Gdi 2010 Energy Reform Politics da

Aff – No I/L Econ

While House Democrats tout the benefits of their bill, Energy and Commerce ranking member Joe Barton (R-Texas) has said the measure is too expensive and argues that implementing a cap-and-trade program is a major gamble that will break the federal bank and lead to exorbitant energy prices — which in turn will prevent families from being able to pay their power bills. If the legislation doesn’t cause a spike in other energy prices such as gasoline, diesel and natural gas, the measure as structured could be a victory for ratepayers, setting up a system for them to recoup some of the expected rise in residential energy bills. When the proposed cap-and-trade program begins in 2012, electric utilities would receive 35 percent of the allowances with 30 percent going to local distribution companies for the specific purpose of offsetting costs to customers. In a recent analysis, the Natural Resources Defense Council determined that consumer energy bills would actually decline under the House bill. But the American Petroleum Institute has argued that the inequity of how allowances have been distributed could easily create a rise in other energy prices — along with massive job losses. An average family could pay $1,500 a year more for energy than it does now and 74 percent more for gasoline, according to a study quoted by the API. “While the bill has laudable environmental and economic goals, its inequitable system of allocations remains intact and if enacted would have a disproportionate adverse impact on consumers, businesses and producers of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, crude oil and natural gas,” API President Jack Gerard said in a statement.

The EPA uses household figures and measures consumption changes only. First, a household is not necessarily a family. The average household size is 2.6 people. Adjusting household size to a family-of-four standard adds another 53 percent. Secondly, consumption changes are typically less than income changes, as families respond to income losses by saving less. When income drops, people prevent consumption from dropping by dipping into savings. In turn, lower savings reduces the ability of families to cope with other shocks and reduces their future income. Further, consumption comes from after-tax dollars, so losses in tax revenue do not show up in data on household consumption. The real economic cost is the loss of income. Change in national income, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), is a better measure of the overall economic impact of a policy. In the end, Americans will be much poorer and the economy would be trillions of dollars weaker with climate change legislation in place than without it, as Heritage Foundation analyses of past cap-and-trade bills have shown.

Aff – No I/L Econ

Reform policy would wreck economy in the next 30 years, five warrants – Electricity cost, GDP, national income, job loss and national debt.

Carroll 6/15/10(Conn, Assistant Director for The Heritage Foundation's Strategic Communications “Morning Bell: The Obama Energy Tax Game Plan” The Heritage Foundation)AQB

As far as the strategy in the Senate goes, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times last week that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would use elements of the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act, the Cantwell-Collins carbon pricing plan, and the Bingaman renewable energy standard bill. A Senate aide told Politico: “an energy deal must include some serious effort to price carbon as a way to slow climate change.” The important thing to remember is that none of this is new. As Heritage Foundation Senate Relations Deputy Dan Holler reported the day before the Deepwater Horizon explosion, Reid has been planning a bait-and-switch from the beginning: first bringing up the Kerry-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill, striking it, and then replacing it with the less well known Bingaman renewable energy standards. The left knows that the American public has been educated about the economic harms of cap-and-trade, and they are hoping they can use the BP oil spill to pass renewable energy standards (RES) before the public wises up. Don’t be fooled: an RES is just another way for the enviro-left to inflict an economy-killing energy tax on the American public. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has crunched the numbers and found that an RES would: 1) Raise electricity prices by 36 percent for households and 60 percent for industry; 2) Cut national income (GDP) by $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035; 3) Cut national income by $2,400 per year for a family of four; 4) Reduce employment by more than 1,000,000 jobs; and 5) Add more than $10,000 to a family of four’s share of the national debt by 2035. In The Godfather, at Vito Corleone’s funeral, the family consiglieri Tom Hagan leans into the new Don Michael Corleone and whispers: “Do you know how they’re gonna come at’cha?” If the American public wants to avoid a self-inflicted economic disaster on top of the existing environmental one, they need to know how President Obama is going to come after them. Now you know.

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 0.59 Mb.

Share with your friends: