• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • This Week in Washington: The Costly Lieberman-Warner Bill

    Here’s a preview of what’s happening this week in Washington.


    The Lieberman-Warner climate change bill may cost the sponsoring senator’s states dearly — Connecticut’s economy will lose $6.8 billion and Virginia’s economy will lose $12.2 billion in 2030. Presidential candidates’ home-state economies will also suffer — John McCain’s Arizona will suffer $7.7 billion and Obama’s Illinois will lose $19.6 billion in 2030. According to Heritage’s analysis, the cumulative gross domestic product losses are at least $1.7 trillion and could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030 using inflation adjusted dollars. Is economic stagnation an appropriate price for minimal carbon dioxide emissions?

    Last week Bush administration officials took the dangerous step of listing the polar bear as threatened because global warming because climate change is said to threaten its icy habitat. While the administration will try to nullify economic concerns by including a buffer for unintended consequences, the decision marks a huge victory for radical environmentalists, polar bear huggers and trouble for main-street Americans. Read Legislative Lowdown in Human Events.

    Heritage’s Ben Lieberman has written that ethanol mandates have caused higher food and gas prices with minimal environmental benefit. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has introduced legislation to get rid of the mandate and other benefits for ethanol. Let the free market work to get gas prices down to reasonable levels.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to This Week in Washington: The Costly Lieberman-Warner Bill

    1. Jack, Washington, DC says:

      Unbelieveable! What are these Senators thinking? Answer: Obviously, they weren't thinking at all. CO2 has nothing to do with climate change. 12.2B in Virginia and 6.8B in Connecticut are much too steep a price to pay for so-called "climate change" which is just an Al Gore creation.

    2. W. B . LaCroix, Jack says:

      I think it would be a good idea for the authors of the articles to explain the reasons the actions of our leaders will have such profound effects. This is also true for some of the bloggers. Bald statements without some backing leaves a wonderment about the veracity of such statements. I agree that the recent acts of a lot of our leaders in both parties leave a lot to be desired. Some things they've done merely leave you wondering if they're completely informed about the current status of the country. Do they think they're really representing their constituents? I have a hard time telling! Some of the reputed results of their actions as reported here in the articles make me hunger for a verified cost benefit/detriment analysis. Of other articles, I'm well satisfied of the moral bankruptcy of some of our leaders and the corruptive influence of some of the programs they've enacted.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.