Cap-and-trade will cost families $1761 per year

[andymays]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/16/obama-admin-cap-and-trade-will-cost-families-1761-per-year/

Excerpt:

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama’s transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: “Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation.”
The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

[JustRalph]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/16/obama-admin-cap-and-trade-will-cost-families-1761-per-year/

Excerpt:

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.



This is a stunning number...........and the idiots don't even pay attention........all 55 percent of them

[NJ Stinks]

Sounds like a lot of hot air to me.

Do you really think this country would stand for a $1,761 bill per family for cap and trade? Do you really think Congressmen would allow themselves to be subject to voter wrath if this was the outcome?

What else have you got, Andy? :sleeping:

[andymays]

Sounds like a lot of hot air to me.

Do you really think this country would stand for a $1,761 bill per family for cap and trade? Do you really think Congressmen would allow themselves to be subject to voter wrath if this was the outcome?

What else have you got, Andy? :sleeping:


Well, it's a conclusion from the Obama Administration. They told people over and over there would be no increase in taxes on anyone making below 250k right?

[Tom]

Sounds like a lot of hot air to me.

Do you really think this country would stand for a $1,761 bill per family for cap and trade? Do you really think Congressmen would allow themselves to be subject to voter wrath if this was the outcome?

What else have you got, Andy? :sleeping:

Allow me, Andy..... .The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml

[boxcar]

Sounds like a lot of hot air to me.

Do you really think this country would stand for a $1,761 bill per family for cap and trade? Do you really think Congressmen would allow themselves to be subject to voter wrath if this was the outcome?

What else have you got, Andy? :sleeping:

Since when are you against high taxes? Don't you know: The more ya pay, the more patriotic you are? And I know how you relish patriotism. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Anybody catch the update to the article?
__________________________________________________

Update 9/16/2009: The Environmental Defense Fund has responded to the documents' release with a statement saying, in part:


Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.


The bill passed by the House sends the value of pollution permits to consumers, and it contains robust cost-containment provisions. Every credible and independent economic analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (such as those done by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency) says the costs will be small and affordable -- and that the U.S. economy will grow with a cap on carbon.

__________________________________________________ __

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml

[andymays]

Anybody catch the update to the article?
__________________________________________________

Update 9/16/2009: The Environmental Defense Fund has responded to the documents' release with a statement saying, in part:


Even if a 100 percent auction was a live legislative proposal, which it's not, that math ignores the redistribution of revenue back to consumers. It only looks at one side of the balance sheet. It would only be true if you think the Administration was going to pile all the cash on the White House lawn and set it on fire.


The bill passed by the House sends the value of pollution permits to consumers, and it contains robust cost-containment provisions. Every credible and independent economic analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (such as those done by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Energy Information Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency) says the costs will be small and affordable -- and that the U.S. economy will grow with a cap on carbon.

__________________________________________________ __

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml




The revenue is going to the likes of General Electric and Al Gore among others close to the administration. Does it make sense that people pay the $1,700 and then they get it back?

[NJ Stinks]

The revenue is going to the likes of General Electric and Al Gore among others close to the administration. Does it make sense that people pay the $1,700 and then they get it back?

It's not unheard of, is it? How many people get a refund on their income tax every year?

Is it perfect? No.

[andymays]

It's not unheard of, is it? How many people get a refund on their income tax every year?

Is it perfect? No.


We ought to just let the people keep their money and make affordable clean energy more available to everyone.

[Tom]

The toxic dumps in Joisey must still be "hot."

[newtothegame]

And I would expect them to at least be in the "know" on topics that relate to the atmosphere....

Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming
04.08.09

Though greenhouse gases are invariably at the center of discussions about global climate change, new NASA research suggests that much of the atmospheric warming observed in the Arctic since 1976 may be due to changes in tiny airborne particles called aerosols.

Emitted by natural and human sources, aerosols can directly influence climate by reflecting or absorbing the sun's radiation. The small particles also affect climate indirectly by seeding clouds and changing cloud properties, such as reflectivity.

A new study, led by climate scientist Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, used a coupled ocean-atmosphere model to investigate how sensitive different regional climates are to changes in levels of carbon dioxide, ozone, and aerosols.

The researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. The results were published in the April issue of Nature Geoscience.
Though there are several varieties of aerosols, previous research has shown that two types -- sulfates and black carbon -- play an especially critical role in regulating climate change. Both are products of human activity.

Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

(my question here would be why would we pass laws to reduce that which cools the climate if we are worried about warming?)

At the same time, black carbon emissions have steadily risen, largely because of increasing emissions from Asia. Black carbon -- small, soot-like particles produced by industrial processes and the combustion of diesel and biofuels -- absorb incoming solar radiation and have a strong warming influence on the atmosphere.

In the modeling experiment, Shindell and colleagues compiled detailed, quantitative information about the relative roles of various components of the climate system, such as solar variations, volcanic events, and changes in greenhouse gas levels. They then ran through various scenarios of how temperatures would change as the levels of ozone and aerosols -- including sulfates and black carbon -- varied in different regions of the world. Finally, they teased out the amount of warming that could be attributed to different climate variables. Aerosols loomed large.

The regions of Earth that showed the strongest responses to aerosols in the model are the same regions that have witnessed the greatest real-world temperature increases since 1976. The Arctic region has seen its surface air temperatures increase by 1.5 C (2.7 F) since the mid-1970s. In the Antarctic, where aerosols play less of a role, the surface air temperature has increased about 0.35 C (0.6 F).

That makes sense, Shindell explained, because of the Arctic's proximity to North America and Europe. The two highly industrialized regions have produced most of the world's aerosol emissions over the last century, and some of those aerosols drift northward and collect in the Arctic. Precipitation, which normally flushes aerosols out of the atmosphere, is minimal there, so the particles remain in the air longer and have a stronger impact than in other parts of the world.

Since decreasing amounts of sulfates and increasing amounts of black carbon both encourage warming, temperature increases can be especially rapid. The build-up of aerosols also triggers positive feedback cycles that further accelerate warming as snow and ice cover retreat.

In the Antarctic, in contrast, the impact of sulfates and black carbon is minimized because of the continent’s isolation from major population centers and the emissions they produce.

"There's a tendency to think of aerosols as small players, but they're not," said Shindell. "Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases."

The growing recognition that aerosols may play a larger climate role can have implications for policymakers.

"We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we're just looking at carbon dioxide," Shindell said. "If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we're much better off looking at aerosols and ozone."

Aerosols tend to be quite-short lived, residing in the atmosphere for just a few days or weeks. Greenhouses gases, by contrast, can persist for hundreds of years. Atmospheric chemists theorize that the climate system may be more responsive to changes in aerosol levels over the next few decades than to changes in greenhouse gas levels, which will have the more powerful effect in coming centuries.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html

Bolding was done by me !

[Valuist]

Do you really think this country would stand for a $1,761 bill per family for cap and trade? Do you really think Congressmen would allow themselves to be subject to voter wrath if this was the outcome?



What percentage of people who voted for Obama fully understood the ramifications of cap and trade? ANd the irony is that the poor and lower class, who largely voted for him, are going to get whacked the hardest.

As for Congress, how much credibililty do they have?

[boxcar]

What percentage of people who voted for Obama fully understood the ramifications of cap and trade? ANd the irony is that the poor and lower class, who largely voted for him, are going to get whacked the hardest.

As for Congress, how much credibililty do they have?

The fact that NJ even asked the question betrays the depth of his naivete. His blind trust of leftist leaders is mind boggling.

Boxcar
P.S. As an unrelated matter, I read somewhere that in the Senate health bill, not only would there be draconian cuts to Medicare but seniors who surpass a certain dollar limit of medical care would be taxed (as punishment for being too sick). If this is true, this means the people who could afford it the least and who would, generally, require the most care would be tossed under the bus in two ways. The other way is that doctors would be closely monitored as to how much care they're giving to each patient and if they exceed their government-imposed billing limits, strong punitive measures would be taken against them too -- giving them every disincentive to treat chronic or even seriously acute cases.

Nothing like a compassionate state to look after us....

[Tom]

The dems rely on public ignorance and dependency.
They feast here.