About Me

Name: Troy Stouffer
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

The House Passes H.R. 2454, The Economic Destruction Act of 2009

 

Today the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The mammoth bill consisted of more than 1500 pages and would be more aptly named the Hamstring the American Economy Act. The bill will now head to the Senate for their take on the issue, where I cannot help but wonder if the Senators will actually read the bill before reading it unlike their counterparts in the House. 

President Obama and the Democratic House leadership claimed that this bill was a “jobs” bill. Their claim is based on the premise that the legislation will create green jobs and will help the economy. The dirty little secret is that the cost of the bill to the American taxpayers will be astronomical. Everyone will pay more for their energy consumption. This may not appear to be that big of an issue for the millionaire bureaucrats in Washington or the hypocrite Al Gore, but for those citizens who already struggle to pay their energy bills on a monthly basis, it will be a major problem. Over the next 25 years electricity rates will increase an estimated 90%, gasoline prices will increase an estimated 58%, natural gas rates will increase an estimated 55%, add an additional $28,728 per person in the U.S. to the national debt, and reduce the gross domestic product by $9.4 trillion

As for the jobs that they are claiming that will be created, we only have to look to Spain to foresee the outcomes of the very same policies. In Spain the unemployment rate is at 18% and for every green job created 2.2 jobs are lost. The cost of creating the green jobs is a bargain as well, a mere $774,000 per green job “created”.   Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at King Juan Carlos University who authored a report on Spain’s green jobs initiatives said, “The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices”. Several U.S companies have already stated that it will be cheaper for them to move their entire operations out of the U.S. than to stay and pay the stifling taxes and penalties for doing business in the Obama led United States.

What I find most amazing about this legislation is the unmitigated gall of the President concerning its inevitable outcome. During his campaign, before the he became the media-anointed messiah of all people, the President said that his clean energy proposal would bankrupt the coal industry. This may not seem to be that big of a deal for most of my “green” readers, but the U.S. depends on coal to supply roughly 50% of our energy. Now how will we supply energy without coal? We could use nuclear power; you remember the cheap, reliable energy source that the President favors for Iran. The only problem is that the very same people who are trying to hamper our economy with this legislation are also the same hypocritical bureaucrats that have prevented any new nuclear power plants from being built in the past 30 years.

While the concept of wind and solar energy providing all of our energy needs is a laudable one, the simple fact remains that the technology does not exist today to make these economically viable. Provide funding for research if you want, but do not punish the American people and our economy for the sake of flawed science.  As the Senate takes up this legislation, we can only hope that the Senators will put aside their party loyalty and actually vote to protect the American economy and our pocketbooks. I realize that this may be too much to ask for many of the lifelong politicians, but can’t we at least expect them to read the bill before they vote on it? After all, the author of the bill in the House, Henry Waxman, admitted that he had not read the bill and did not know all of the details of the bill. He was content to rely on the scientists that wrote the bill. I suppose the only ones that will be laughing and cheering about this legislation in the years to come will be China, India, and the rest of the world who will reap the economic rewards for the folly of our elected officials.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gore's Call For Energy Independence

 

Former Vice President Al Gore challenged the United States this week to supply all of the country’s electricity by renewable and carbon free sources within 10 years. Gore’s proposal includes investments in solar, wind, and geothermal power. He calls for a promise to all coal and oil workers that they will have guaranteed jobs out in the sun and fresh air. He further calls for no new coal or oil exploration. His stand is one that why waste time and money on energy that will not ever decrease in price.

Gore has chosen an opportune time to bring his proposals into the media spotlight. We are living through a time when gas prices are at record highs, and the public anger is reaching new levels on an hourly basis. The price of a barrel of oil is hovering between $130 and $140. Based on what the news is from day to day, the price rises or drops. President Bush announces that he has rescinded the Presidential ban on offshore drilling, and the price of oil dropped by several dollars. It subsequently rose back up when congressional leaders revealed their intention to do nothing. Recent polls of the general public have shown ever-increasing angst over the rising gas prices. The public is growing weary of all of the political posturing over the price of gas, but seeing zero substantial action coming from Capitol Hill. The most recent proposal from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would almost be humorous if it wasn’t such an obvious political stunt for the cameras. Pelosi proposed releasing 10% of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve and halting all of our oil exports. Releasing 10% of the reserves equates to about 70 million barrels. We currently use about 20 million barrels a day as a country. Her plan would have the effect of 3 and half days worth of oil. Halting all of our oil exports is even more laughable than the 10% idea. Last year we exported a total of 10 million barrels of oil. This plan would give us a half a day of oil. Once again Speaker Pelosi has shown us that she is more interested in political posturing than actual solutions. Is it any wonder that the Congress, under Harry Reid and her leadership, has a less than 10% approval rating by the American people?

While I agree with Gore on certain points of his plan, there are others with which I simply cannot agree. I would love to see us use less fossil fuel for energy supply in our country. As of right now, solar, wind and geothermal power are not reliable enough to supply enough power for our country. I do believe that we can get there with future innovations and technological advancements, but as of right now we are not there. We do need to invest in finding alternative methods of supplying our energy, but we cannot turn a blind eye to the known oil that we have right here in our country. We should start more oil exploration to aid in the investment of alternative energy sources. We should look at conservation ideas, but that is not the sole answer to our energy woes. A combination of new oil exploration, building new refineries, building new nuclear power plants, investing in alternative energy supplies, and conservation all have a part to play in the solution. 

Gore has made a very lucrative career out of his grandstanding on climate change. He would be much more believable if he lived up to the ideals by which he wants the rest of us to live. He lives in a mansion that consumes 20 times more energy than the national average for a home. By contrast, the “evil” George Bush will retire to his ranch in Crawford, Texas that employs a geothermal heating and cooling system. For all of Gore’s pontificating on carbon emissions and the need to use less energy, it hasn’t stopped from jetting all around the world on private planes and consuming more energy in a month than most of us use all year. I guess Nancy Pelosi isn’t the only one who is more interested in political posturing than actual results.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Warner-Lieberman Plan To Destroy Our Economy

 

This week the U.S. Senate began debating America’s Climate Security Act of 2007, sponsored Senators John Warner of Virginia and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. The bill is seen as having the best chance of becoming law of all the Global Warming bills up for votes this year. Many liberal groups are lauding the measure, but are urging people to push their senators to strengthen the bill with tighter controls of carbon emissions. The Union Of Concerned Scientists is calling for an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. The current bill calls for a mere 70% reduction. 

Several groups have studied the impact of Warner-Lieberman should it be passed in it’s current form and have concluded it will be disastrous for the U.S. economy. MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Warming predicts that the bill will increase gas prices by nearly 30%, electricity costs will rise by more than 50%, and natural gas will cost 15% more all in less than 10 years. The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University sees a $245 billion loss to the Gross Domestic Product in 2030 due to the restrictions placed on private industry by this bill.

The Warner Lieberman bill calls for a Domestic Offset Program for companies to buy carbon credits on the international emissions trading market to offset their carbon emissions above the legal limit. Carbon credits are a scam created by global warming alarmists to cash in on the hysteria they have created under the premise that mankind, specifically the United States, is causing the climate to drastically warm. It is amazing that we are supposed to believe that if we reduce our carbon emissions that it will have some magical effect on the climate. The theory completely discounts that China, whose carbon emissions far surpass ours, is not subject to any form of global warming policy to reduce their carbon emissions. It also forgets that India, whose rate of carbon emission exceeds ours, is also not part of any plan to reduce carbon emissions. The result of this bill and many others more stringent than this one will be to cripple our economy and have zero effect on the global climate. The battle cry in 10 years will be that the climate is changing, by getting colder, and we need to act now to stop it. They will enact even more asinine policies that will cost us more at the gas pump, in our electric bills, and even at the grocery or department stores.

Those who are pushing this agenda have managed to vilify any who do not believe as they do. Scientists have lost funding and been equated with Holocaust deniers. More than 31,000 scientists and climatologists recently signed a petition questioning whether human activity had any effect on the changes in climate.  The debate has been declared over before the debate was ever allowed to take place. I believe we should take care of our environment, but that does not mean we should blindly jump off of this cliff of restrictions and regulations without fully understanding the truth behind any type of climate change. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »