22 May “Climate Security Act” Massive Tax Hike, Dangerous Call TODAY – Senate Set for Imminent Vote on S. 2191

May 22, 2008

Action Alert! Action Alert!

Debate on Senate bill 2191, the “Climate Security Act” sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-VT) and John Warner (R-VA), is scheduled to start as early as Monday, June 2. S.2191 is a massive bill that will impose strict upper limits on the emissions of green­house gases, mainly carbon dioxide from the com­bustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. It will also establish a trading system for emissions allowances, imposing a substantial “carbon” tax. Passage of this bill will have devastating impacts on economic growth and job expansion, and contains very dangerous regulatory implications. Despite hype to the contrary, any bill with such massive tax increases and regulatory burdens is NOT a “market solution” and the American Policy Center opposes it!

Despite global warming proponents’ claims, there is no “consensus” or “settled science” supporting the theory of human-caused global warming and consequential environmental harm. And it is equally untrue that only a few “skeptics” remain. Quite the contrary, as reported by WorldNetDaily (www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734), “(M)ore than 31,000 (Petition Project) scientists across the United States, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields including atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition rejecting ‘global warming,’ the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.” Further, in their petition to Congress, these scientists not only urge Congress to reject the Kyoto protocols, but warn “(t)he proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Despite what you may have read, carbon dioxide is NOT toxic. If you remember your early science education, carbon is the fourth most common element (based on its mass) in the universe. Carbon exists in every living creature on this Earth; non-living matter, such as rocks and soil, also contain carbon. It’s in the Earth’s mantle, and in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Animals exhale carbon dioxide, and plants take it in during photosynthesis. Plants are a carbon “sink” – they take in more carbon dioxide than they give up. Water is a carbon sink when it contains marine life. Once plants and animals die their carbon sinks into the Earth’s crust. If Congress intends to tax carbon, where will it start? And where will it stop?

According to S. 2191, Congress intends to start by mandating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish emissions allowances for thousands of American manufacturers and electricity generators. The EPA conducted an analysis of the bill, as requested by Senators Lieberman and Warner. Among their findings, the EPA said, “There are many uncertainties that affect the economic impacts of S. 2191, key among them are the availability of mitigation technologies and the level of international action on climate change.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA) released their analysis of the economic impacts of S. 2191 (http://www.heritage.org/research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda08-02.cfm), stating the numbers are “sobering…S.2191 extracts trillions of dollars from the mil­lions of American energy consumers and delivers this wealth to permanently identified classes of recipients, such as tribal groups and preferred tech­nology sectors, while largely circumventing the normal congressional appropriations process. Unbound by the periodic review of the normal bud­getary process, this de facto tax-and-spend program threatens to become permanent–independent of the goals of the legislation.” The CDA report further cautions, “S. 2191 promises extraordinary perils for the American economy…(S)ince energy is the lifeblood of the American economy, 85 percent of which comes from these fossil fuels, S. 2191 represents an extraordinary level of economic interference by the federal gov­ernment.

The National Taxpayers Union’s open letter calling on the U.S. Senate to oppose S. 2191 (http://www.ntu.org/main/letters_detail.php?letter_id=606) states this bill is so important that how Senators vote will weigh heavily in their annual Rating of Congress.

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, enthusiastically approved of the Petition Project. Professor Seitz received the National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32 Universities around the world. He wrote “The proposed (Kyoto global warming) agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.”

Art Robinson, founder of the Petition Project, warned “The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged,” he continued. “During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

“These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity,” he said. “Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.”

“The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy,” he said.

ACTION TO TAKE

Contact your Senators.

Contact Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

You may reach your Senators by calling (202) 224-2131. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request.

Tell them to oppose S. 2191, the “Climate Security Act” because:

• There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
• There is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
• The Kyoto global warming agreement would have disastrous effects on over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
• Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are projected at least $1.7 trillion and could reach $4.8 tril­lion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
• Annual job losses are expected to exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could approach 1,000,000.
• The average household cost will be approximately $467 more each year for natural gas and electricity (in infla­tion-adjusted 2006 dollars).
• A recent poll conducted by the National Center for Public Policy Research found that 65% of Americans oppose spending even a penny more for gasoline in an effort to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions.

SEND THIS MESSAGE TO AT LEAST TEN MORE PEOPLE! APC is now offering you a quick and easy way to multiply your efforts and help win more battles! Simply click here to send this APC Action Alert to up to TEN of your friends! It’s fast, it’s easy and most of all, it’s extremely effective in KILLING OPPRESSIVE POLICIES!