Las Vegas Review-Journal | Despite the fact there’s no evidence that reversing the industrial revolution in America – eliminating our consumption of fossil fuels – would lower the globe’s temperature by a single degree, Democrats still desperately cling to their so-called American Power Act, which would use a carbon cap-and-trade mechanism in an attempt to reduce “greenhouse-gas” emissions.
But if the pending cap-and-trade bill passes, Nevada can expect to lose thousands more jobs, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in income, the American Council for Capital Formation predicted last week.
The council commissioned Science Applications International Corp. Enhanced Coverage LinkingScience Applications International Corp. to formulate several scenarios using modeling data the federal government has cited.
The findings? The bill would cost Nevada 600 to 900 jobs in 2020, and 10,100 to 13,200 jobs in 2030. Job losses would come from lower industrial production due to higher power prices; the cost of complying with mandated emissions cuts; and competition from overseas manufacturers with lower energy expenses.
What’s more, residential electricity costs could jump as much as 47.2 percent in Nevada, the report said. Residential natural-gas expenses could spike as much as 56.1 percent, and gasoline costs could increase by up to 18.5 percent.
Higher energy prices, job losses and shrinking industrial output would cut Nevada’s gross state product by as much as $324 million in 2020 and $3.8 billion in 2030, the council concluded.
Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy for the far-left Center for American Progress, points out the council received nearly $2 million over the past 12 years from oil companies such as ExxonMobil and global-warming “deniers” including the Koch Family Foundations.
If the methodology of a report can’t be challenged, it seems, the last fall-back these days is to criticize where a firm gets its funding. One wonders if even Thomas Edison’s report on the feasibility of making light bulb filaments out of tungsten wire would be accepted, today. After all, he was funded by a greedy private corporation!
In fact, the Council’s results mirror July findings from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, notes Margo Thorning, chief economist with the American Council for Capital Formation, and herself a former officer at DOE. Similar scenarios in the administration’s report yielded like results, with both the council and the administration predicting a 1.7 percent drop in the nation’s gross domestic product in 2030 if the bill passes.
The big question here is why the left bothers to find fault with the premise that “cap-and-trade” would cost consumers a lot of money, worsening the recession. Have they forgotten what Barack Obama said on the subject in July of 2009?
Mr. Obama admitted that, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. … (It) will cost money; (power companies) will pass that money along to consumers …”
Liberals cheered the prediction at the time, apparently sharing with Mr. Obama the belief that forcing Americans to lower their living standard would be a good thing.
So why deny it now?