Here’s an extraordinarily inconvenient truth the press will likely not report: a “cap-and-trade” program designed to curb carbon emissions in order to "solve" global warming will negatively impact the poor the most.
Think Charlie, Brian, and Katie will do a story on this tonight?
Regardless of the answer, the reality is that as folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his sycophant devotees recommend solutions to a conceivably nonexistent problem, few care to address the negative economic impact of such strategies.
Towards that goal, the Congressional Budget Office released a study on Wednesday that didn’t paint a very pretty picture of the financial ramifications of a cap-and-trade program proposed by Democrats (emphasis added throughout):
Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would.
Hmmm. So, poorer households would be the hardest hit by this scheme. Think this will be headline news? Yet, there was more in this report that likely will be ignored:
Any policy that reduced U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide would inevitably create costs for existing workers. Job losses could occur throughout the economy but would probably be especially large (in percentage terms) in industries associated with high-carbon fuels.
A cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions would tend to increase government spending and decrease revenues. Like other consumers, the government would face higher prices for energy and other carbon-intensive goods and services. In addition, by leading to a decline in the production of such goods and services, the cap would cause a decline in the taxes collected on corporate profits. If the government wanted to provide the same level of services without increasing the budget deficit, it would have to either raise taxes or use part of the value of the allowances to cover the changes in federal outlays and revenues.
Hmmm. So, this scheme would increase unemployment, hurt the poor, result in higher taxes, drive up inflation, and increase budget deficits.
Any questions as to why this CBO report will likely get little airplay?