By Jerry McDonough / Chronicle contributor
When Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Transportation Secretary Roy LaHood and EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tried the old “cap and trade” shell game on Capitol Hill the other day (4-22-09) they tried to pass the mess off as a “jobs bill.” Jackson said, “This is a jobs bill and it is a jobs bill that focuses our country’s energy on the growth industry of the future.” But then one of those pesky conservatives, Rep. Joe Barton, asked just how this Jackson cost estimate could be presented when Ms. Jackson admitted she had not even read the bill. Ms. Jackson replied, “We had to make assumptions” meaning it makes an a** out of you and me, I guess. In Ms. Jackson’s “preliminary analysis” the cap and trade “pea” would cost the average American household $98-$140/yr. Unfortunately, or fortunately for normal Americans, most academic studies disagree because they followed the “pea.” MIT Professor John Reilly’s study of the far more lenient Warner-Lieberman Energy Bill, for example, would cost the average American household $3900 in higher energy costs and taxes.
Secretary LaHood utilizing his wisdom stated carbon taxes would create” green jobs” although no one has defined the term “green jobs” just yet. Another example of this is yet another academic study of eco-leftist rhetoric which indicates there is no standard definition of what a “green job” is and most other studies which try to show “green job” creation ignore other jobs lost by energy taxes.
Our “wiz” president loves to use Spain as an example of the “green jobs” future, but a recent study by researchers at Universidad Rey Carlos shows the for each green job created in Spain’s renewable energy industry, 2.2 jobs were destroyed elsewhere in the economy; apparently the Spanish can follow the “pea” better than Americans!
Now let us use a little common sense here. In this competitive world one would think that if carbon taxes actually had a chance of working the entire world would jump on the band wagon. Well, those with more common sense than this administration show the opposite reaction. China said they would never sacrifice their economic growth to reduce carbon emissions and India chimed in with the trade-off between economic growth and carbon emissions is morally wrong.
A strange thing historically occurs when poor countries become rich countries; their carbon emissions go down. Amazing! There is that nasty “COMMON SENSE” thing again! Now if we all too wise Americans could just figure out how to tax the oceans of the world for it is they who factually emit 90+ percent of the earth’s carbon dioxide…
