
LISTEN TO THE CONSERVATIVE TEA PARTY ACTIVISTS…Those who have spent their own time and moneys to come to rallys both in DC and around the nation! ….WE WANT A RETURN TO THE REAGAN CONSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO GOVERNMENT !!! and right now only a few are understanding this….like Sen. Jim DeMint. That is why you all are seeing more 3rd party “independent” candidates coming to the forefront …because the RNC won’t bring itself to change its big government ways. There is HUGE FRUSTRATION in my area against the RNC from Republicans and I don’t think you all are getting…AND LISTENING…to the message….Please get out of DC and understand the true mood of the country….WE CAN SWEEP VIRTUALLY EVERY RACE IN 2010 !! IF YOU ALL CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDE ….WE’LL ATTRACT HUGE NUMBERS OF SO-CALLED “INDEPENDENT” VOTERS WHO ARE REALLY SEARCHING FOR A HOME…IF WE MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE THEM INTO OUR FOLD….IT WILL BE A MAJOR MISTAKE.
PLEASE LISTEN TO US !!….I AM ALMOST 70 YEARS OLD AND HAVE BEEN INVOLVED BEHIND THE SCENES IN REPUBLICAN ISSUES FOR MY WHOLE LIFE….OUR PARTY MUST HAVE THE COURAGE…AND CONVICTION TO CHANGE BACK TO OUR CORE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPALS….I AM SURE IF WE DO….WE WILL SEND THE DEMS A MESSAGE BY OUR UNBELIEVEABLE VICTORYS IN 2010 THAT WILL SCARE THE HELL OUT OF THEM FOR 2012….I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF THEY DON’T DUMP OBAMA AFTER HIS 4 DISASTROUS LIBERAL YEARS ! IT CAN BE DONE…BUT WE MUST LISTEN TO THE TEA PARTY PEOPLE…THEY SPEAK FOR MILLIONS OF US !
I believe our country could be in a major recovery and moving forward a flank speed if we would focus on all resources for energy independence. We must back the EPA off and get the American people educated about the incredible progress we have made on safety in those areas of extraction, movement and usage. Television is our worst enemy and our greatest tool. We must try to educate the young people via this medium.
I believe that our loving creator would not have given us all the oil, gas and coal if it would suddenly be gone because we were using what he has given us. I also believe that these sources of energy do renew themselves, because there is no way the only oil was from animals dying and rotting.
Keep up the work.
Push for the French model of recycling spent nuclear rods, a potential key to more nuclear power
There needs to be L.P. tanks at every gas station so we have an alternative to run our vehicles on natural gas. Conversion in the vehicles is fast and cheap. Why no progress on this front? We have the resources. JUST DO IT! and stop supporting terroism against us. Let the Arabs drink their oil.
Drill Here Drill Now. We have lots of oil and natural gas here in this country. This will create jobs and stimulate our economy and energy independence which everyone wants. While we are using our own resources we can be looking for renewable energy.
All this gore talk and poetry about our sick planet is so absurd and lacks credibility.
Weather and climate will always change from year to year, century to century. The world won’t end until everyone hears the Gospel and has a chance to respond to that. When that happens and then we will know the end is near it won’t be green house gas that brings an end to this planet, but man’s rejection of Jesus Christ and not conforming to the plans and purposes of God for our lives.
GOD BLESS AMERICA, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, AND IN GOD WE TRUST! Global climate gate you bet! We are good stewards of what God hs bestowed upon us and we will continue to improve. A legal attempt to fleece the american people and others. THANK YOU LORD FOR WHAT YOU HAVE BESTOWED UPON US. MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Global Warming is another scam for government to raises taxes and for wall street to make money selling air. Total scam
Global Warming is a scam to penalize the ordinary citizen
Ronnie
Please run again!
-I along with the majority 0f West Virginians and US citizens are outraged with the Cap &Trade bill that is being considered-It need to be defeated-It can only destroy america as we know it-Economically it will destoy our way of life in this country as we know it-We hope that voters take note and vote out of office any member of congress who votes for this terrible bill.Thank you
I think Al Gore needs to invest in some really speedy running shoes! I keep wondering if he can be prosecuted for perpetrating a fraud upon the American people. He’s a liar. I’m sick about the damage he has done to how Americans are viewed in the world.
I favor former Governor Palin’s energy ideas. Clean coal, natural gas and start drilling for oil of our own. And certainly the United States of America owes NO ONE money for the agreements drawn up in Copenhagen. I did not agree to this use of tax dollars. Who did Obama think he was up there promising away our dollars for unsubstantiated carbon footprints. Here’s a footprint up your behind sir.
Drill Baby Drill.
Grief – we are being scared over every little
thing from Tsunami, schools lock down, climate, ’severe’ weather every time it rains
This is manipulation city. Yet we hear little
about the real problems- like why health costs go up and up but nobody explains what the causes are. Or why the Credit Default Swap market increased by 500 times in 10 years.
Also, for intermittent energy – it might make
more sense to bring the work to where the
windmills are than trying to connect them to
the grid, and ditto for solar.