Posted by
Andrews on Friday, March 06, 2009 3:59:53 PM
While Obama is feeling good about his cap and trade scheme, let us look at the reality.
Let us be clear, it will not be paid by corporations, by and large it will be passed along to consumers, and even Obama's staff admits this. So, in the end, we are talking about higher costs for energy. So, what does that mean.
First, it means health care will be more expensive. Health care in energy intensive, both in procedures themselves and in the manufacture of medical equipment. So any increase in energy costs means a massive increase in health care costs. Expect to see health care costs skyrocket even before the government gets involved in the insurance question.
Nor is that the only health impact. One of the greatest health boons of the last century was our nearly unlimited access to produce during the off-season. Not just canned, but fresh produce could be transported here out of season, allowing us to eat things we normally would not, giving us better diets and improved resistance in the winter months. However, that takes a lot of energy. So expect to see out of season food stuffs rise in price, which will lead to a general decline in their consumption.
Next, the poor will generally see their standard of living decline. While the wealthy and middle class may be able to buy more energy efficient newer appliances and cars, and insulate their homes, the poor often cannot. Since energy forms a larger percentage of their costs, they will likely simply have to do without. Thus, the Obama cap and trade also represents a massively regressive tax.
And then there is the job market. As we are a high-tech employer, specializing in both technological jobs and automated manufacturing, each job requires huge energy inputs. With energy costs rising, productivity will decline dramatically. That will translate into either overall lowering of wages, or a decline in overall employment. Of course jobs in the sectors which do not use much energy will flourish, but those tend to pay less and be less desirable jobs, so I predict an overall decline in wealth.
And those are just the obvious consequences. I am sure there will be many, many more, as well as secondary consequences arising from those I listed.
And all of this to prevent what worst case estimates predict is a 1 degree Celsius temperature rise over the next century?
Some estimates say the Earth was up to 3 degrees C warmer in the 11th-12th centuries,
yet we survived. In fact, that was one of the wealthier times of the Middle ages. So why are we impoverishing ourselves in order to prevent something that is in no way harmful?
POSTSCRIPT
By the way,
the Wikipedia page on the Medieval Warm Period is hilarious! The body contains the usual historical perspective, that Vikings could settle now ice-bound Greenland, and so on, the usual list of all the things warming made possible. On the other hand, a little paragraph and a version of
the "hockey stick" graph at the top argue that the IPCC says there never was such a thing. Apparently, Norse cattle could eat permafrost and Vikings enjoyed sailing through sheets of ice while Swiss villagers liked to live inside glaciers.
Just too amusing for words!