Skip to content

Economic Suicide

June 29, 2010

Economic suicide means more than the end of the United States as we and our parents knew it.

The “shining city upon a hill” will be gone. The beacon of freedom to the oppressed of the world that emanated from that city will no longer shine. The might to help the downtrodden achieve freedom will have evaporated.

Future generations of Americans will live in hardship, struggling to own their homes, lucky to have a job, any job, and plagued by shortages – shortages of electricity, shortages of food, shortages of nearly every amenity to which we are currently blessed.

These are the real outcomes of cap & trade legislation.

There are several cap & trade bills being considered in Congress – one has passed the House.

There are many differences between these bills but each will force the United States to reduce its emissions of CO2 to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.

This will bring CO2 levels to where they were before the First World War.

Before WWI there were very few cars, no TVs, no power hungry computers, no fuel hungry jets carrying people around the world, no refrigerators, no air-conditioning, and few tractors to plow the fields or harvest our crops, and only basic lighting in our cities and little lighting on farms or in the countryside.

In 1914 the U.S. population was less than 100 million people, compared with our forecast population in 2050 of 420 million.

While total emissions in this country equate to 20.5 MT per person today, with population growth they will have to be reduced to only 2.5 million metric tons per person in 2050.

Think about that. How could you cut your CO2 emissions to 2.5 MT?

In addition, politicians are asking Americans to commit economic suicide even though the technologies for cutting CO2 emissions do not exist. www.carbonfolly.com has more information on the problem of how to cut CO2 emissions.

The administration is pushing to have cap & trade legislation passed this year, after the November elections. This would allow the Senate and House bills to be reconciled before the new Congress is installed in January.

The administration is very close to getting its wish, because too many Senators, Republicans included, are leaning toward establishing cap & trade.

We are at the precipice staring into the abyss.

Advertisements
12 Comments leave one →
  1. Leonid F. Khilyuk, PhD permalink
    June 30, 2010 7:33 pm

    Anthropogenic CO2 emission does not influence the atmospheric temperature at all and can not be a cause of Global Climate Change. The changes in global atmospheric temperature always preceed the corresponding changes in the CO2 concentration (see “Global Warming and Global Cooling. Evolution of Climate on Earth” by O.G.Sorokhtin, G.V.Chilingar, and L.F.Khilyuk, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007, 330 pp).
    Cap-and-trade bill is a part of the Obama socialist agenda to ruin the US economy and deprive American People of incomes and liberties.

  2. June 30, 2010 10:23 pm

    Awake America- Study Alinsk’s rules– Cloward-piven- Understand Obama and his roots– It’s all there. The next biggest threat in our country is the fawning, sycophantic media that covers or ignores everything that happens of any consequence. They may be the bigger of the two threats. One question: can anyone imagine the media explosion that would have resulted from Bush doing ANY of the things obama has??- I dont think so– It would shatter the Richter scale. If any of these goings-on were known beyond the internet gang and the cable TV bunch, his poll numbers would be below Bush’s after the media crush to demonize anything he did. THIS has to stop– Education for ALL as to what’s happening is the answer. Hurry, November. WHK

  3. pyeatte permalink
    July 1, 2010 1:36 am

    Keep the pressure on – never give an inch on cap-n-tax. This is not about climate anymore. It is about raw power and the control of a free people.

  4. Michael D Smith permalink
    July 1, 2010 11:24 am

    Let’s see. 20.5MMT / 80 years / 365 days = 711 metric tons per day. I don’t think I use that much. Or could hire enough trucks to carry that much of any fuel every day… What’s up with that number?

    • July 1, 2010 12:40 pm

      Don’t understand why you are dividing 20.5 by 80 years.
      The 20.5 MMT is the amount of CO2 attributable to every American annually. It’s determined by dividing total U.S. CO2 emissons in 2004 by the U.S. population.

      • Michael D Smith permalink
        July 1, 2010 11:34 pm

        I divided by 80 years thinking the 20.5 MMT must be lifetime per capita emissions. But even that doesn’t make sense. 20.5 million metric tons per year, per person, equates to 650kg, per person, per second. Now taking any typical fuel, burned at that rate in any reasonable activity, it’s going to get kind of warm. We would all be burnt to a crisp in milliseconds.

      • July 2, 2010 10:36 am

        Total CO2 emissons are determined by the U.S. government. The source I used is noted in my book “Carbon FollY” (see http://www.carbonfolly.com) and is the report: Emission of Greenhouse Gasses in the United States 2005 by DOE, Energy Information Administration.

      • Michael D Smith permalink
        July 5, 2010 10:57 am

        Thanks Donn,

        I see the problem. From the 2006 report, ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057306.pdf , “U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2006 were 110.6
        million metric tons (MMT) below their 2005 level of
        6,045.0 MMT”

        Using 296,410,404 as the 2005 population estimate, that works out to (6,045/296,410,404) = 2.039e-5 MMT per person, or 20.4 metric tons, not 20.4 million metric tons. One extra M changes things.

        This would be 0.65 grams of CO2 per second per person, which would still produce a lot of heat! 2.34kg per hour per person. Gasoline, when burned, produces 8.8kg of CO2 per gallon, so it’s the equivalent of one gallon of gasoline per person, every 3.76 hours. You could still do some serious cooking on a very large grill with that! At $3/gallon, it works out to about $19 per day in energy, per person (assuming most sources cost about the same).

        Just needed to put that in perspective. I agree wholeheartedly at the conclusions of your article, the emissions just seemed too high, now I see why… Probably a typo.

      • July 5, 2010 11:26 am

        6,045,000,000 divided by 296,410,404 = 20.4
        You are correct it is 20.4 metric tons
        I appreciate your diligence in catching the typo

  5. July 1, 2010 11:33 am

    You are spot on about “cap and trade,” it is an incredibly bad idea. It won’t significantly affect carbon emissions but it will help destroy the American way of life. In fact, Lieberman, one of the senate bill’s sponsors, may have uttered the most accurate description of this new Cap and Trade bill back in December. “You remember the artist formerly known as Prince?” Lieberman said. “This is the market-based system for punishing polluters previously known as ‘cap and trade.’”

    “This legislation will put America on the path to a clean energy economy that will create American jobs building the solar panels, wind blades and the car batteries of the future,” President Barack Obama said. “It will strengthen our national security by beginning to break our dependence on foreign oil. And it will protect our environment for our children and grandchildren.” Ask your children if they want to make car batteries or “wind blades” when they grow up. But then, that’s the Obama dream—crappy jobs for everyone and everyone dependent on the Federal Government.

    More details here.

  6. wth permalink
    July 9, 2010 11:36 am

    What about stipulations on home owners. Passing this bill will make homes completely worthless built before 1979(give take a year. If you want to sell your older home, it must be deemed energy efficient by an epa subsidary, or if you want to remodel, again, must hire a team to tell you how and what needs done. People with rental property having to bring in epa to deem them rentable. The narcicist voting, don’t read the proposals of 2000 pages. If your biggest asset is your home and its built in 70’s or older the minute this bill passes your real estate will not be sellable, hence, leaving it worthless. Then people will understand….

Trackbacks

  1. Climate Change Arguement « Lonnie Walker's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s