As Al Gore and his band of not so merry global warming alarmists in buses and in the press try to convince Americans that they need to alter behaviors in order to save the planet, an inconvenient truth is being cynically withheld: this is going to cost a lot of money.
Of course, one of the delicious hypocrisies is that these are the same people who decry the current economic boom as only helping the rich, and state regularly and fervently that the poor and middle-class are being left behind.
At the same time, such mid- to lower-level wage earners should be saddled with exorbitant additional expenses to shelter them from a wolf that might never come knocking at their doors.
Makes sense, right?
With that in mind, the Chicago Tribune’s Laurie Goering wrote a fabulous piece recently exposing some of the potential costs of this exercise that most media don’t want you to know (emphasis added throughout, h/t Benny Peiser):
For the United States, the most aggressive scenario in the new U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mitigation report — holding greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to less than 500 parts per million, up from the current 380 parts per million — could cost $240 billion a year, or 2 percent of the nation's income, said Robert Mendelsohn, a climate-change economist at Yale University.
Yikes. That would be almost ten percent of the current budget. How do you think that will impact deficits and debt expansion?
But let’s make this discussion more personal:
Reducing greenhouse gases vigorously and quickly probably would push Americans' heating and electric bills up by 50 percent to 100 percent, said Jae Edmonds, a scientist and economist with the Joint Global Change Research Institute, based in Maryland. Gasoline prices would rise between 50 cents and $1 a gallon, he said.
Nice. How would that impact the personal finances of Americans at the middle and bottom rungs of the income ladder?
Furthermore, as it seems a metaphysical certitude that Congress isn’t going to cut $240 billion per year in other spending to pay for climate change remedies, such costs clearly would come from higher taxes.
So, if you add up the 50 to 100 percent increase in home heating and electric bills, along with a 50 cent to $1 per gallon gas hike, AND higher taxes, this could mean financial doom for many Americans.
And, the resulting reduction in consumer spending on other items likely would cause a recession with higher unemployment.
Is it any wonder that the actual dollars involved in climate change solutions are being kept from this hysterical discussion?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
As I recall, Prof. Bjorn Lomb
May 21, 2007 - 11:42 ET by GalvanicAs I recall, Prof. Bjorn Lomborg has some estimates in the Global Warming chapter of his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. He uses the estimates to demonstrate how the money could be better spent to help mankind, vice squandering it on useless faux-solutions of the GW crowd.
I've got a no cost solution
May 22, 2007 - 09:09 ET by SportPoliticsI've got a no cost solution. I noticed something watching 60 minutes and the hospital dumping segment.
Al Gore and his merry band of world savers, should show us all how much they really care, and disavow their worldly goods, and go park their bums down on skid row.
They wouldn't be flying or driving cars anymore. No exhoribant air conditioning or heating bills, nor electric useage for that matter. That's all zero emissions now in their new butt where their mouth is life.
They won't be eating much, but what they do consume will be "recycled waste" - since their meals will come from the nearest dumpster. Let's face it, that's not only carbon neutral, they might actually be able to sell a carbon credit once a year. Oftentimes no TP used, not even a single square. How could their fans deny their greatness ? Rainwater for their clothing and cleaning the red hankie with the white polka dots, once again, organic living.
I don't quite understand what Al is waiting for.
Lots of cash
May 21, 2007 - 11:54 ET by OldSailor88One of my favorite web sites......
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html
Lots of good stuff on here about debunking the global warming debate. The web site above has a count up running to show the amount of money that the Kyoto Conference has cost.
Also, I have been looking at all of the libs and their carbon offset B.S. One thing I noticed is that most of them are invested in the fleece. Do you think their looney constituents know this?
kyoto
May 21, 2007 - 13:40 ET by m1xramLiked the link, found some good info there.
m1xram
The former manager of the i
May 21, 2007 - 12:06 ET by MilesDThe former manager of the individual depicted on the $4 bill is depicted on the new series $3 bill
I'm just sick, I read the last paragraph again
May 22, 2007 - 09:24 ET by SportPoliticsI'm just sick, I read the last paragraph again.
[The problem, O'Reilly said, is that U.S. farmers cannot currently produce enough corn to make more than 15 billion gallons of fuel. Producing 36 billion gallons would require huge corn imports or a massive overhaul of the U.S. agricultural economy. And Chevron is not just protecting its fossil-fuels turf; the company already produces 70 percent of the ethanol made in the United States. "We're dealing with a massive economy and a massive energy infrastructure that was developed to supply this economy," O'Reilly said. "You can't turn that around in just a couple of years."]
First of all, that no-spin zone fascist is everywhere. Secondly, my heart is broken, I knew all this was too good to be true, as we see, the oil barron of Bush - Chevron -has already stolen the ethanol market. I knew they had been hiding all the technology for decades, and now since were past peak oil and their wells are drying up, they've already taken over the energy resources for the next hundred years, again.
Oh dear, I think I'm going to cry, or worse.
But then again, taxing the be
May 21, 2007 - 12:11 ET by dscottBut then again, taxing the bejebbers out of Al Gore and Friends would solve many of our problems. Excess Energy Consumption Tax... Anyone who uses more than twice the national average should pay dearly for their wanton lifestyle. After such a tax, the liberals will never again attempt such a fraud knowing they will pay for it in spaids.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Lear Jet Liberals are different from you and me
May 21, 2007 - 12:43 ET by RJOf course, the Lear Jet Liberals would squawk at any attempt to make them accept their own "responsibility." They are different from you and me, according to Leo DiCaprio. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070519184436.x9vgvtk2&show_article=1
He said that he was "irritated with the media for going after prominent environmentalists such as former US vice president Al Gore (whose own film on global warming "An Inconvenient Truth" picked up an Oscar this year) for supposed inconsistency in their private lives. We're all trying the best we can, truly, we really are," he said.
"Attacks on Al Gore for example I think are misdirected. Don't shoot the messenger, you know what I'm saying? This person is truly trying to relay a message to the public and the way he travels and the way he leads his life should not be splayed out like that."
hahaha "Don't look at the man behind the curtain!" hahaha
Exactly!
May 21, 2007 - 23:02 ET by dahliatraversExactly!
Never mind that both he and A
May 22, 2007 - 08:55 ET by dscottNever mind that both he and Al Gore belong to an exclusive group (15 million) who consume at much energy as the remainder of us 285 million pions use. But their trying the best they can, oh please, stop insulting my intelligence and display some yourself DiCaprio. How is it shooting the messenger when the messenger is the very one who is consuming the planet? I see, you get a free pass for ratting on yourself?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Not trying to sidetrack any o
May 21, 2007 - 12:21 ET by bigtimerNot trying to sidetrack any of the meaning of the blog because to me it is connected...Jerry Brown, ex Gov. Moonbeam was on the Washington Journal this morning just about begging/demanding the EPA sign off on the 13 states I think it is that want to do their own offsets mandatory for AGW..which will cost all of the people living in those states far more than they already are...
Btw...People wanted to talk about illegal immigration with him him being from Calif. , not AGW, he kept ignoring most of this and going back to AGW...insisting it was far more of a danger than illegal immigration...talk about twilight zone.
Jerry Brown - moonbeam
May 22, 2007 - 10:02 ET by SportPoliticsYeah, it's already posted at c-span, and I had to shut it off, couldn't get through it all. He's absolutely bonkers over it all.
I shut it off right when he said concerning he and his Attourney General spot in California : " We represent 30% of America. "
We've got insane loons in power, no doubt about it.
"Reducing greenhouse gas
May 21, 2007 - 12:27 ET by mattm"Reducing greenhouse gases vigorously and quickly probably would push Americans' heating and electric bills up by 50 percent to 100 percent."
And what would be the consequence (that is, IF the APGW nonsense were true)? A cooler planet, and increased demand for heating!
Besides, If we eliminated ALL Human Caused CO2 emmissions the effect would be miniscule at most. How do I know? Because increased CO2 follows periods of warming, not the other way around!
"So, if you add up the 5
May 21, 2007 - 12:35 ET by general company"So, if you add up the 50 to 100 percent increase in home heating and electric bills, along with a 50 cent to $1 per gallon gas hike, AND higher taxes, this could mean financial doom for many Americans."
"And, the resulting reduction in consumer spending on other items likely would cause a recession with higher unemployment"
I am pretty sure this is the Dems version of good Goverment, anyway seem like the same old stuff to me. This time they are doing it in the name of GW.
Because WOT and immigration are so yesterday
Yes and this forces a large
May 21, 2007 - 12:53 ET byYes and this forces a large percent of people to work 6 days a week instead of 5, which just uses all that much more gas.
Debra...