Check Price of Lieberman-Warner for Your State:
heritage.org
>Temps Might Rise 1 Degree Over a Century
June 6th, 2008
posted by Mark Landsbaum, ocregister.com
The Associated Press put it well: “Congress retreated Friday from the world’s biggest environmental concern - global warming - in a fresh demonstration of what happens when nature and business collide, especially in an election year. It was no contest.”
It seems the abstract threat of global warming couldn’t quite measure up to the concrete threat of higher taxes and higher gasoline prices - just two of the prices to combat temperatures that may rise another degree or two over 100 years.
It seems even greenish Democrats ran away from the Climate Securtiy Act in droves when it mattered most. Thank the Heritage Foundation, which published a delightful breakdown of the real costs to real people in real places to fight this fantasy threat.
As with all big-government utopian schemes, whether based on reality or fantasy, the price is always assumed to be paid by the other guy. When people find out they are the ones who must pay, they become understandably more self-interested and less altruistic.
Global warming stops being the boogey man the other guy must sacrifice to combat, and instead a pain in the wallet for those who assumed all along that the other guy was going to pay the bill.
“As Democrats from regions of the country that will be most immediately affected by climate legislation, we want to share our concerns with the bill…” wrote 10 Democrats to Majority Leader Harry Reid. “…we cannot support final passage of the (bill) in its current form.”
Duh. Congress isn’t the first place to make this no-brainer of a discovery. Read on to see how universal this truth is.
“India will not reduce greenhouse gas emission at the cost of development and poverty alleviation,” said that nation’s minister for (get this) environment.
Cap-and-trade “hasn’t worked in Europe,” writes Shikha Dalmia in the NY Post. “Since the European Union adopted a cap-and-trade program three years ago, CO2 output is actually up several percent.”
Meanwhile Europeans squabble over - you guessed it - who should foot the bill to fight global warming. Germany says slashing car emissions is unfair to them because they make bigger cars than the Italians. “We have to be honest and open with each other here. We have very different interests.” And those interests appear far more about economics than global warming.
Take Australia. “The state government fired a warning to Canberra in Tuesday’s budget, urging it not to set over-ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions for fear of destabilising the economy,” reports CourierMail.au.
Then there’s Canada. “Surveys of Canadian voters showed the environment to be their first or second concern in 1989-90,” writes Lorne Gunter. “. . . A year-and-a-half later, with the economy locked in the worst recession in 60 years, government finances were imploding, jobs disappearing and foreclosure wolves circling, the environment vanished from the top 10.”
Gee, go figure. When the bill comes due and choices must be made, fantasy obsessions seem to find their true place in our ranking of priorities. |
