I read an article from Fox News earlier this evening regarding Mitt Romney’s energy independence plan. According to the article:

In a campaign speech in Hobbs, N.M., a few weeks ago, the GOP presidential nominee told the crowd, “I will set a national goal of North American independence by 2020. That means we produce all the energy we use in North America.

Seems like every presidential candidate since Carter has had one of those. None of them achieved it but they did bring us close. In spite of its many critics, NAFTA did do one good thing for the United States: made Canada and Mexico our two biggest oil providers, providing us with more than half of our oil. Saudi Arabian imports are now between 13-15%, which means less American money being redirected to terrorist groups and theocratic uprisings. Venezuelan imports are even less. OPEC’s stranglehold over us has been substantially reduced. And North American energy production is rising. All of this is good. But someone with no understanding of basic supply and demand or cost-benefit analysis decided to attack the GOP nominee.

Here’s what the beef was all about:

In addition to opening up new areas for offshore drilling, Romney says his energy independence goal can be accomplished by speeding up the time it takes to get permits to drill on federal lands. The way to do that, he says, is by putting state regulators in charge of the federal process just as they already are on state and private lands.

Said the article.

My immediate reaction: FINALLY! This is the Mitt Romney I’ve been wanting to see. After a mediocre campaign with mediocre positions, not much detail on how to get government out of our lives, and poor understanding of the duties of the federal government, Mitt Romney took a tenth amendment position that is much needed. A great deal of the mountain west is federally owned land. It should be given back to the states and the states should be in charge of any resources within their borders–with the federal government only involved in cross-border disputes.

But Pete Maysmith, executive director of Colorado Conservation Voters wasn’t exactly happy. He said:

“Governor Romney’s energy proposal … ignores the facts and is a giveaway to his big oil campaign supporters at the expense of our air, land and water. Energy production in the United States is at a 20-year high. So the problem is not regulations, the problem is not lack of access to federal lands.”

I don’t care what your political views are or who you are voting for. And there are many reasons not to like Mitt Romney. However, this is not one of them!

I don’t know if Mr. Maysmith is right or wrong about energy production being at a 20 year high. What I do know is this: IT DOES NOT MATTER!

That’s right. His conclusion might be partially factual in this and only this: most large energy companies are more than willing to comply with basic safety regulations. I’m a member of the Houston Economics Club, and such was the position that Andrew Slaughter, a former Chair of the National Petroleum Council, took at one of our meetings last January.

Most of the anti-fracking hype has been factually incorrect; I won’t get into detail on that but I’m just giving you an example: energy companies have engineered new methods of groundwater protection. So the private sector has addressed the problem, to the point where regulation should be toned down to a property-damage perspective. Not all regulation is bad. Property rights are paramount, and property damage must be prevented.

If you want more information on groundwater protection you can find it in this presentation by Slaughter found here

The point of my article is simply this: his premise is patently false, as is his conclusion that we should not increase access to federal lands.

It is not a matter of energy being at a 20 year high it is a matter of IT COULD BE HIGHER!.

Just because an industry is doing better than ever is no excuse for them not to try and do even better. America needs cheaper energy to prevent an economic collapse. I’m going to go through the dynamics here to justify my premises.

Our demand is probably higher than its even been, which means unless the supply goes up the price of your electric bill or filling up your gas tank will never be lower. It’s bad enough that Ben Bernanke’s quantitative easing policies devalue the dollar and enable speculators to drive up the price. It’s also bad enough that because of the globalized 21st century economy, prices rise even further due to the unrest in the Muslim world driving down production in the OPEC countries. Finally there is the rapid industrialization of several large emerging economies: China, India and Brazil. Brazil has a growing offshore oil supply and is ramping up its production, but China and India are not oil rich nations and cannot do the same.

So your energy prices are high, and they will only go higher if there isn’t more expansion of domestic energy production, not just in oil, but in natural gas, wind, nuclear, clean coal, and even–when cost effective–solar. Quite frankly, claiming our production being at a 20 year high (if that’s true) as a reason to stop expanding is pure economic dumbassery.

With our rising national debt, our lackluster job growth, our politicians’ inability to lessen the uncertainty on the private sector, and the Federal Reserve’s massive injections of new dollars into the market–that aren’t backed by economic growth–we face a much bigger problem than the problems conservationists tackle on a regular basis. We face the threat of an economic meltdown, the fall of the United States as a superpower and a much more difficult way of life than anyone in this country who is under the age of 70 or didn’t grow up in an undeveloped country could ever imagine. Its not a matter of Democrats vs. Republicans (and I know the irony of me saying that from a Republican website), its a matter of supply and demand.

Fiat money, when not backed by a hard asset such as silver or gold, is only good if there is demand for it. Demand for the US dollar is not rising as fast as the Federal Reserve is running its printing presses. This will lead to inflation, as long as the Fed continues to pursue this while keeping its interest rates low. Even Keynes, whose followers today laugh at the thought of a dollar collapse and who didn’t predict the housing bubble or 2008 economic crash (with the exception of Nouriel Roubini and few others), knew that increasing money supply should be done during a period of strong economic growth, not the anemic year-to-year growth we have seen over the past couple of years. If you increase the supply when the demand isn’t nearly as strong, you devalue the dollar.

Some Austrian school economic alarmists believe hyperinflation is inevitable. While they deserve credit for predicting the 2008 crash years before it happened, I can’t say I agree with its inevitability. However, I do see it as a possibility. Continuous increases in the money supply, with weak increases in demand for that dollar, and politicians’ inability to tackle our national debt could lead to a fall in confidence of our dollar. That’s the difference between hyperinflation and inflation. The latter is rising prices, the former is when other countries see a significant reduction in the value of your currency, and begin to dump it for other currencies or commodities. Demand for your currency plummets and as a result, the price of everyday living requirements skyrockets.

It’s not a risk worth taking, and neither is inflation. So while our politicians bicker like children and fail to address the debt, economic growth is the only thing that will stop the two.

Increasing our domestic energy production is perhaps the best shot we have at this for many reasons.

Ramping up energy production will create jobs in the industry. More unemployed people go back to work, start paying taxes again, and revenues to the federal government increase.

When people aren’t unnecessarily wasting as much of their money on gasoline and utilities they can be more productive with that spending by spending it on other industries or investing it into new capital. This creates even more jobs. And I do say we are wasting because if the price can be much lower, you’re being inefficient. Inefficiency is a waste.

Lower energy prices  cause the price of other goods to come down across the board, because transportation costs pretty much affect everything. So this offsets some of the inflation that will happen as a result of quantitative easing.

The growth in the economy will strengthen demand for the US dollar, further offsetting  Bernanke’s disastrous easing policies and preventing a dollar collapse prior to his replacement in 2014 (in the case of a Romney victory).

I imagine that Bernanke’s replacement in the event of a Romney victory will be Martin Feldstein. My familiarity with his work suggests to me he would finally allow interest rates to rise and roll back QE3. If this were to happen, we could prevent a debt crisis and a dollar collapse provided our politicians finally figure out how to balance the federal budget. With economic growth, balancing the budget comes much easier.

What I hope everyone takes away from this article is: WE SHOULD NEVER STOP! We should never stop trying to ramp up energy production so long as it cannot meet the demand at the cheapest possible price–and for you conservationists out there, I mean we will do it in a responsible manner. Pete Maysmith–who I hope reads this and learns a thing or two–made a huge error in his premise by ignoring the laws of supply and demand. This line of thought is poisonous, and I ask of my readers that you share this article with as many people as you can. The less people believe his ridiculous notion, that the goal for any or industry to stagnate or decrease production at any level, for any reason, other than falling demand or maxed out capacity, the better off we will be. And as the research shows, rising global energy demand is inevitable and we are far from incapable of increasing the supply in a responsible manner.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Aaron Alghawi obtained a B.S. in Economics from Texas A&M University in 2012, and is a National At-Large Board Member of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

These days it sometimes seems like many on the right have forgotten the meaning of ‘conservative’ and replaced it with other, more limited ideas which do poor service as a substitute for a coherent conservative philosophy. They might better be described as ‘moralists’ or ‘theocrats’ or ‘corporatists’ or adherents to any of a number of special interests which might have some things in common with conservatism, but lack the broad philosophical applicability.

Conservatism is simple. It is the belief in moderation, traditionalism and stability. Conservatives oppose change for change’s sake, want to preserve the good qualities of the past, and oppose waste and excess.  This is a positive philosophy, preserving the good and opposing undesirable change.  Conservatism can be applied to any area of life, including stewardship of our natural environment.

The preservation of our natural resources is essential to the welfare of our citizens. I want to preserve the natural beauty of our nation and to provide a healthy environment for our children. This is a goal which I think all conscientious citizens should work towards. This does not mean that I support the imposition of draconian laws on individuals and businesses in the interest of unproven environmental theories, and I absolutely oppose sacrificing individual rights to intrusive federal overregulation or attempts by international special interests to impose their will on our citizens.

Federal environmental legislation has been used as a tool by special interest groups to interfere with free trade and force their social agenda on local communities all over our country. Farmers and businessmen have been driven into bankruptcy, private citizens have been denied access to resources and free use of their own property, and our entire society has been burdened with the cost of whimsical and unnecessary legislation.  Conservation and the environment are important, but this vital work should be in the hands of the people, not the federal government.

The environmental movement has been remarkably successful in recent years. Sadly,  instead of aiming their efforts towards working directly for the good of the environment, through education and private conservation programs, they have spent most of their time and money lobbying the federal government, which has taken more money from the citizens to finance ill-conceived environmental schemes, pass invasive and destructive laws, violate property rights, all the while administering its environmental programs in its usual ham-handed and inefficient manner.  If the efforts of environmentalists were turned towards improving conditions in their own communities and actually doing something about the environment rather than lobbying and scare tactics, far more could be achieved.

Today we face the new threat of international special interests which are attempting to use environmental policy as a way of reshaping the world economy to their own benefit. Nations which do far more ecological damage per capita than the United States have targeted us for persecution because of our prosperity and productivity. It is that very prosperity which has given us the luxury to care so much for our environment in the past, and as we continue to prosper, our success should always carry with it an obligation to care for the land in which we live. But it remains our land and our environment and its care should remain in our hands and not be subject to the agendas of international movements who care little for our welfare or our rights.

Conservation is a personal and individual responsibility.  We should each choose to do what we can to minimize our impact on the environment because it is the moral and conservative thing to do.  The heart of true conservatism is responsibility and the principle that our actions should not harm others. If our actions harm the environment then they have a cumulative effect of harming all of those around us.  This places on us a moral obligation not to be wasteful and not to be destructive and to use the resources at our disposal responsibly.

This is a commitment which we should each make and which should not be imposed by arbitrary standards set by government.  If some individual or some entity fails in their moral responsibility to conserve resources and the environment and does not limit themselves to reasonable consumption,  they should be held accountable by neighbors and by customers and by the judgment of society.  In a rational world that ought to be sufficient to motivate them to change.  If it is not and if harm can be proven, then the court system ought to be the correct recourse for punishing irresponsibility, not preemptive government dictates.

If what self-identified environmentalists want is truly just a healthier environment and responsible stewardship of natural resources then rather than resorting to the abusive interpositions of government they ought to embrace the idea of conservation as a personal responsibility and encourage others to accept that conservative value.  Far more good can be done by raising public awareness than was ever done by passing any law or regulation.  Remember the “crying Indian” commercials of the 1970s?  If you don’t, then look them up.  That ad campaign did more good for the environment than anything the EPA has done in the last 30 years, primarily by making people aware that the responsibility for a healthy  environment was in their hands.

“We of an older generation can get along with what we have, though with growing hardship; but in your full manhood and womanhood you will want what nature once so bountifully supplied and man so thoughtlessly destroyed; and because of that want you will reproach us, not for what we have used, but for what we have wasted…So any nation which in its youth lives only for the day, reaps without sowing, and consumes without husbanding, must expect the penalty of the prodigal whose labor could with difficulty find him the bare means of life.” Theodore Roosevelt – “Arbor Day – A Message to the School-Children of the United States” April 15, 1907

Liberty Republicans, given our belief that wealth creating market based initiatives are superior to those subsidized by taxpayers via government, are often accused of opposing green energy and other so called pro-environment schemes. Many on the left seem to believe that if you’re for the pro-growth policy of letting investors and entrepreneurs hash it out in the private sector without government interference, it in turn means you must have no regard for the environment.

As a libertarian who is very much pro-environment and extremely interested in alternative energy and ecological stewardship, I of course reject that premise. I’d contend that part of the problem with our energy and environmental policies are the fact that as government gets bigger, elected officials don’t hesitate to jump into bed with giant corporations, in turn, yielding a firestorm of status quo protection behind closed doors. Yet in the meantime, to coddle various constituencies, while the aforementioned cronyism disguised as capitalism distorts the market, politicians offer shallow “green” initiatives subsidized by redistributing our money, all while suppressing legitimate alternatives that could potentially compete in the market.

For example, the 2006 documentary, Who Killed The Electric Car?, points out the fact that the oil industry, through its lobbying group Western States Petroleum Association, financed campaigns to suppress the EV1 car in the marketplace, and worked closely with the federal government to see that its needs were met. If an electric car cannot compete in the market on its own, or without the aid of a legislative mandate (as in California), then it should fail. But if legitimate greener alternatives are being suppressed by corporatism, that’s highly problematic. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining that more intervention from the federal government of the United States, the world’s most powerful monopoly, will solve the problem of giant corporate interests, who are friends to DC politicians, suppressing market competition.

However, despite, if not directly in protest of the aforementioned distortions, I’m extremely interested from a free market perspective in the work that Patrick Cox, a technology watcher and self-described “transformational profit seeker” with Agora Financial, who has worked extensively with an up and coming energy alternative based on thorium. In the wake of the Fukushima meltdown disaster in Japan, Cox believes that despite negativity about nuclear power, the use of thorium as opposed to uranium is a game changer.

As the Baltimore Sun recently reported:

“Patrick Cox remains bullish on a nuclear renaissance despite Fukushima, and his reason is about the size of a golf ball.

‘Imagine,’ he says, ‘a piece of rock the size of a golf ball giving a person a lifetime supply of electricity. A piece the size of an SUV could give a lifetime supply of energy to a town of about 50,000 people.’

If there is ever going to be a nuclear expansion sufficient to significantly reduce coal-fired (and greenhouse gas-producing) electrical generation, thorium may be the answer, say its supporters. It can solve a lot of the problems associated with the present generation of nuclear reactors and instill public confidence in atomic energy as the long-term alternative to fossil fuels.”

Sounds interesting. But, can thorium compete in the market with cronyism distorting outcomes? Will it inevitably end up incorporated into a program rife with federal subsidies because government regulation of energy will never allow for real market competition? What does the future hold for this potentially world altering silvery metal?

Patrick Cox was kind enough to provide the Republican Liberty Caucus with his insights.

RLC:

Mr. Cox, as we’re sure you’re quite well aware of, there’s been a lot of buzz about green energy coming from DC politicians. However, it seems that so many of the initiatives they champion rely heavily on government subsidies. For example, Section 1603 of the Recovery Act gave programs direct cash grants for “green jobs”, and it is estimated that this legislation led to one fourth of all wind power capacity installed in the United States in 2009. Given your career as a technology watcher and the work you’ve done researching and working with thorium, do you believe that thorium ultimately has enough inherent value to compete in the market as a legitimate, and greener, energy alternative?

Cox:

I’m not actually sure what “green energy” is. As Bjørn Lomborg and many others have pointed out, air and water quality in the developed world is better than it has ever been. In fact, the correlation of high environmental qualities with economic progress would indicate to me that the best way to assure a clean environment is to allow the economy to grow.  Because energy is the largest sector of the economy and energy costs are included as a major component is virtually all product sectors, the best way to encourage economic growth is to lower energy costs. Raising the cost of energy acts as a subtraction to economic growth. Forcing the use of higher cost energy slows economic growth and therefore makes it more difficult to implement expensive pollution control measures.

I don’t consider CO2 a pollutant, by the way. Having seen CO2 models fail spectacularly in the last few years, I think it’s pretty obvious now that the scientists who have been saying that solar cycles are the primary climate driver were correct. I speak regularly with some very wealthy investors and the really smart money has been betting that we are entering into a period of global cooling for some time. Recent announcements by the American Astronomical Society reinforce my projections of global cooling, bolstered by falling ocean temperatures.

As for government subsidization of so-called green energy, the Spanish experience has shown that you cannot create wealth by raising the cost of energy, which is the practical effect of green energy policies. While consumer prices might appear to be competitive, the actuality is that total costs are higher despite subsidies.

The associated Keynesian argument that “green make-work” creates employments also discredited, though it was never believed by anyone with any actual economic educational background. Even the president’s ex-advisor Christina Romer has pointed out that there is a significant and negative multiplier effect caused by the transfer of resources from the economically self-sustaining private sector to the government sector. Green energy is a transfer of resources away from markets to non-market activities and, as such, is a drag on economic growth. Subsidies and tax incentives slow economic growth and create unemployment.

Thorium, however, is ridiculously abundant. America has all of the mineral it needs for many thousands of years of electrical power. It is also inherently safer than current nuclear technologies for many reasons including proliferation resistance, waste elimination and reactor design. Even current uranium nuclear technologies, by the way, are safer than many other energy sources, including coal. Read my old friend Petr Beckmann’s work in this regard.

RLC:

Do you agree that corporatism, or rather, a strong relationship between big government and big corporations, plays into the suppression of potentially successful alternative energy initiatives? If so, do you believe this, at least in part, debunks the claim that looking to government as the exclusive provider of green energy alternatives is the wrong path for America’s future?

Cox:

Of course, corporatism is a huge drag on innovation. Existing industries naturally use their clout with government to squelch competition and innovation. This is particularly true with regards to nuclear power, which is far more regulated even than pharmaceuticals.

RLC:

Given significant increases in gas prices recently, there’s no doubt that general discussions about energy policy will play a large role in the 2012 elections – particularly the Republican primary. Do you think discussions about thorium, especially as a way to offer an alternative to current policy, will be on the table? If so, do you see thorium being dealt with from a top down, federally subsidized approach, or do you think that thorium will rise to prominence on its own merits through free market initiatives and private investment?

Cox:

I have no idea whether or not thorium will become a political issue. I expect you’re a much better judge of such matters than me. Incidentally, “than” is both a preposition and a conjunction. Even in England where it is considered to be only a conjunction, “than” requires the object pronoun. Anyway, there will have to be at least some top-down change before thorium can compete iin the marketplace simply because nuclear energy is so regulated.

RLC:

Do you think that political opponents of nuclear power – both those who are against it for environmental and/or safety reasons, and those who oppose it to protect their own interests in the energy industry  – will come out against thorium, or stay silent on the matter? Given your prediction, how will the outcome impact energy policy moving forward?

Cox:

The usual suspects have already come out against nuclear power of any kind, which axiomatically includes thorium. The coming elections will undoubtedly play an important role in determining whether American energy policies are aimed at reducing energy costs or achieving “green” fantasies.

Fortunately, the rest of the world is pushing thorium hard right now. Red Star in Russia is the largest supplier of reactors in Asia and they’ve got a prototype thorium reactor running now. Recently, the French reactor company, Areva, began developing thorium plans. Areva sells most of Europe’s reactors. India is now burning thorium commercially and China has announced intentions to rapidly develop thorium reactors.

Thorium will be used in the next generation of reactors regardless of what Americans do. As an investment adviser and economist, my focus has to be on helping my people prosper, not on American policy. Given the global electronic community, there are many ways for individuals to profit from this technological revolution.

Personally, however, it irks me. We are being left behind, which is ironic because Americans Edward Teller and Alvin Radkowski were the original proponents of thorium nuclear energy. In fact, the first full-scale civilian power plant, designed by Radkowski, came online in 1956 and burned thorium. When you hear people saying that it will take many years to develop, you can rest assured that they are wrong. It may take many years for the bureaucrats to approve thorium fuels and reactors but it’s not a difficult on a technical basis.

Unfortunately, “progressive” anti-nuclear activists allied with the traditional uranium reactor industry have successfully kept America from implementing thorium power. There is no physical energy shortage. We have government created shortages. There’s more than enough affordable energy in America if we were allowed to develop it. We could then stop sending trillions to foreign sources unfriendly to democracy and American interests, by the way.

What the heck is going on in Montana?

Montana Republicans have a huge majority in the State House and a small majority in the State Senate, so they should be moving productive legislation along without trouble. Unfortunately, two recent examples show that they are not committed to common sense government at all, but are instead beholden to special interests, corporate socialism, and the nanny state.

You’re not even going to believe the legislation being courted by Montana Republicans! Check it out:

Montana Republicans Try to Gut Medical Marijuana Law

With the exception of Republican Liberty Caucus-endorsed State Representatives Jerry O’Neill and Mike Miller and several moderate Republicans, the rest of the Republican elected officials in Montana voted to gut the voter-approved medical marijuana law last week.

Because Governor Brian Schweitzer (Democrat) vetoed the Republican attempts to kill the law, BusinessWeek reports that “Many lawmakers from both parties say something needs to be done to rein in medical marijuana in Montana now that it has reached beyond those with severe illnesses for whom voters in 2004 meant the law to apply.”

According to the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, there are 29,948 registered users in the state. As we reported earlier, last month the federal government decided they needed to step in by raiding medical marijuana businesses in the state under the guise of investigating “drug trafficking and tax evasion.” This despite a promise from the Obama Administration claimed it would not override state law.

According to BusinessWeek,

“Three lawmakers from each chamber will begin meeting this week in a conference committee to figure out the final form of the overhaul measure, Senate Bill 423, before it lands on the governor’s desk. Since the beginning of the session House Bill 161, a repeal of the voter-approved marijuana law, has been the favored measure of Republican leadership. House Speaker Mike Milburn, R-Cascade, carried the bill through the Legislature but the possibility of a governor veto forced Republicans to work up a contingency plan.

Last month, Republican lawmakers made a last-minute introduction of a bill to overhaul of Montana’s medical marijuana industry. After Republican fears of a governor veto became a reality Wednesday, the overhaul measure carried by Senate Majority Leader Jeff Essmann, R-Billings, has become what is likely the last chance the Legislature has to restrict medical marijuana. But the measure has not had an easy passage and it still has key hurdles left to clear with just a few days left in the session to do it.”

The only common sense on this issue, aside from Governor Brian Schweitzer, is from RLC-endorsed legislators like Jerry O’Neill and Mike Miller. According to Representative Miller, “If the federal laws (related to the Montana state medical marijuana law) were gone, it could be just another prescription filled by a pharmacist. The bottom line is that the legislature did not do its job and put the appropriate rules/laws in place once the initiative passed in 2004. I believe it is up to the legislature to fix the mess it created. And it is a huge mess and it is being grossly abused by some,” Miller said.

Miller took what apparently is an unpopular position, concluding at his website, “While many people disagree with my vote to not repeal, I hope this helps them to understand it a little better.”

RLC-endorsed Reps. Jerry O’Neill and Mike Miller voted to protect the Montana medical marijuana law.

Renewable Energy, Curbing Property Rights via “Corporate Socialism”

According to LibertarianRepublican.net, “Sounding like something straight out of an Ayn Rand novel, a renewable energy corporation out of Canada is pushing legislation to allow for seizure of private property rights in Eastern Montana. The Bill pits small landowners such as ranchers in Eastern Montana, against government-backed corporate interests and many environmental groups in support of renewable energy.”

From the Great Falls Tribune, “Montana Senate revives eminent domain bill”:

“HB 198 would grant private developers — including Canadian developer Tonbridge Power — the ability to use eminent domain authority to condemn private property so that transmission lines can be built.

The company wants to build a 214-mile international Tie Line through Montana and Alberta. The bill would [give] Tonbridge the authority it needs to condemn private property along the proposed MATL route in Montana.”

After nearly three hours of debate, 16 Democrats sided with 12 Republicans to pass the measure.

Republican proponents of the measure said if the legislature failed to enact HB 198, it could doom the state’s economy.

“We need an export economy in this state,” Senator Alan Olson said. “We make money to fund our education system, and we make money to fund our senior services on an export economy. If a minority interest is going to shut down an export economy, if we continue to circulate that same stale dollar around the state, we’re done.”

Opponents of the measure, including Sen. Art Wittich, R-Bozeman, said the bill would give private corporations unprecedented power, while sacrificing the rights of private property owners.

“It’s corporate socialism at its best,” Wittich said.

“To me, good government is limited government that respects everyone’s rights and properties,” Wittich says. “I support accountability in government spending and promoting private sector prosperity by adding value to our resources.”

The bill goes for a final vote on Thursday. Then, it heads to Democrat Governor Brian Schweitzer for his signature.

It is not known if Schweizter would sign the legislation, but it appears likely that he would.

RLC member Eric Dondero worked to get a property rights initiative on the ballot in Montana in 2006. Here, he is collecting a signature from a resident.

From Young Americans for Liberty:

Like an old joke turned ironically true, it seems that the government is now preparing to actually tax us for breathing. This comes in the form of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 sponsored by Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) which is likely to come to the floor of the Congress as early as this Friday. It is the legislative culmination of the ongoing eco-madness based on the idea that the carbon dioxide is a form of toxic pollution, despite the fact that it is produced in nature, is part of the atmospheric cycle on which all life is based, and is shown to stimulate plant growth and the replenishment of the atmosphere.

Of course, the truth is that carbon dioxide is not an environmental threat, but is merely being raised as a bogeyman to allow for the passage of laws like this new energy bill whose real purpose is social engineering and anti-capitalism. It’s the perfect bogeyman because it’s everywhere and can never actually be eliminated plus it’s produced by almost every human activity — we even breathe it out with every breath. This means that a “carbon tax” can be applied to almost anything and becomes an excuse for raising taxes on everyone through indirect methods where the taxes end up being passed on to consumers in the form of energy price increases. John Dingell (D-MI) who is the senior Democrat in the House admitted recently that “nobody in the country realizes cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.”

The heart of this energy bill is the idea of a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide and other more serious pollutants, specifically targeting fossil fuels and making it costlier to use them, thereby pushing energy businesses to move into more earth-friendly sources of power. This is combined with the idea of “cap and trade” which allows companies which produce high emissions to buy offsets from companies which produce low emissions, thereby subsidizing the low polluters at the cost of the high polluters.

This all sounds great in abstract, but the problem is that 85% of America’s energy currently comes from fossil fuels of one sort or another, so the initial aggregate cost of the program will be huge. The other problem is that cap and trade just doesn’t work. As has been demonstrated in those nations where it has been used, energy companies find it more practical to just pass on the additional cost to consumers so the net result of all of this is not a reduction in pollution, just a massive increase in prices for energy consumers — effectively a big additional personal tax on every man woman and child in the nation, something they can ill afford in hard economic times.

Analysis of the consumer cost which this program would create suggests that by 2035 the price of gasoline would increase 58 percent, natural gas would go up 55 percent, home heating oil would increase 56 percent, and the typical electric bill would go up a whopping 90 percent. These would be increases to the baseline price and in addition to added cost from inflation and any natural fluctuation in the price of oil. In addition there would be secondary costs as the higher prices impact transportation and manufacturing and create sudden artificial inflation in almost every area of the economy. The finall cost for consumers would be almost $3000 per year starting as soon as the bill is implemented, and within 25 years the cost per family will have increased to almost $5000.

There are also other secondary costs to the economy in taking such a huge amount of money (almost $400 to $600 billion per year) out of the economy. Companies will look to cut costs and that means cutting jobs and wages. Families will not be able to pay the added energy costs and that means an increase in household debt.

The impact on jobs is particularly troubling and has been explored in depth in a stufy (PDF) done in Spain when they implemented a similar program. The administration is promoting this bill as one which creates more “green” jobs. What they don’t mention is that every one of those green jobs created comes at a cost of the loss of 2.2 existing jobs and most of the new jobs are temporary jobs in construction and installation or jobs which cease to exist when the new technology proves to be inefficient and is abandoned. It is estimated that 90% of the jobs created are temporary, so the long-term ratio is more like 20 jobs lost for every job created. Added to the massive job loss already caused by the administration’s failing economic policies this might be a cost too great for the nation to bear.

Massive job loss and energy cost increases for consumers were the result when Spain implemented a carbon tax with cap and trade, and it is that system which President Obama is using as a model for his program. President Obama regularly cites Spain as an example to look to for energy policy, despite the fact that the economic and human impact there has been devastating, prolonging recession, increasing unemployment and taking money out of the pockets of every consumer. The upside is that it is one of the factors contributing to the crushing defeat of Spain’s socialist government in the latest election which brought in more pragmatic reformers.

Fear-mongering about “catastrophic global warming” is being used by powerful lobbying groups like the Natural Resource Defense Council to drive support for this bill with no consideration of the damage which will be done to the economy and to consumers. And when you look at the bottom line, the projected outcome of all of this cost and suffering is estimated to be less than two-tenths of one degree in worldwide temperature change by the end of the century. Meanwhile the nation is enjoying what is reported to be one of the the coolest summers on record and a growing group of scientists led by Edward Teller are speaking out against climate change hysteria.

With a floor vote possible Friday, now is the time to contact your representative in congress and urge them to vote against HR2454. Remind them that you can’t afford to pay thousands in additional taxes to underwrite speculative technology and gratuitous expansion of the power of government. Tell them that carbon taxes and cap and trade have been a failure in Europe and that we can’t afford them here.

According to a CBS affiliate in northern California, Attorney General and former Presidential contender Jerry Brown is cracking down on a Nestle water bottling plant.

Brown will sue to block a proposed water-bottling operation in Northern California unless its effects on global warming are evaluated, according to the affiliate.

“It takes massive quantities of oil to produce plastic water bottles and to ship them in diesel trucks across the United States,” according to Brown.

Hey Jerry, why don’t you go a week without water and then report back to us on your progress?