Fools rush in….

Despite the hue and cry from the environmental cabal that global warming will doom the earth (a “fact” that is widely disputed—remember when Greenland was, well, green just 1000 years ago?) and that it is man-made greenhouse gases fueling the climate catastrophe at our very door (another widely disputed claim since fluctuations in the sun’s output are conveniently overlooked by the doom-and-gloomers), there are good reasons to tread slowly and lightly as we approach a solution to this “problem.”

For one, we should remember all the experts and doom-sayers prior to the year 2000 who warned us to stock up on food, water and other essentials because the infrastructure of society was going to collapse at midnight, December 31, 1999 when all the major computer systems were going to crash due to the Millenium Bug. Remember that? Didn’t happen.

Or how about those who are still warning us about Avian Flu. Still waiting for that one to happen too and it’s been what, four years or more. (In this case, however, I will grant the preparations for the potential pandemic are quite positive. The warning first went out: “In 2003, world-renowned virologist Robert Webster published an article titled "The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population" in American Scientist. He called for adequate resources to fight what he sees as a major world threat to possibly billions of lives.[3]” Since then only 313 cases and 191 deaths have been confirmed as due to Avian Flu.)

Sure bad things could have happened as the calendar turned from 1999 to 2000, but they didn’t. There may still be a pandemic of Avian Flu but not likely anywhere except in third world countries where sanitation is a problem. In either case, the preparations and actions of those concerned didn’t have sweeping effects upon the economy. (Again there were exceptions. Many schemers made a pretty penny by playing to the fears of the gullible in late 1999.)

But now, we have this proposal from members of the US Senate.

Congress is expected to consider climate legislation this fall that would fight global warming. Many businesses worry the U.S. economy would suffer under a measure to impose tough mandatory cuts in emissions.

One proposal, introduced by Sens. Joseph Lieberman and John McCain, would gradually reduce total U.S. emissions by the year 2050 to 60 percent below 1990 levels.

The bill would require companies to report their yearly greenhouse gas emissions and submit a matching number of government-issued allowances to equal the emissions spewed. Companies that emit more would have to buy allowances from cleaner companies that produce fewer emissions.

Oh, it sounds just so…peachy! Let’s cut back on our CO2 emissions to help save the Earth! Forget the coal burning plants being built daily in China. Forget the energy needs of people in Africa and India struggling to pull themselves out of poverty. Forget that the US is the only developed country to reduce its emissions since the Kyoto Accord was signed by all of Europe. Yeah, forget all that. The US will cut its emissions to “60 percent below 1990 levels” and everything will be just fine.

Not quite:

However, the proposal would cut into the U.S. economy and raise gasoline and other energy prices paid by consumers, according to an analysis of the legislation by the Energy Information Administration.

The legislation "increases the cost of using energy, which reduces real economic output, reduces purchasing power, and lowers aggregate demand for goods and services," the EIA said.

With companies trying to meet the shrinking emissions levels, U.S. economic output would be $533 billion lower over the 2009 to 2030 time period, the agency said.

Yeah, let’s do this and then we can be on a level of economic “prosperity” matched by, well, China, Africa and India.

We’re already seeing an increase in food prices as we rush willy-nilly into corn based ethanol production, what’s a 10% to 20% increase in fuel cost over present levels due to this emissions reduction scheme when we’ll already see an increase due to the use of ethanol.

Then there’s the $16 Billion tax the House is proposing on the Big Oil (to be paid by each and every consumer) to fund the alternative fuels search. (I know the article says “tax incentives” are being moved from Big Oil, but it’s the same thing as taxing them $16 Billion more. Why didn’t they take the money from the farm subsidies since they have now created an incentive to grow more corn and drive the corn prices higher?

Keep going Senators and Congressmen. Keep adding more weight to the anchor you’ve forged to place about the economy. Both of these acts are "feel-good" legislations that will do little to help the American consumer and a great deal to smack the average wallet a mighty blow.