There is a last minute push going on around the country to get to as many fence-sitters on the climate change issue as possible to vote NO on the final ballot. Why is this? After all, the legislation is just to put a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses that we pump into the atmosphere each day; we need it to fight global warming. The UN says so, and there is that consensus in the scientific community, and that guy from NASA has been going on about this for years! Al Gore made that movie! If anyone knows about climate and planetary atmospheres, it’s the folks a NASA and Al Gore. Right?

Not so fast. There are a number of reasons why this bill is getting the opposition it is, but it all comes down to two things: Bad science, worse economics.

He Blinded Us with (Bad) Science

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal introduced us to a legislator named Steve Fielding. According to the article:

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

The fact is that more and more scientists and politicians from around the globe are turning away from the idea of man-caused global warming, questioning the computer models, the conclusions and even the science of those who espouse the global warming dogma, the people who have spent more time smearing those who disagreed with global warming than in actually proving their theory. There is now a vigorous debate happening in Asia, Europe and Australia and even here in the US.

Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton 's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

This is not good news for the green/global warming crowd, a fact that is not lost on American Democrats who are working feverishly to ram this legislation through before the tide here turns completely against them. These people are ideologically-driven, not rationally-driven as shown by the way they blissfully ignore the following:

• The earth's temperatures have remained steady since 2001 despite major growth in the amount  of C02 in the atmosphere.
• Peer-reviewed research has debunked the various doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps melting, rising oceans, monster hurricanes, mass extinctions, etc.
• A massive recession is precisely the worst time to kneecap the economy in the name of reining in carbon.

Voodoo Economics

We know how cap and trade is supposed to work: The government puts a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide a business is allowed to generate, and then sells carbon credits that allow the business to generate more. These can then be traded, bought and sold like any other commodity. It’s been tried before, in Europe and Australia, with disastrous results. That’s not political spin, it’s history, and it tells us that cap and trade laws:

• Amount to a massive energy tax
• Have no substantive impact on the environment
• Kill jobs by burdening businesses—especially small businesses
• Cause electricity bills and gas prices to sharply increase
• Force the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs
• Hurt free trade
• Make people choose between energy, groceries, and other necessities
• Are highly susceptible to fraud and corruption
• Hurt senior citizens, the poor, and the unemployed the worst
  
  

American families will pay an additional $3,000 a Year for energy, which falls into line with what President Obama said when he was a candidate, admitting that "Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" under his cap-and-trade Program (January 2008). In fact, the price for all goods and services will skyrocket as the added cost of energy is figured into the final consumer prices. Just consider energy prices. According to recent Heritage economic analyses, the costs of the proposed global warming bill will kick in when it takes effect in 2012. By 2035, a family of four will see the following changes to their energy bill:

• 90 percent increase in electricity costs
• 58 percent increase in gasoline costs
• 55 percent increase in natural gas costs

How affordable is that, especially considering the pseudo-science that all this taxation is based on? Will your small business be able to stay in business with energy costs like this? Remember, these will hit you, your suppliers and your customers. Every use of energy will be so taxed and cost will be sent along to those who pay for the final products.

The Bottom Line

The rest of the world understands this all too well. They experimented with these schemes during the good times and know the damage that these policies can do. President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and many others in the Democratic majority are bound and determined to repeat those mistakes, perhaps feeling as though they can avoid the pitfalls, or perhaps to pay back their political masters in the radical environmental movement. Who knows? What we do know is that not every Congressional Representative has made their decision, so there is still time to stop this where it is.

The following 25 Representatives in Congress are on the fence about this issue. Time is running out, so you might want to call them and let them know how you feel about Cap and Trade and the damage it will do to your business and to your family’s standard of living.

Republicans:
Bartlett (MD) – (202) 225-2721
Bono Mack (CA) - (202) 225-5330
Castle (DE) – (202) 225-4165
Dent (PA) – (202) 225-6411
Ehlers (MI) - (202) 225-3831
Frelinghuysen (NJ) - (202) 225-5034
Gerlach (PA) – (202) 225.4315
Inglis (SC) - (202) 225-6030
Tim Johnson (IL) – (202) 225-2371
Kirk (IL) – (202) 225-4835
Lance (NJ) - (202) 225-5361
LoBiondo (NJ) - (202) 225-6572
Petri (WI) – (202) 225-2476
Platts (PA) - (202) 225-5836
Ros-Lehtinen (FL) – (202) 225-3931
 
Democrats:
Altmire (PA) – (202) 225-2565
Bright (AL) - (202) 225-2901
Dahlkemper (PA) - (202) 225-5406
Drieshaus (OH) - (202) 225-2216
Ellsworth (IN) - (202) 225-4636
Kissell (NC) - (202) 225-3715
Kratovil (MD) - (202) 225-5311
Kanjorski (PA) - (202) 225-6511
Minnick (ID) - (202) 225-6611
Teague (NM) - (202) 225-2365