Global Warmers, CO2, and the Outsourcing of Jobs

A few days ago we witnessed the passage, in the U.S. House of Representatives, of the largest tax placed on Americans in our nation’s history.  I am speaking of Cap-and-Trade.  Irregardless of whether CO2 causes anything, I’d like to examine what can be best described as either the ignorance, stupidity, or naivete of the advocates of Cap-and-Trade (or similar schemes):

“Nations around the world are surging ahead with emission reductions and developing new energy technologies,” Castle, Delaware’s at-large congressman, posted on his House Web site. “The United States should be on equal footing, if not leading this effort to remain competitive.”

For the record, this statement was spoken by Rep. Mike Castle of the Republican Party.

Currently, China has one of the largest economies in terms of exports.  Much of what they produce is exported to the United States.  Republicans in general (and George W. Bush in particular) have been often labeled as being pro-outsourcing of American jobs.  I think that we can all agree that the more CO2 a nation produces because of industrial production, the more products it can assemble and, therefore, the greater its capacity to increase exports and “take away” jobs from other nations.  Combine these facts with the cheap labor poor in China and you have a recipe for becoming an industrial giant.

Take a careful look at the graphic below:

Source: Wikipedia

Even with the global recession, China has continued to grow so this graphic, which is now three years old, would show China’s CO2 emissions being greater than those of the United States.  Remember that statement in the beginning of this article about “nations around the world are surging ahead with emission reductions and developing new energy technologies”?  Well, guess what, it is a lie:

China will not make a binding commitment to reduce carbon emissions, putting in jeopardy the prospects for a global pact on climate change.

Officials from Beijing told a UN conference in Bonn yesterday that China would increase its emissions to develop its economy rather than sign up to mandatory cuts.

What do we care if Denmark or France will cut CO2 emissions if China produces more CO2 than America does!  Will President Obama somehow wave a magic wand and force China to institute the same crippling CO2 caps that he says are necessary?

Progress towards a global treaty to fight climate change took an important step forward today when the US said it would not demand that China commits to binding cuts of its greenhouse gas emissions.

So just what is President Obama trying to do to the American economy, American citizens, and to the future of this nation?  The answer is short: cripple it all:

As we have pointed out, an analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation found that unemployment would increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion.

It is sort of like going out to dinner with five of your friends and you all agree to split the bill evenly.  You eat a light dinner and drink water while your friends live it up and order appetizer after appetizer, champagne, Prime Rib, and wash it all down with a ten layer quadruple chocolate cake.  Your meal, which cost only $25 is easily absorbed by your friends’ bill of $500.  Instead of paying $35 including tip you are forced to shell out $95 for food and drinks you never had.

President Obama is doing the same thing (but with much bigger consequences) to Americans.

I am all in favor of clean water, clean air, and healthy forests but I am not in favor of mass unemployment, the bankruptcy of America families, and a dead economy all because Global Warmers can’t figure out how economics works.

The irony in all of this, of course, is that Democrats, who accuse Republicans of being pro-outsourcing, are trying to create the biggest out-sourcing opportunity in history (U.S. businesses will ship more jobs to China and India where there will be no Cap-and-Trade).

If there is any hope in this sad story it is that the U.S. Senate is likely to kill this bad bill (as they did with President Clinton’s BTU tax).  Investor’s Business Daily summed it up best:

Early in the Clinton administration, the House passed by an almost identical 219-213 vote the infamous Btu tax — a levy on each unit of energy consumed. The tax would have been assessed on the energy content of all fossil fuels as measured in Btu, or British thermal units.It died in the Senate and was used as a campaign issue as the GOP regained control of the House for the first time in 40 years.

Amen to that!

Did you like this article? Get new articles daily for free via RSS or Email.