One bill could destroy the quality of life and jobs in most of America
Perhaps the most destructive legislation in our country’s history will soon be voted on in the United States House of Representatives – the Waxman/Markey Tax Bill in the guise of addressing climate change. It will have adverse and lingering consequences for every American. It will raise the cost of electricity in our homes, the fuel for our cars, and the energy which produces our manufacturing jobs, with little or no environmental benefit. Further, independent experts estimate that it will cost Americans more than $2 trillion in just over eight years. All Americans in the Midwest, South and Rocky Mountain regions will be most drastically affected because the climate change legislation will destroy the nation’s coal industry and the low-cost electricity it has provided to these regions for generations. Wealth will be transferred away from almost every state to the West coast and New England.
The most abundant and by far least expensive energy source in our country for generating electricity is coal. America’s coal reserves rival the energy potential of Saudi Arabian oil. Unfortunately, the proposed climate change legislation in the House of Representatives, the Waxman/Markey Bill, forces America to throw away this tremendous resource, and our low cost electricity with it.
The legislation sets an unattainable cap on carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, with the first reductions due by 2012. Under the program, businesses that emit carbon dioxide would be required to purchase or obtain from the government special carbon dioxide credits. This carbon dioxide cap will force utilities to switch from lower cost coal to natural gas or other more expensive energy sources. Reliable estimates show that this bill will cost each American family at least $3,000 more for energy each year. The chief executive of one of the nation’s major utilities recently said it best in the Wall Street Journal stating, “The 25 states that depend on coal for more than 50 percent of their electricity…will have to shut down and replace the majority of their fossil fuel plants as a result of the climate change legislation.”
The supporters of this ill-conceived legislation point to two provisions that they claim will help coal. The first is that they give electric utilities free credits. However, those credits are worth millions of dollars, and the utilities will be free to sell the credits and use the proceeds to build more expensive natural gas or nuclear power plants, and not use our lowest cost fuel – coal. Second, the authors of the legislation invest money in carbon capture and storage technology, claiming that this will save jobs. But, this technology will not be commercially available for at least 15 to 20 years, long after the reductions are required in 2012 and long after our coal plants are shut down and our manufacturing jobs are exported to China, India and other countries. All of these countries have stated that they will not place any restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. China alone, which has surpassed the United States in carbon dioxide emissions, brings a new 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant on line every week. They will have low cost electricity and America will massively export more jobs to them.
It is not too late to tell Congress to kill this flawed bill. Everyone should call your representative in Congress and ask him or her to vote NO on the Waxman/Markey climate bill (otherwise known as cap and tax) and support affordable energy, American jobs and our quality of life.
Robert E. Murray
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Murray Energy Corporation
Dave–
Is it possible to get through ONE post without insulting everyone who doesn’t agree with you ? They aren’t all idiots,stupid, naive, arrogant, lazy nor even one toilet tissue square users.
And frankly, lowering your debate to that level makes you, not them, look bad.
Men of good concience CAN disagree…..
The question becomes, are you of good concience ?
And please, don’t respond by calling me a sex offender as you have done in the past.
Mags-
No , like Rove , Limbaugh, and Cheney
and if you don’t remember the other end of the spectrum, it’s Colin Powell, who the Republicans don’t think is conservative enough, after serving in military and as Secretary of State.
Smith,
“We have some arguing for a bill they haven’t read and therefore don’t understand and we have others (like you),,,,,,,,,,,,”
Tell it to congress, not me.
The House of Representatives approved the Waxman-Markey energy tax by a margin of 219-212. Democrats did not have the votes to pass the legislation without the following eight Republicans who joined the majority for this monster tax:
Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765
—————————————————————————
It’s not too late to get them to change their vote. July 2nd is the last day legislators can change their vote. Let them know how you feel.
It’s not too early to begin pressuring senators on the fence as well.
senate switch board—202-224-3121.
debunk,
Thanks for the numbers. I’ll call and thank them for their votes.
Robert Murray: Reliable estimates show that this bill will cost each American family at least $3,000 more for energy each year.
There goes your credibility out the window. The CBO says it will cost the average household $175 per year.
(LINK) CBO (page 9)
CBO estimates that households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of approximately $245 (see Table 2). Households in the second lowest quintile would see added costs of about $40 on average, those in the middle quintile would see an increase in costs of about $235, and those in the fourth quintile would pay about an additional $340 per year. Overall, costs for households would average 0.2 percent of their average after-tax income.
Lisa,
-I offer a more non-partisan view:
————————————————————————–
-Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman’s many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership’s solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.
Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman’s co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.
-THEN LATER:
Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.
The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.
—————————————————————————
READ MORE @ -online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html
debunk: I offer a more non-partisan view
Except that…
The CBO is NON-partisan,
and a WSJ opinion piece is PARTISAN.
~~~ EPA says ACES will cost $80-$111 per year…
(LINK) Reuters
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates the bill in its current form would cost American households between $80 and $111 per year, which equals 22 cents to 30 cents per day. A separate analysis from the Congressional Budget Office projected an annual cost of $175 for U.S. households by 2020.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy concluded the bill’s energy provisions would save U.S. households up to $1,050 cumulatively and produce more than 300,000 jobs by 2020.
My biggest concern here is that our lawmakers have obviously voted for a bill without reading it. Would you sign a contract without reading it? I won’t but our lawmakers just signed one in our names while only going on the salesmans pitch of, “It’s in your best interest to sign.” I don’t care what anyone says, our lawmakers are NOT representing the public when they cast votes without fully understanding a bill. This understanding is NOT possible without every congressman reading the bill fully. I applaud every congressman who voted against it, not because it was good or bad but because they were ramming an unread bill through the process.
G bones,
Exactly! Hopefully the Senate will right this ship before it broaches.
Lisa,
The WSJ may lean right but the substance of the editorial is correct. I read the CBO report and it’s simply full of what if’s, left out’s, and assumptions. A more reliable guage would be other countries who are/have tried this like Great Britain, as the WSJ article states. If everyone is so sure that the cost will be minimal, why were the minority price control amendments shot down????