Well, here's another source.. seems to be biased to the deniers side:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.phpAny way you slice it, the official party line as far as the government is concerned still buys into the Al Gore version of things, and introduces rediculous bills to 'combat' global warming, based on this assertion.
An article:
By KEN CALVERT
The "cap and trade" bill pending in the House of Representatives would revolutionize how Americans use and consume energy to combat climate change. U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, and Ed Markey D-Mass., sponsors of the bill, claim that it will create green jobs, increase energy efficiency, and combat global warming. The inconvenient truth is that the legislation will hinder economic recovery, result in a net loss of jobs and do very little to change short- and long-term global temperatures.
What people should know first about cap and trade is that it is a tax, despite the effort (1,200 pages' worth) to hide that fact. The cap and tax would increase the price of fossil fuels, with the cost passed on to consumers.
Here is how cap and tax would work: The bill would cap greenhouse gas emissions -- a byproduct of burning coal, oil and natural gas. These fuels constitute 85 percent of U.S. energy production. From 2005 emission levels, the Waxman-Markey bill would require a 3 percent reduction by 2012, a 17 percent reduction by 2020 and an 83 percent reduction by 2050. The major providers of electricity would be given "allowances" of carbon dioxide, which would be tradable (hence the "trade" portion of the name). The allowances would be reduced each year.
The bill makes energy production more expensive and thus, costlier for us to consume. The point of the bill is to force Americans to use less energy and force energy providers to create new, alternative sources.
The questions on everyone's mind are how much the plan will cost and whether it will work. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2020, Waxman-Markey compliance will cost about $110 billion a year.
The businesses that are forced to pony up this staggering sum will be left with three options: pass the cost on to consumers; move their operations overseas; or close their doors.
Some estimates show that the bill may cost a family of four $1,870 a year in 2020 and $6,800 a year by 2035. Any way you slice it, the economy will suffer.
So after hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs and families are paying excessive costs for energy, what do we get in return? Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger of New Hope Environmental Services has calculated that the bill would reduce the Earth's temperature by a rather anticlimactic 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.
American families simply cannot afford the Waxman-Markey bill. It would put the United States at a severe disadvantage against countries such as China and India, which have said they will not sacrifice prosperity for energy reform.
However, I strongly agree that America must wean itself off of foreign energy sources. That is why I introduced the MORE Act, H.R. 797, which prevents energy exploration and production within 25 miles of a state's coastline, unless the state enacts a law approving such exploration.
The MORE Act also provides coastal states with an increased share of royalty revenue, which would help with our state budget deficit. To help end dependence on fossil fuels, the bill also dedicates a portion of the royalty revenue to renewable energy and energy efficiency research.
I also signed onto the American Energy Act, which would create more supply and less carbon dioxide through increased use of nuclear energy. This "all of the above" strategy takes advantage of domestic energy resources and creates incentives for clean, renewable energy -- the carrot approach. In addition to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, this approach would create all kinds of jobs -- green, high tech and construction.
When a government wants to legislate change in societal behavior, it has the option to use a stick or a carrot. Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress have opted to use the stick to bring about change in the way we use energy. Like many American families, I wish they had chosen the carrot.
Ken Calvert, R-Corona, represents the 44th U.S. Congressional District.
http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/localviews/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_S_op_26_calvert_loc.3aa6ebb.html
