• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Waxman-Markey: Trillions in Economic Pain for No Environmental Gain

    Summer is coming and homeowners know that it costs a few dollars more to crank up the air-conditioning by setting the thermostat a degree or two cooler. Well, Washington is about to try a similar thing, only it wants to spend trillions of dollars of our money to reduce the earth’s future temperature by one or two tenths of a degree C by the end of the century.

    The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill seeks to combat global warming by forcing down emissions of greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels. Since these fuels – coal, oil, and natural gas – currently comprise 85 percent of our energy supply, and the proposal seeks to reduce them by fully 83 percent by 2050, it amounts to nothing more than a massive energy tax in disguise. In other words, it will drive up energy prices high enough so that consumers and businesses are forced to use less and thus comply with the targets. A Heritage Foundation analysis of last year’s less stringent Lieberman-Warner bill estimated $1.7 to $4.8 trillion dollars in GDP losses by 2030, or $949 to $3,726 per household per year.

    And what do we get for our money in terms of global warming avoided? According to a calculation by climatologist Chip Knappenberger, the temperature reduction by 2100 would be between 0.1 and 0.2 degrees C by 2100. And this generally assumes a significant amount of global warming, when in truth the science is taking a decided turn away from such alarmism.

    One big reason for this is that China has surpassed the U.S. in terms of emissions and its emissions growth has been about 6 times faster than that in America. China, as well as India and other fast developing nations, have made clear that they will never hamper their own growth with global warming measures like Waxman-Markey.

    When likely costs and likely benefits are considered, unilateral measures like Waxman-Markey are clearly far too much economic pain for far little environmental gain.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to Waxman-Markey: Trillions in Economic Pain for No Environmental Gain

    1. Barb -mn says:

      Why are personal names attached? Let's debate these persons. What gives them governmental consideration? How are they living currently? What gives environmentalists governmental consideration? How does each and every person on the side of man-made global warming live? Including the MEDIA.

      Before imposing on the people, government should set the example at the least cost to taxpayers. If they operated the way they want to force us, expenses (our money) would be immediately reduced.

    2. Marsha, Wheeling Wes says:

      Agree Waxman-Markley will result in very little environmental change with very high costs to the working American. Man made global warming is a problematic issue and a ruse. I wrote in a privious Waxman problem on this blog:

      Go learn earth sciences, weather sciences and chemistry (all three types).

      Those of us who do understand chemistry, weather and the earth sciences can tell you exactly how much man pollutes and how much a volcano pollutes through actual and empirical models. How much CO2 trees produce and how much oxygen they produce. Where does the majority of Oxygen come from? How is it recycled? I know and I will leave that for you to find out. As for empirical future models can't necessarily predict outcomes; all you would have to do is look at what is actually going on while not using empirical models (history is a good measure of the future). CO2 does not cause Global warming; I am sorry to say, as has been presented by the so many global warming kooks. I don’t call exhalation a pollution problem.

      Trees do pollute and pollute under the green idea.

      Learn how many carbon atoms verses oxygen atoms there are on earth and how much nitrogen man needs to live and the cycling of the all minerals and molecular structures, maybe you’ll learn something. I don’t have time to teach earth sciences in this short communication.

      One volcano eruption produces 800 years of so called green house gases in relation to what man produces. Are you saying exhalation and methane produced by man will destroy the earth? I guess the Dinosaurs methaned themselves out of existence as a green person might try and say.

      Learn how many volcanoes erupt each year how much green house gases go into the atmosphere and then learn how many green house gases are released from the magma through cracks and fissures each year. Figure out how to stop Volcanoes, cracks and fissures from releasing all that gas the life blood of the earth and the start of life on earth. When you figure out how to stop that; then stop it and then we will be dead. The greenies will have won. No life on earth.

      Go to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean at the Galapagos Rift and watch the animals living in the hydrothermal vent area and surviving off that toxic environment at 380 degrees centigrade. They survive very well in the toxic waste (volcanic gases oops green house gases) produced by the magma.

      There is a British MP who says we need to get rid of a few people to reduce green house gases on earth? How sick if so.

      I prefer to think about the mercury light bulbs which will be a problem in 5 to 10 years. The green outcry over iridescent light bulbs and use of CO2 was another ruse. I wonder if Representative Waxman and/or Representative Pelosi is profiting from the florescent light bulb craze. What disaster are they leading us into in the next 10 years with the bulb regulation?

      I feel sorry for anyone who falls for the Gore hype. We will tax Americans to death while the rest of the world will laugh as we decline as a society. It is time to wake up.

      It is our duty to stop the bad science and stop environmental regulations espcially from the likes of Waxman. They begin with coal/oil elimination, then what comes next? Stop human breathing?

    3. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    4. Pingback: Analyzing the effects of Waxman-Markey @

    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.