Study: Cap and Trade is a Job Killer

A recent study by the National Association of Manufacturers predicts that the result of enacting Cap and Trade could cost Wisconsin 41,600-56,700 jobs.

A new study by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) found widespread economic hardship in store for Wisconsin consumers and businesses if Congress adopts H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey global warming legislation.

The bill narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June, and is currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate. Click here to view the full report and how it affects Wisconsin.

“Wisconsin citizens can expect higher electric bills, higher heating bills and higher gasoline prices if Congress passes the Waxman-Markey bill,” said James S. Haney, WMC President. “At a time when we are struggling to keep high-paying manufacturing jobs in our state, this bill would take us in the wrong direction with tens of thousands of additional lost jobs.”

Wisconsin consumers and employers would be hit disproportionately hard by global warming regulations because of the state’s significant investment in coal-fired electricity, and the state’s status as the single-most manufacturing intensive economy in the country. The study found that key Wisconsin industrial sectors, including papermaking, machinery manufacturing and other energy intensive industries, would lose thousands of manufacturing jobs as a result of higher energy costs stemming from Waxman-Markey.

As a coal dependent state with a heavy reliance on manufacturing, Cap and Trade could devastate Wisconsin.  Click here to contact yours Senators to oppose any bill that is not fair to Wisconsin and other state that rely on coal for energy.

Study Shows Cap and Trade Will Cost You

The Co-Authors of the Cap and Trade bill, Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and Ed Markey (D-Ma.), commissioned a study with with US Energy Information Administration to analyze the costs of their bill.  The results are in….

The EIA is the official source of U.S. government statistics on energy. As its Web site boasts, it “provides policy-neutral data, forecasts, and analyses to promote sound policy making, efficient markets, and public understanding regarding energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment.”

It is not a partisan organization and its record is impeccable.

The bottom line of the EIA’s projections is that, through the year 2030—which is as far out as the modeling will allow it go with any degree of certainty—the legislation that passed the House “increases energy prices.” EIA’s independent conclusion confirms what the opponents of the cap-and-trade bill have been saying all along—that the regulatory approach backed by the Obama White House will lead to higher energy prices for the American consumer, making it a tax on American family energy use.

Don’t forget to log in to PowerLines and let your Senators know what you think of higher energy prices!

Paul Ryan on Cap and Trade

Recently, Congressman Paul Ryan penned an editorial on the affects of Cap and Trade:

The last thing Wisconsin families need is higher energy prices. But the House passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would do just that. By requiring all energy producers to buy expensive government permits in order to produce energy from certain natural resources or to produce certain goods such as steel or cement, cold-weather states such as Wisconsin will take direct hits in higher energy costs. As a result, I voted against this measure.

While this bill’s proponents promise new “green” jobs and less reliance on oil, they ignore what American taxpayers already pay to support cleaner energy production. Taxpayers already provide a nearly 40 percent subsidy rate for solar and wind producers; $15 billion per year for other renewable energy sources and conservation programs; $24 billion for the energy-related portion of the Department of Energy’s budget; and $39 billion to the so-called “stimulus” bill for other energy projects.

But they claim we need to spend more. Their plan’s “cap and tax” scheme claims it can slow global warming by raising the cost of fossil fuels, which provide 86 percent of U.S. energy. The bill’s authors tried to reduce its impact on households through complicated allowances, tax credits and rebates; but the fact remains: this plan will raise the cost of energy by $1 trillion over the next 10 years—12 times our current energy spending. That cost will fall on American families through higher energy prices, higher taxes, more government debt or a combination of all three.

It’s clear that Cap and Trade is just another tax which will directly impact industrial states like Wisconsin.  We encourage our readers to log in to PowerLines and keep the pressure on their representatives.

Cap and Trade Could Impact Utility Bills

A story out of Iowa reports on how the proposed cap and trade legislation could impact energy bills in the Midwest.

It’s supposed to be good for the environment, but some say it could cause a big hike in your energy bills. The American Clean Energy Act is designed to reduce green house gas emissions by creating a national limit or cap.

It would allow companies to buy, sell or trade their emission credits. However, Iowa energy companies say you’re the one who will pay.

“We don’t think that’s fair for customers. Whenever we see something like that that would adversely affect customers we are very aggressive,” says Dean Crist of MidAmerican Energy.

Iowa energy companies say the cap and trade system is unfair for providers in Iowa because of how we make our energy.

“The way the allotment is set up right now it harms utilities in the upper Midwest, like those that heavily rely on coal,” says Scott Drzycimski of Alliant Energy.

Coal causes more pollution than other kinds of energy. MidAmerican says they would reach the cap at 50 percent of their output, requiring them to buy $280 million dollars in credits.

Wisconsin, like Iowa, is extremely reliant on coal for energy generation.  In Wisconsin, over two-thirds of the power plants are fueled by coal.  Cap and Trade could prove detrimental to a state not only  reliant on coal, but an economy with a heavy manufacturing base.

Congress Introduces Costly Climate Change Legislation

Reps. Henry Waxman (D-California) and Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) have introduced a 684 page draft bill called the “Clean Energy and Security Act,” which includes sweeping policy proposals, including a cap-and-trade program. The bill calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and mandates tougher efficiency standards for appliances. The bill also requires that the U.S. derive 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. The bill fails to specify exactly how the costs of the emitting carbon will recovered. It calls for a cap-and-trade system that would place a limit on how much greenhouse gas emissions businesses and companies would be allowed to emit and requires companies to seek permits to emit beyond that amount. However, the bill fails to specify how the system would work. On the encouraging side, earlier this month, the U.S. Senate passed a measure requiring that any legislation seeking to impose a cap-and-trade program must receive sixty votes in order to pass. The vote will make passing any cap-and-trade legislation extremely difficult since Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, but do not, by themselves, have the votes necessary to reach the 60-vote threshold.

Next Entries »