Laszlo said:
Read the full file and you will find 700+ scientists who are skeptics. The astronaut's quote was there along with many others some folks won't agree with.
It appears the the deniers are showing some backbone;
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/
Here is why people are concerned;
• Utility Rates and Utility Bills – Energy cost impacts consider the combined effect of
changes in the prices of the fundamental energy commodities and the added cost of
limiting carbon emissions. In the case of electricity and natural gas supplied through
companies regulated by utility commissions, free allowance allocations will mitigate
some of the total cost borne by retail customers. ACESA provides free allocations to
such local distribution companies, but requires that the full cost of carbon still be
reflected in the rates per unit of energy each customer uses. Relative to energy
costs in the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2009 Baseline level, retail natural gas
rates would rise by an estimated 10% ($1.20 per MMBtu) in 2015, by 16% ($2.30 per
MMBtu) in 2030, and by 34% ($5.40 per MMBtu) in 2050. Retail electricity rates are
estimated to increase by 7.3% (1.1 cents per kWh) relative to baseline levels in 2015,
by 22% (2.8 cents per kWh) in 2030 and by 45% (6.1 cents per kWh) in 2050. To the
extent that utilities return the value of their free allocations under ACESA to
customers through reductions in fixed charges, actual total bills for electricity and
natural gas will not rise as much as the rates. Total utility bills may even decline in
the first years of the policy if there is also substantial investment in end-use efficiency
and/or conservation in response to the higher energy rates. We estimate that given
the allocations in ACESA, average U.S. electricity utility bills would decline by about
0.5% in 2015, and then rise by about 4% to 5% in the 2020 to 2025 time period.
Post-2025, as the allocations are phased out bills would rise more dramatically. We
estimate that given the allocations in ACESA, average U.S. natural gas utility bills
would increase by about 2.5% in 2015, and then rise by about 5% to 6% in the 2020
to 2025 time period, then rise more dramatically as the allocations are phased out.
• Transportation Fuel Costs - After an estimated 12 cents per gallon increase in 2015,
costs of using motor fuels are estimated to increase by 5% (23 cents per gallon) in
2030 and increase by 11% (59 cents per gallon) in 2050, relative to baseline levels.
These cost impacts consider the combined effect of changes in the market prices of
the fundamental energy commodities, the added cost of limiting carbon emissions,
and projected shifts towards a lower-carbon mix of energy sources used to fuel the
average vehicle.
• Employment – A net reduction in U.S. employment of 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs in
each year of the policy through 2030. These reductions are net of substantial gains
in “green jobs.” While all regions of the country would be adversely impacted, the
West, Oklahoma/Texas and the Mississippi Valley regions would be
disproportionately affected.
• Wages – Declines in workers’ wages will become more severe with time. The
earnings of an average worker who remains employed would be approximately $170
less by 2015, $390 less by 2030, and $960 less by 2050, relative to baseline levels.
• Household Purchasing Power - The average American household’s annual
purchasing power is estimated to decline relative to the no carbon policy case by
$730 in 2015, by $830 in 2030, and by $940 in 2050. These changes are calculated
against 2010 income levels (the median U.S. household income in 2007 is
approximately $50,000). They would be larger if stated against projected future
baseline income levels.
• Overall Economic Activity - In 2015, gross domestic product (GDP), a commonlyused
measure of total economic activity, is estimated to be 1.0% ($170 billon) below
the baseline level driven principally by declining consumption. In 2030, GDP is
estimated to be roughly 1.3% ($350 billon) below the baseline level. In 2050, GDP is
estimated to be roughly 1.5% ($730 billon) below the baseline level.
• Green jobs versus effects on total employment - Despite the promise of green jobs,
ACESA would, if enacted, inevitably depress total employment from baseline levels.
The bill would divert resources now used to produce additional goods and services
into the work of obtaining energy from sources that are more costly than fossil fuels.
It would, therefore, lower the sum of goods and services produced by the economy
and hence the output per unit of labor. Worker compensation will decline asproductivity falls. Although part of the decline in total compensation will show up as a
decrease in earnings per worker, many factors inhibit decreases in average
compensation. Another result of lowered productivity is likely, therefore, to appear in
the form of lower employment levels.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=8230a041-2d13-4812-b5ed-ea9b2965faa0
If this the co2 hysteria is even patially based on science that is dubious why as a nation are we so willing to put the hurt on our economy?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram