The Lieberman-Warner legislation is bad for the U.S. economy for these three reasons:

1.  It's a huge new tax.

2.  It will negatively impact the economy by lowering incomes.

3.  And, it will establish a new trade bureaucracy.

www.heritage.org

Effect of the Lieberman-Warner Global Climate Change Legislation on States

by William W. Beach, Ben Lieberman, David Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Nick Loris
May 22, 2008
WebMemo #1930

The Senate's leading climate-change bill, while aiming to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide in the air, actually poses "extraordinary perils" for Americans and the economy, according to a new study from The Heritage Foundation.

The study, produced by Heritage's Center for Data Analysis (CDA), forecasts severe consequences—including crushing energy costs, millions of jobs lost and falling household income—if Congress enacts the so-called Lieberman-Warner bill.

What follows are 50 state-by-state breakouts of the impact the bill would have on jobs and the economy.

How New Hampshire Will Be Affected by the Lieberman-Warner Global Climate Change Legislation

by William W. Beach, Ben Lieberman, David Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Nick Loris
May 20, 2008
WebMemo #1930

Workers and families in the state of New Hampshire may be wondering how climate change legislation before Congress will affect their income, their jobs, and the cost of energy. Members of Congress are considering a number of bills designed to address climate change. Chief among them is S. 2191, America's Climate Security Act of 2007, introduced by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA). 1

The Lieberman–Warner legislation promises extraordinary perils for the American economy, should it become law, all for very little change in global temperature…perhaps even smaller than the .07 of a degree Celsius drop in temperature that many scientists expected from worldwide compliance with the Kyoto climate change accords. S. 2191 imposes strict upper limits on the emission of six greenhouse gases (GHG) with the primary emphasis on carbon dioxide (CO2). The mechanism for capping these emissions requires emitters to acquire federally created permits (called allowances) for each ton emitted.

Arbitrary restrictions predicated on multiple untested and undeveloped technologies will lead to severe restrictions on energy use and large increases in energy costs. In addition to the direct impact on consumers' budgets, these higher energy costs will spread through the economy, injecting unnecessary inefficiencies at virtually every stage of production and consumption.

Implementing S. 2191 will be very costly in New Hampshire, even given the most generous assumptions. Notable costs are listed below in Table 1:

Table 1: Estimated Economic Impact of S. 2191 in New Hampshire

Consumers will be hard hit. Table 2 shows the expected increases in retail energy prices (adjusted to 2006 dollars to eliminate the impact of inflation) in 2025 for New Hampshire. Between 2012, when the restrictions first apply, and 2025, the prices of electricity, natural gas, and gasoline could rise by nearly 20 percent nationally when compared to prices in a world without S. 2191.

Table 2: Changes in Household Energy Prices in New Hampshire Due to S. 2191

Note: The current annual cost of natural gas is based on consumption and prices as of 2006, the most recent data available. The annual cost of gasoline is based on the average price of regular unleaded in each state on May 20, 2008.

In addition to taking a bite out of consumers' pocketbooks, the high energy prices throw a monkey wrench into the production side of the economy. Contrary to the claims of an economic boost from "green" investment and "green-collar" job creation, S. 2191 reduces economic growth, gross domestic product (GDP), and employment.

[1]To learn more about the economic effects of the Lieberman-Warner legislation, see "The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation", CDA Report published on May 12, 2008. This Report is available at www.heritage.org. The authors gratefully acknowledge the work of Dr. Shanea Watkins in preparing the maps used in this briefing memo.

The video below is from the Heritage Foundation from the “This Week in Washington” program shown on Monday’s on C-SPAN.

This is the May 26, 2008 episode

The video below is from the Heritage Foundation from the “This Week in Washington” program shown on Monday’s on C-SPAN.

This is the May 19, 2008 episode

I know that when I was much younger there was talk about putting the Polar Bear on the Endangered Species List as a Threatened Species. I also remember that by the time I graduated High School that the population decline has reversed itself and that the Polar Bear population was beginning to thrive. 

I remember that this was part of the environmentalists plan to stop Prudhoe Bay and the Alaskan Pipeline, but the facts have shown that all wildlife has been thriving in the Alaskan Tundra. 

Last night I heard that the Bush Administration has now placed the Polar Bear on the Endangered Species List as a Threatened Species. I immediately thought to myself “when did this thriving population start declining?” and my second thought was “are the environmentalists and global warming crowd up to their old tricks?”, which seems very likely.

Today I came across this Press Release from the Heritage Foundation:

www.heritage.org

Heritage Foundation Condemns Bush Administration's Polar Bear Decision

WASHINGTON, May 14, 2008—Heritage Foundation President Edwin Feulner today issued the following statement on the Interior Department's decision to place polar bears on the endangered species list:

"Once Americans learn that a species is in danger, we pull out all the stops to protect it. Consider our national symbol, the bald eagle. It was once on the verge of extinction, but conservation has helped these magnificent birds make a strong comeback."

"Polar bears, however, are a different story. There are an estimated 20,000-25,000 wild polar bears today, up from an estimated 8,000-10,000 in the late 1960s. By any measure this species is thriving. It certainly doesn't need further protection from the United States government."

"Today's decision seems aimed at endangering another endeavor: New oil and natural gas production in Alaska and in its surrounding waters. By placing the polar bear on the endangered species list, the Bush Administration has made it extremely difficult – perhaps impossible - to open up even a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil, no matter what administrative window dressings were put in place. That's enough to replace what we'll import from Saudi Arabia over the next 15 years."

"Unfortunately, new energy exploration isn't the only activity that's at risk now that the polar bear is listed as endangered. Environmentalists want to use fears about global warming (supposedly caused by humans, although the globe hasn't warmed in almost 10 years) to limit our country's energy use, and that can apply in any of the 50 states – from Alaska to Florida. They will now attempt to do so under the guise of protecting the polar bear."

"The listing of the polar bear as threatened is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to limit our country's energy exploration and use. The Bush administration should immediately reconsider and overturn today's decision."

©2008 The Heritage Foundation

All Rights Reserved.

214 Massachusetts Ave NE

Washington, DC 20002-4999

phone - 202.546.4400 | fax - 202.546.8328

e-mail - staff@heritage.org

It Appears that I am not the ONLY one thinking this!

The video below is from the Heritage Foundation from the “This Week in Washington” program shown on Monday’s on C-SPAN.

This is the May 12, 2008 episode