The June 19 Wall Street Journal
article, "The Big Chill," explains that there are very few benefits of a cap-and-trade energy policy. In fact, the cost of reducing emissions turns out to be greater than the cost they impose on societies.
"An April study by Charles River Associates tells us that if the Obama proposal to reduce CO2 emissions becomes law, it will have a serious impact on the availability and cost of energy," said the article. "By 2025, just 16 years from now, the cost of natural gas would rise 56%, electricity 44% and motor fuel 19%. Annual household purchasing power would annually decline by an average of $1,827. And America will lose 3.2 million jobs."
The article further illustrates the detrimental effects of emissions programs, citing a 1999 estimate by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, which determined that "the emissions cuts the Kyoto Protocol would have required in 2010 were likely to reduce America's GDP by $275 billion to $468 billion, or $921 to $1,565 per person." The Bank explained that, "Of course, Kyoto does not apply to fast-growing developing countries such as China and India."
According to the article, "Energy development and creation have been essential to America's success over the past several centuries, and they are important for America's future. But the Obama-Waxman-Markey legislation has it backwards: By reducing energy availability, their proposals would kill jobs, reduce purchasing power, shrink the economy, and raise the cost of every fuel we use."
"All of which would have almost zero impact on global warming. America cannot go forward successfully with this kind of thinking. We need nuclear power, more oil and gas to support our increasing energy needs, and a clear understanding that depriving us of energy, as this bill would do, would be a very substantial mistake," said The Wall Street Journal.